Alright, here's my point of view: - 'staying the course' in Iraq will lead to a civil war pretty soon. So simply maintaining troop levels is far from sufficient.
- we can't just upright and pull out because we would lose face to the rest of the world and secondly Iraq would fall into civil war even sooner.
So- the only solution I see is to FLOOD the country with troops. At LEAST another 200k troops, 500-700k troops would be more optimable IMO. The bottom line being the more the better.
There are two ways we can get that many troops in Iraq: 1) Use troops from the rest of the world. Get rid of the current regime in washington, replace it with another. This way other countries could join Iraq without losing political face, since joining Iraq right now would be viewed as supporting Bush, and that is simply too unpopular for other countries to do.
This solution does not appear very likely to me.. chances are good that Iraq will completely fall apart (assuming it hasn't irreversably done so already) before the next election.. and chances are good that Bush and his war associates will not be impeached before a civil war either.
Method #2 for getting more troops:
A DRAFT
Draft many American citizens of fighting age. First send them to replace the troops that we already have overseas, send them to the DMZ on the N. Korean border.. etc.. send them first to everywhere that is not Iraq and Afganistan. Thus it would free up more troops to go to Iraq - those troops would be better trained than conscripts, and are volunteers and possibly career soldiers as well. After we've done as much of that as possible send the rest of the conscripts to do cushy things like protecting oil pipelines and electricity plants and so forth.
--------------------------- Imagine an Iraq with a million troops in it. Baghdad alone with 100k troops - one for every street corner. How is someone supposed to plant an IED when there is a soldier 100 feet away at the corner? Once the resistance sees that there are SO many troops: one they and the average citizen will know that we are super serious about putting their country back together, and two - it will look pretty hopeless to fight against us since so many of us will be there.
Furthermore, with so many troops we might be able get infrastructure programs up and running - which is one thing we really need. Infrastructure and security is how we will win the hearts and minds in Iraq, period. We would then be able to easily boost electricity and oil levels well above pre-war levels.
Once there is so much security, there will be less incentive to join a private militia - which will be (are) the major players in a civil war - so at the very least we will buy a lot more time before civil war breaks out - and that's what is needed to establish a strong Iraqi government.
-----------------
I, a 23 year old male, a Bush hater, someone who vehemently thought and thinks that Iraq was a mistake the day the government started thinking about stepping foot there (since Bin Laden is still loose, and Afganistan is still a mess), someone who threatened to move to Canada if Bush was elected, someone who values life more than anything else (I'm an athiest who doesn't think there is anything after death, and thus to me life is the most precious thing in the world)... if I knew there was another 500k people along with myself drafted to go into Iraq or to support the war there, I would serve and possibly die serving.. it would be better for some of us Americans to die.. rather than the countless number of Iraqi's that would die in a civil war due to what may turn out to be one of America's worst and most costly (in blood and money) blunders in history. Not to mention the political costs of failure in Iraq.. If more troops can stop future Abu-Ghraibs (which I assure you has created MANY, many terrorists) - then more examples of American troops doing good, would bring good to the country. Then perhaps the right could stop whining about how there is unbalanced coverage of Iraq - there would be more good to cover since overall there would be more good happening in that country, rather than our current force that is stretched, stressed, and worn thin.
Posted by jordanreed on :
Don writes "- we can't just upright and pull out because we would lose face to the rest of the world and secondly Iraq would fall into civil war even sooner."
1) we have lost face already
2) i dont care
Posted by bdgee on :
I second Jordans motion, particularly part 2.
So far as 1) is concerned, we blew any chance of saving face by invading a country on lies the whole world recognized as lies from the first breath out of dubya's mouth.
With each and every utterance that we should "stay the course" or insiswt on "victory" we dig the hole dubya's idiocy put us in deeper.
There is no victory in a bully beating the hell out of a weakling and you can't save face by declaring you will not stop beating him until he promisses to do somethiong contrary to his fundamental concerns.
Posted by Machiavelli on :
I'm against any draft (do not like to force anyone into the military especially if they do not believe in the cause) except in cases of extreme cases such as if someone was trying to invade our country (ala Hitler in WWII) or if we had terrorist attacks on daily/weekly basis (ala Israel.. so no 9/11 wouldn't count as a reason for a draft)...
Posted by Dan VA 1983 on :
Frankly I think we should care very deeply if we cause a civil war in Iraq.
If that happens, I'm certain one day we will wake up to find out that Washington, NY, LA, and Dallas are all gone, and we will hear shouts of "in vengeance of Iraq, in vengeance of Palestine" - Know anybody in those towns? Hell, that may already be coming to us... What do you think that would do to your stocks?
If you don't value human life then you are no liberal - the cost in human life of civil war in Iraq is going to be staggering. So there are plenty of reasons to actually care.. If you don't care if Iraq will go to civil war, then why even care if Bush lied. But it doesn't even matter anymore if we were lied to or not (and we were..).. we're there... we need to make the best out of a bad situation.. because it's only going to get worse, for them in the short term, and for us in the long term.
Responding to Mach. - we should send the conscripts to everywhere except combat if we can help it - the point is to try to free up as many other troops as possible...
Also, since we have such and such president, our country is committed to going. Maybe when the sons and daughters of republicans are drafted they may realize that war, death, casualties, people having their limbs blown off is a serious matter. Then maybe we'd be motivated not to elect a dumb sh*t idiot who would put us in this situation again. Either that, or we might maybe take elections seriously -
Personally I like my solution #1 - to remove the regime and get the rest of the world to help, but it won't happen.
Posted by bdgee on :
"Frankly I think we should care very deeply if we cause a civil war in Iraq."
If we do so (which is what clearly is happening), it was done the instant the invasion began.
"If that happens, I'm certain one day we will wake up to find out that Washington, NY, LA, and Dallas are all gone..."
And I think that is an absurd assumption, more kissin dubya's bottom, spreading fear to win elections, than thinking.
"If you don't value human life then you are no liberal..."
Exactly who are you accusing of not valuing human life? Where do you get the great wisdom (or absolute authority) to decide which of us is so evil?
There is already civil war being practiced in Iraq.
Saddam, using techniques I don't approve of, held back the forces that have been wanting civil war in Iraq (It's a religious civil war). No Saddam in control.....civil war in Iraq (along with it Muslim terrorist that he wouldn't permit). (Saddam wasn't so much against terrorism, just terrorism from Islam.)
All those troups you are congering up needed to be in Afganistan three years ago. It's too late there now. Afganistan is on the verge of civil war now with the Talibam and Al Qaeda winning that one.
"Maybe when the sons and daughters of republicans are drafted they may realize that war, death, casualties, people having their limbs blown off is a serious matter. Then maybe we'd be motivated not to elect a dumb sh*t idiot who would put us in this situation again."
I guess you don't remember that when they elected Nixon, the sons of republicans got draft deferments or specail permissiom to sit out the danger of being in a war in the Texas Air National Guard.
There isn't any "correction" to the mess the mentally deranged carpet baggin Party first arrogant S--- head got us into.
Posted by Dan VA 1983 on :
It would be nice to see people put their money where their rhetoric is - it would be easy to keep people from getting deferrals if the draft law were actually written properly. Given how corrupt things are on the hill chances are good Bg you'd be right about people being able to shelter their kids in the Texas Air National Guard (although, GW never even served in that, my impression is that he missed his medical exam).
If a person does not care if a civil war happens in Iraq - then I say that person does not value human life as much as they ought to. If there is nothing to be done to prevent one then that is another matter - though I would postulate that a flood of troops would prolong and maybe even prevent one from happening.
My point about our cities going up in nuclear flames - if we screw up foreign policy, or if we screw up domestic security (either one, don't have to screw up both to be screwed, just one will do), that is what will happen. The republicans are careful not to scare you that much, cause if they did then they would be run out of town on a rail since people would be rioting that port shipments are inadequately inspected - rioting that there are crossing points on the US/Canada border with zero security.
So it's not kissing dubya's ass - and saying so is just insulting. It is the case that the republicans are just screaming terrorist but actually aren't doing anything - a method to pit people against one another.. meanwhile Rome is burning.
We've had about 14 full years of really bad foreign policy, and it's pretty sickening. Especially the foreign policy of the last 6 years.
I think it is time we started caring about the rest of the world, and caring a lot...
Posted by jordanreed on :
nope..... i care about me and mine.....as do the rest of the world...f the rest.... do they care about you???? i dont think so...
arent there anough problems here in the U.S.???
wake up you maroooonss!!!!!its here!!!!!!
we have enough starving,homeless. impoverished,unemployed, sick, weak, pregnant,wanting. people, here ....
why invade other countries???!!... it makes NO sense...grow up america!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
you talk like you give a SHI!tt...
WORRIED ABOUT KOREA. IRAM\N, IRAQ....
if you actually cared about anyTHIBG????.. it might be about HERE,, in this country!!!!
you.. so-called patriots make me sick!!!!...
this country is SO new that we are struggling for a way...and we think by bullying our wat thru is the answer!!...
wrong,,!!
again.... we need to step back and rethink....
before irs too late
[ October 08, 2006, 01:46: Message edited by: jordanreed ]
Posted by Dan VA 1983 on :
No it didn't make sense to invade Iraq. Though ignoring that problem in excuse of saying we have other problems, which we do, is just more of the same - ignoring problems.
Fact of the matter if we never invaded iraq then there would be additional money in the coffers and the government won't go bankrupt. When the national debt hits about 11-12 trillion - our credit might suffer, get an increase of about .5% - and then our ENTIRE budget will go to paying interest (BANKRUPT). So... rather than questioning people's patriotism - let's all please try to discuss solutions -
If there's a problem you'd like discussed Jordan - such as healthcare, education, start a thread - and then there will be discussion hopefully about solutions - and we'll have things to write our congressmen and representatives... we'll have valid points to make a stink about.
Posted by Ramius on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan VA 1983: Alright, here's my point of view: - 'staying the course' in Iraq will lead to a civil war pretty soon. So simply maintaining troop levels is far from sufficient.
- we can't just upright and pull out because we would lose face to the rest of the world and secondly Iraq would fall into civil war even sooner.
So- the only solution I see is to FLOOD the country with troops. At LEAST another 200k troops, 500-700k troops would be more optimable IMO. The bottom line being the more the better.
There are two ways we can get that many troops in Iraq: 1) Use troops from the rest of the world. Get rid of the current regime in washington, replace it with another. This way other countries could join Iraq without losing political face, since joining Iraq right now would be viewed as supporting Bush, and that is simply too unpopular for other countries to do.
This solution does not appear very likely to me.. chances are good that Iraq will completely fall apart (assuming it hasn't irreversably done so already) before the next election.. and chances are good that Bush and his war associates will not be impeached before a civil war either.
Method #2 for getting more troops:
A DRAFT
Draft many American citizens of fighting age. First send them to replace the troops that we already have overseas, send them to the DMZ on the N. Korean border.. etc.. send them first to everywhere that is not Iraq and Afganistan. Thus it would free up more troops to go to Iraq - those troops would be better trained than conscripts, and are volunteers and possibly career soldiers as well. After we've done as much of that as possible send the rest of the conscripts to do cushy things like protecting oil pipelines and electricity plants and so forth.
--------------------------- Imagine an Iraq with a million troops in it. Baghdad alone with 100k troops - one for every street corner. How is someone supposed to plant an IED when there is a soldier 100 feet away at the corner? Once the resistance sees that there are SO many troops: one they and the average citizen will know that we are super serious about putting their country back together, and two - it will look pretty hopeless to fight against us since so many of us will be there.
Furthermore, with so many troops we might be able get infrastructure programs up and running - which is one thing we really need. Infrastructure and security is how we will win the hearts and minds in Iraq, period. We would then be able to easily boost electricity and oil levels well above pre-war levels.
Once there is so much security, there will be less incentive to join a private militia - which will be (are) the major players in a civil war - so at the very least we will buy a lot more time before civil war breaks out - and that's what is needed to establish a strong Iraqi government.
-----------------
I, a 23 year old male, a Bush hater, someone who vehemently thought and thinks that Iraq was a mistake the day the government started thinking about stepping foot there (since Bin Laden is still loose, and Afganistan is still a mess), someone who threatened to move to Canada if Bush was elected, someone who values life more than anything else (I'm an athiest who doesn't think there is anything after death, and thus to me life is the most precious thing in the world)... if I knew there was another 500k people along with myself drafted to go into Iraq or to support the war there, I would serve and possibly die serving.. it would be better for some of us Americans to die.. rather than the countless number of Iraqi's that would die in a civil war due to what may turn out to be one of America's worst and most costly (in blood and money) blunders in history. Not to mention the political costs of failure in Iraq.. If more troops can stop future Abu-Ghraibs (which I assure you has created MANY, many terrorists) - then more examples of American troops doing good, would bring good to the country. Then perhaps the right could stop whining about how there is unbalanced coverage of Iraq - there would be more good to cover since overall there would be more good happening in that country, rather than our current force that is stretched, stressed, and worn thin.
I'm with you Dan, was actually just talking about this on Friday with a friend from India. The only way I see this ending is to flood the country with troops...blow-up anything that looks suspicious. You know when a kid get lost in the woods the search party of hundreds of people will walk 3 feet apart eachother in one line blanketing the hillside...we need a few million troops to do that in iraq.
Posted by Repoman75 on :
Divide up the country into 3 regions and call it even. That's what the British should have done 80 years ago.
Posted by Gordon Bennett on :
Many apparently still assume that America will be as competent at bringing stability to Iraq as we were at blowing it up.
I do not concur.
Posted by bdgee on :
We did bring stability to Japan and to West Germany after WWII. Since then the success rate has been dismal....bating about zero.
Korea
Viet Nam
Columbia
Panama
Chile
Venesuala
and on
and on....
Posted by Repoman75 on :
quote:Originally posted by bdgee: We did bring stability to Japan and to West Germany after WWII. Since then the success rate has been dismal....bating about zero.
Korea
Viet Nam
Columbia
Panama
Chile
Venesuala
and on
and on....
Panama is a win.. though, that was a definite expected win.
Posted by Machiavelli on :
quote:Originally posted by Repoman75:
quote:Originally posted by bdgee: We did bring stability to Japan and to West Germany after WWII. Since then the success rate has been dismal....bating about zero.
Korea
Viet Nam
Columbia
Panama
Chile
Venesuala
and on
and on....
Panama is a win.. though, that was a definite expected win.
We'll Panama was a win and loss.. Loss because we were backing Noriega in the beginning and Win because we realized our mistake and finally took him out...
Korea became a stalemate to this day hence why we are still at border protecting S. Korea.
Nam was a total loss and probably the reason while Dubya will not leave Iraq while he is in office so he is not accused of abandoning the Iraquis like we did with Nam and Afghanistan after the Russians left.
Colombia is not a total loss since they have cooperated and extradited alot of drug traffickers in recent years.
Chile and Venezuela were CIA backed disasters that we abandoned and left to dictators... One a Military dictatorish and the other a Communist/Castro sympathizer...
Posted by bond006 on :
Yes I feel it is time for a citizen military again I don't trust this group running our country and the power they have centralized.
Bush is keeping the military to sheltered. I can feel a cop type of attitude growing a them against us and I don't like it
Posted by bdgee on :
Yes, Bond is right. I too have noticed that the military seems to be willing to believe they have police powers to enforce civil law.
And then there is the attitude of cops, who, when they talk among themselves, do not speak of us as if they were part of that us, but instead speak of "the civilians" and laugh and giggle about it.
Posted by Gordon Bennett on :
As long as Bush is the Commander in Chief, of course the military is going to run amuck. That guy couldn't manage a Dairy Queen.
A competent administration, rather that a draft, is the answer.
How many more Americans will have to die as a direct result of the decisions made by these criminally incompetent idiots?
Time will tell.
quote:Originally posted by bdgee: Yes, Bond is right. I too have noticed that the military seems to be willing to believe they have police powers to enforce civil law.
And then there is the attitude of cops, who, when they talk among themselves, do not speak of us as if they were part of that us, but instead speak of "the civilians" and laugh and giggle about it.
Posted by Dan VA 1983 on :
Unfortunately it doesn't look like we'll get a more competent administration before it really is too late.
Posted by bond006 on :
Our own president and his big mouth with no brain just might get us into a war with N Korea again.
If he keeps it up there won't be a third world country that he has not challenged.
If he does go to war with N. Korea I hope he stays out of the picture.
I am sick of our first rate military being made fools of by a bunch of filthy rag tag bandits because we are being led by idiots and draft dodgers. Who are trying to fight a war.
Bush is showing no statesmanship at all he might wind up beating N. Korea but not before he manages to get New York completely leveled this time.
When the 34% of kool aide drinkers wake up it just might be to late. American Tax payers buy this man an Island and A Neapolian hat. Also throw in a saber. And let Mr. Bush play military dictator.
Posted by bdgee on :
I thought he was....
Posted by T e x on :
quote:Originally posted by bdgee: I thought he was....
was...
w h a t?
Posted by bond006 on :
Can't all of you just wait to see what the GOP can dig up this time for 2008 presidential canidate. Bush is going to be a hard act to follow.
A self cured alcohalic that says God speaks to him every day.
Where would you look for a man like this.
I would look by the dumpster in the back of your favorite Big O Tire stores, in any metropolitan area.
Posted by andrew on :
I think.......never mind.
Posted by kittykash on :
I don't blame you andrew, with nothing but "trying to be creative same ol same ol put downs".
But then I remember the real DISLIKE I had about the phoney manipulative, lying and the list goes on Clinton. I wanted to leave the country when HE was reelected. When we survied his and hillarious reign I knew nothing could hurt us. Posted by Machiavelli on :
And to think that I thought you would be neutral from now on about the two parties after your suggestions about brochures etc.. lol
Clinton lied about having relations with a woman not about WMD's that never existed, what goes on in Guantanamo Bay, about spying on U.S. citizens phone lines and internet lines without warrants, about the compromise of a CIA agent's cover, Writ of Habeas Corpus,Halliburton being a CIA front with virtual monopolies costing this war more in tax payers wallets then it should be costing, etc.. etc. etc.. on and on with Bush's own lies... with Clinton we had a good economy, less welfare, etc. to parody a senator's saying today: He had a affair, he didn't kill anybody. People get over it abotu Clinton because whatever faults his administration had does not compare anywhere near Bush's. Clinton is out of office and Bush is in office. So Bush should be scrutinized and not Clinton because the past is the past and were in the present right now.
Posted by bond006 on :
If the 34% of the kol aide drinkers left the country that would put the population at a very comfortable level.
And all it would take is another Clinton to start the ball rolling well hot damn come on Mrs. Clinton lets get to be the president
Posted by kittykash on :
Mach, I don't blame Clinton for things he did not foresee. But I truly could not stand that man, for many reasons. gee what is the dow about to reach. And very low unempolyment. a very good economy. Paleeze.
Posted by kittykash on :
about spying on U.S. citizens phone lines and internet lines without warrants
I'm for doing that
about the compromise of a CIA agent's cover oh please, blame him for that, when this couple was annoucing it EVERYWHERE BESIDES??
Writ of Habeas Corpus,Halliburton being a CIA front with virtual monopolies BIG TIME RUMOR show me the REAL FACTS ..they ain't there. OTHERWISE we'd see MANY newsmen, demo's on this and that is a fact
Posted by kittykash on :
we'd be Denmark not USA that is if you mean conservatives as kol aide drinkers, when in actuallity O'Reilly labled lib's that long ago.
quote:Originally posted by bond006: If the 34% of the kol aide drinkers left the country that would put the population at a very comfortable level.
And all it would take is another Clinton to start the ball rolling well hot damn come on Mrs. Clinton lets get to be the president
Posted by Gordon Bennett on :
Posted by Gordon Bennett on :
Then you do not believe in freedom. You want a dictatorship, just as I suspected.
quote:Originally posted by Gordon Bennett:
quote:Originally posted by kittykash: about spying on U.S. citizens phone lines and internet lines without warrants
I'm for doing that
Posted by Gordon Bennett on :
If he keeps it up, as he will, the American empire will fall.
quote:Originally posted by bond006: Our own president and his big mouth with no brain just might get us into a war with N Korea again.
If he keeps it up there won't be a third world country that he has not challenged.
If he does go to war with N. Korea I hope he stays out of the picture.
I am sick of our first rate military being made fools of by a bunch of filthy rag tag bandits because we are being led by idiots and draft dodgers. Who are trying to fight a war.
Bush is showing no statesmanship at all he might wind up beating N. Korea but not before he manages to get New York completely leveled this time.
When the 34% of kool aide drinkers wake up it just might be to late. American Tax payers buy this man an Island and A Neapolian hat. Also throw in a saber. And let Mr. Bush play military dictator.
Posted by Gordon Bennett on :
Bill O'Reilly doesn't even know the difference between felafel and a loofah.
Just thought I'd throw that out there. LOL
Posted by kittykash on :
like most of your statements.
Posted by Machiavelli on :
quote:Originally posted by kittykash: Mach, I don't blame Clinton for things he did not foresee. But I truly could not stand that man, for many reasons. gee what is the dow about to reach. And very low unempolyment. a very good economy. Paleeze.
Don't ever think that the Dow, unemployment , economy ever has to do with Bush lol He's not in charge of the Fed who makes the decisions about interest rates and other issues that drive or collapse the economy.. Bush just tries to take the credit...
Posted by Machiavelli on :
quote:Originally posted by kittykash: about spying on U.S. citizens phone lines and internet lines without warrants
I'm for doing that
about the compromise of a CIA agent's cover oh please, blame him for that, when this couple was annoucing it EVERYWHERE BESIDES??
Writ of Habeas Corpus,Halliburton being a CIA front with virtual monopolies BIG TIME RUMOR show me the REAL FACTS ..they ain't there. OTHERWISE we'd see MANY newsmen, demo's on this and that is a fact
So let him listen to your conversations, emails etc.. but stay out of mine unless you have a warrant.. which is how it should be done.. you suspect im a Terrorist and want to prove it. go to a judge and get a warrant to listen in on me just like you do for the Mob and other criminals...
Was Bush's man who blew that CIA's cover... nothing else...
Writ of Habeas Corpus: There have been people arrested and not charged with any crime , allowed to see a lawyer and still in jail or were.. that is a fact not fiction..
And please Halliburton is so obvious you don't need the media for that .... Rep or Dem media lol ... why weren't any other companies allowed to bid for the gov't contract and/or if they were why wasn't a low bidder given the contract? ... who was a executive of Halliburton before being VP of the U.S.? ... facts maam... facts...
Posted by glassman on :
quote:Originally posted by kittykash: about spying on U.S. citizens phone lines and internet lines without warrants
I'm for doing that
KK...go live in China, Russia, Iran,or North Korea then...
that's where they arleady do that
Posted by glassman on :
quote:Originally posted by kittykash:
about the compromise of a CIA agent's cover oh please, blame him for that, when this couple was annoucing it EVERYWHERE BESIDES??
totally untrue...
Fitzgeral determined this was a lie a long time ago... you are repeating Bush admin propaganda...
at one time? i had training in handling questions about classifed information:
there is only ONE PROPER answer:
"I can neither confirm nor deny...."
Rove definitely didn't do that...
and? their plan was to scare anybody in the intel community from coming forward and disagreeing with the admin...
many people did anyway...
and they continue to...
Haliburton? CIA? no big deal.. they are pretty useless to the CIA for covert stuff by now anyway...
Posted by bond006 on :
Kity Cash there was a name for people of your ilk in the revolutionary war they were called Tory's
Posted by bdgee on :
KK, though she claims respect for truth and fact, bases everything on Party line takling points, about 1 in 100 of which remotely resemble truth..
I believe she actyally and sincerely believes that crap (that's scary, if ya know what I mean).
She certainly has a right to do that and to expouse that stuff, but it would be refreshing (not to mention that it might show a little respect for the Constitution) to see her allow freedom of expression to those that are not religious about the far right BS and those that, though leaning to the right themselves, place Country before Party.
Name calling, insults, and twisting of facts is about all we see from the far right, now-a-days.
I remember when once upon a time, there was a respected far rightwinger, AUH2O, who actually had the ability to tell a joke that wasn't related to politics at all, could do so without lowering himself into the cess-pool of degrading assertions about non-rightwingers, without twisting facts, and who was a respecter of strict adherence to the Constitution. The man was respected as a man and an individual. Is there a single one of these guys that is?
No, they are Party firsters and the Nation can go to hell in spades.
Sad, sad ,sad, sad.........
Shame, shame, shame, shame,.....
Posted by Machiavelli on :
had to make a correction about Habeas Corpus. Could not edit it in time:
Writ of Habeas Corpus: There have been people arrested and not charged with any crime ,not allowed to see a lawyer and still in jail or were..
I forgot to put "Not" about the lawyer part.
Posted by Gordon Bennett on :
Yep. Kittykash has negated any pretense of reason with this statement. She would be quite at home in NAZI Germany.
quote:Originally posted by glassman:
quote:Originally posted by kittykash: about spying on U.S. citizens phone lines and internet lines without warrants
I'm for doing that
KK...go live in China, Russia, Iran,or North Korea then...
that's where they arleady do that
Posted by bdgee on :
KK cares about nothing but maintaining control by the republican Party and eagerly will sell the country to do so.
There have been others before that, confused about which is which, worshiped a Party before their country.
The oath is not to the Party or even the Country, but to "uphold the Constitution". Posted by Gordon Bennett on :
The Government exists for the sole purpose of serving the People, not ruling the People.
When the Government violates the Constitution, it is the duty of the People to rise up against the Government to bring the Government into compliance with the Constitution.
Further, the Declaration of Independence states:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)