Thread: A question on the constitution

What I'm saying is my opinion. What happens in war is war. and for me it would be what ever it takes to win because unlike playing a sporting game in war it's not how you play the game but winning that counts. now that's just my opinion. Now Obama. I voted. that gives me the right to say if I like him or not. those that didn't vote should not say any thing. Now whether I voted for him or not doesn't matter. I don't think he's doing a good job. I really hope the next one does better. that's my opinion and I voice it a lot. that's my right. ( I like arguing as you can probably tell. ) As far as the second amendment goes I think next to the first it is most important. without it you couldn't keep the first. I was taught in school that first you control the government then disarm the people after that well Russia comes to mind. I am a product of the cold war which from what I'm seeing in the news is quickly heating back up. A lot of my family served in the Revolutionary war Civil war WW1 WW2 Korea Viet Nam. I served from 69 to 73. Now whether I'm right or wrong I will say what I think. I have that right. I think everyone should. Some one a long time ago said I my not agree with what you say but will defend your right to say it.
I wasn't really implying just stating my opinion and we all know that opinions are like but holes everyone has one. There I go stating my opinion again

Originally Posted by rhensley

What happens in war is war. and for me it would be what ever it takes to win because unlike playing a sporting game in war it's not how you play the game but winning that counts.

Winning a war is easy, especially when like the unites states you vastly outgun your enemy. The problem is that winning a war doesn't accomplish much and can set you back in draining your resources and creating more ill will towards you from the people you just defeated.
The difference with the old days is that first you generally fought your neighbors and second then you would rape and plunder, run a genocide, etc.. Nowadays we have given up these things and so simply winning the war is pointless.

Originally Posted by rhensley

Now Obama. I voted. that gives me the right to say if I like him or not. those that didn't vote should not say any thing. Now whether I voted for him or not doesn't matter. I don't think he's doing a good job. I really hope the next one does better. that's my opinion and I voice it a lot. that's my right. ( I like arguing as you can probably tell. )

Nobody has disputed your right to your opinion, so I am not sure why you keep repeating that you have the right to it. But this thread is supposed to be primarily about the constitution and you seem to be complaining about systemic problem by point a finger at a person you don't like. Do you disagree with me, and if you do I'd love to hear your reasoning.

Originally Posted by rhensley

As far as the second amendment goes I think next to the first it is most important. without it you couldn't keep the first. I was taught in school that first you control the government then disarm the people after that well Russia comes to mind.

The issue was not whether it's important or not, but that it is very poorly written if the laws are supposed to be clear cut and easy to understand for the common perfon. Which was one of your early complaints in the thread and you insisted that it didn't used to be that way.

Again, nobody is asking you to not state your opinions, quite the opposite - to explain them further - for example what do you base them on, etc.

America has not won a war in almost 70 yrs (and we have engaged in many) loss of U.S troops has been close to 100K since 1945.
Sorta like a football game in my mind,you gonna play, you play to win.

I believe the politicians write the laws to give them more control over the people not for the people. I think eventually the US will be no different that Europe. With out the rights we enjoy today. I think at some point in time we here in the US will not have the right to defend our selves & will have no say in the governing of this country that our fathers and for fathers created for us. I know that at my age I want have to worry about it much longer and am glad I have no kids to leave with this mess. If I go into some things I believe in a lot of folks want agree with me, I believe in equal rights not preferred rights. I believe when people protest and loot and burn and the police are afraid to stop it because of the political part of it is wrong. A lot of what I am against is because of politicians and lawyers who a lot of are politicians. I guess you might say that I'm just an angry old man who remembers how this country use to be and wish it could go back to when it was better. now there are things that was wrong then as it is now but then again there was a lot of things right. The bad thing about it is even though the US has it's problems to me it's still better than a lot of other places in the world I've been. As I'm sure they think the same of there country. I guess you have to love your country to be up set when there's something wrong or at least to your thinking. All in all I'm still proud to be an American. I've had fun with this discussion thanks.

I doubt that any "terrorist group" has ever been a signatory to the Geneva Convention and don't feel the least bit bound by it. Nor do they generally represent a recognized geographical area, country, but an ideal for lack of a better word. Pretty hard to pin down the "proper" way to deal with them.

Add to that if you do invade a country to "liberate" that country from "terrorists" you are automatically disliked as foreign invaders. The longer you stay after "mission accomplished" the greater the anger and resentment becomes. You win the war but loose the peace. That is the trouble with applying conventional warfare in fighting terrorism. There has to be a better method that does not create more problems than it solves.

Bob

I just hope the folks in our government realize the scope of the situation in the middle east as these dudes sweep across the region and take over. If they don't do something rite quick in a few years we will have ground troops in Israel fighting off the onslaught. That will be WWlll.

Originally Posted by BobH

There has to be a better method that does not create more problems than it solves.

Bob

Well we have tried the "Let them have it all back" after we invest $Billions$ in propping them up system a couple of times now and failed

So I vote for the "Let's actually invade and take over everything" routine and give it back after we take all the oil it takes to pay us back for our costs, and if they want our help after that they have to pay us for keeping the peace...

Let's give that a try and see what happens

That way we are not leaving a "Power Vacuum"

Originally Posted by gssixgun

Well we have tried the "Let them have it all back" after we invest $Billions$ in propping them up system a couple of times now and failed

So I vote for the "Let's actually invade and take over everything" routine and give it back after we take all the oil it takes to pay us back for our costs, and if they want our help after that they have to pay us for keeping the peace...

Let's give that a try and see what happens

That way we are not leaving a "Power Vacuum"

Much as I sympathise with the sentiment Glen, your argument supposes that the vanquished are of one mind. Unfortunately, the countries in question are so fractured that minorities will always be able to take liberties and power at the same time so that the enemy you are fighting keeps changing.

Originally Posted by gssixgun

Well we have tried the "Let them have it all back" after we invest $Billions$ in propping them up system a couple of times now and failed

Yea, it is pretty frustrating.

So I vote for the "Let's actually invade and take over everything" routine and give it back after we take all the oil it takes to pay us back for our costs, and if they want our help after that they have to pay us for keeping the peace...

Let's give that a try and see what happens

Basically tried after WWI and had a good deal to setting up WWII.

That way we are not leaving a "Power Vacuum"

Some how managed not to leave a "power vacuum" in Germany after WWII. Unfortunately the current war on terrorism is not conventional in any sense of the word. The old recipes don't seem to have the desired effect.

Maybe the current attempt at getting the regional players to sort their own problems out, with support, will have longer lasting success or not.

Bob

After WW2 both Germany and Japan had Allied Occupational armies left in place... we (the Allies) also decimated their warfighting capabilities so the threat was pretty low.. By then the civilian populations were ready for the end of hostilities


Now leaving the whole region alone is definitely an option I can get behind but somehow I do believe that TBS's scenario of defending Israel and WW3 will be the outcome and things might be too far gone after that...

We also need to remember that simply trying to blame the US for invading Iraq like a few here are leaning on, is basically being blind to who we knocked out of power.. He was after all called the Butcher of Baghdad for a reason , he did after all invade Kuwait and also gassed over 200000 Kurds .. we should have taken him out in 1991 that was a mistake

A convenient lapse of memory,

Much like ISIS and Boko Harum, and many others practicing Genocide in the Dark corners of the world, I feel that is what we "The Western World" agreed to never let that happen again after 1945, yet we seem to forget so much..

Perhaps the answer is actually a International Warfighting Force / Merc's that instead of a UN peacekeeping mission, they are deployed by the UN to go in and hunt down and kill groups like ISIS and Boko then leave ???? If the UN can't handle that responsibility perhaps Nato,

I don't know the answer but we (The Western World) tend to sit way to long while people die, I don't think that is right or moral