 |
 |
Baton Rouge Links |
 |
|
|
Last 10 Logins |
|
|
|
strife0: 9 hours, 14 minutes ago
voguegoods: 10 hours, 56 minutes ago
shorthair: 12 hours, 27 minutes ago
RocketBall22: 15 hours, 57 minutes ago
shoesorder: 23 hours, 55 minutes ago
thebigtymer: 1 day, 10 hours, 27 minutes ago
OryX: 1 day, 16 hours, 18 minutes ago
tinkabell: 1 day, 19 hours, 6 minutes ago
TigerAlumn: 2 days ago
yangzhi148: 3 days ago
nolaringtones: 3 days ago
|
|
|
|  |
|
| LSU Tigers Baton Rouge Louisiana: Forums |
|
|
|
|
|
|
TigerU.com Forum Index -> Campus Greens at LSU
| Printable Version |
 |
Author
|
Message |
View previous topic
:: View next topic |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
Trunks
Regular
Joined: Feb 07, 2005
Posts: 177
Points : 268
Status: Offline
|
 Posted:
Wed Feb 09, 2005 5:07 pm
Post subject: |
  |
|
| Sunny wrote: | | MrTrunks wrote: | ...
In perhaps its most dangerous policy, the White House is refusing to provide more than 40,000 active-duty troops in Iraq with Kevlar body armor, leaving it up to them and their families to buy this life-saving equipment. This last bit of penny-pinching prompted Pentagon critic and Vietnam veteran Col. David Hackworth to point to “the cost of the extraordinary security” during Bush’s recent trip to Asia, which he noted grimly “would cover a vest for every soldier” in Iraq.
... |
It doesn't matter, hackworkth is fulla shit bush put the funding measure up twice and the dems killed it both time. |
Nah, your just not reading that close enough. Dave Lindorff wrote the first part of the that, and David Hackworth who is quoted said the second. David Hackworth brought the armor issue up before it was ever brought up in congress or any bill introduced. It is a common tactic that persuasive writers use.
Sunny you have been fooled by Dave Lindorff.
First, your wrong about about Bush, the Bush administration didn't even request the body armor funding Congress did.
Second, it was 7 months before a bill with armor funding was passed. Bush had ordered the troops to go in some 6 months earlier. Kerry sponsored the Democrats version of the bill with arrmor that was shot down by the Republicans. Their should be no partisan mud slinging on armor issue because both parties shut down bills containing money for armor.
Third, the media, the campaign adds, and some people like to make partisan mud slinging on armor issue out like it was a specific single bill, in the first bill your talking about it was less than 1/3 of a percent of the bills total expenditure. The second bill it was less than 1/3.
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
DuckMedic
I'm a Newbie!
Joined: Apr 08, 2003
Posts: 18
Points : 10
Status: Offline
|
Posted:
Wed Feb 09, 2005 7:41 pm
Post subject: |
  |
|
Under the war power act 1973
http://www.cs.indiana.edu/statecraft/warpow.html
SEC. 2. (c)
The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.
Congress condeam Sep 11, 2001 Attacks
http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/bills/blsjres22.htm
Congress gives power to president under War powers act to fight war on terror
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c107:2:./temp/~c107oUXMdc::
Congress gives power to president Authorizing use of military force in dealing with Iraq
http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/bliraqreshouse.htm
http://www.iraqwatch. org/government/US/Legislation/ILA.htm
We are not fighting an Ilegal war, either in afganistan or iraq.. Please again get you facts staight. Again i repeat and will say slowly , the war on terror and war in iraq in not unconstitutional.
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
Ichiban
Game Running Pimp
Joined: Dec 09, 2002
Posts: 1021
Points : 16
Location: Baton Rouge (LSU)
Status: Offline
|
Posted:
Wed Feb 09, 2005 8:17 pm
Post subject: Re: iraq |
|
|
| lsuhockey4 wrote: | | As the descendent of a long military family tradition, many of whom fought in vain, I would have to say you are the one who is dreaming of Ivory Towers. Did you actually wake up one morning and decide that you wanted to spread freedom by joining the military? Spreading freedom and democracy at the barrel of a gun does not work. You are not a "liberator." You are not a "peacekeeper." You are a hired killer. Soldiers were intended only to be used for the common defense of this country. For that purpose I proudly salute all soldiers. For any other purpose I don't wish to see soldiers leave our shores. However, unfortunately soldiers have long been used as just a cog in the wheel of empire. Alexander "the Great" and many Caesars told their soldiers that they were winning in the cause of bringing civilization to barbaric cultures. Your government does not care if you die in their goal of spreading their interventionalist politics. As a reward for your service, Bush has cut veteran funding. The long war ahead? Why? The United States has no obligations to any nation but its self. To quote former President Thomas Jefferson "I have seen enough of one war never to wish to see another. My views and feelings (are) in favor of the abolition of war--and I hope it is practicable, by improving the mind and morals of society, to lessen the disposition to war; but of its abolition I despair." |
Allow me to translate:
*Le sigh*
*Le boohoo*
*waaaaaaaaaah*
*same thing that every other cardboard cutout idiot has been screaming like chicken little since hanoi jane*
Allow me to respond:
*cough* dumbass *cough*
It's cool though, because you have a right to be one, defended by the people you insult with your disregard to real life in favor for neato conspiracy theories. Btw, welcome to TigerU!
Soldiers aren't hired killers, they're volunteers who do their job. The fact that they may have to go into combat and kill or be killed on behalf of their country is part of that job. If you cannot accept the fact that this country is run a certain way, and led in a certain direction, it's cool, *points to the first paragraph* Once people get a taste of freedom, it's pretty hard to go back to being anything but free. If you can't accept the fact that our soldiers are out there putting their life on the line for people who want to be free, fine. *points to first paragraph*
To think that the country sucks, and the military's always going to lose, and take the negative approach to everything just because you disagree with the man in charge is perfectly fine. To constantly belittle our soldiers, try your best to destroy their morale, then when they come around during voting season say "Oh, wait, I care about you, that's why I diss you" That's fine too. Whine all you want. Bitch all you want. Instead off accepting facts, accept the first conspiracy theory to justify in some way your opinion so that you don't have to admit you are wrong.
Just don't expect everyone else to give 2 shits, or take what you say as fact and undeniable truth/prophecy. You aren't the first to stick with this viewpoint, and you definately won't be the last... and that's a good thing, because without people like you, we wouldn't have a true democracy.
|
____________
"Everyone is in favor of free speech. Hardly a day passes without its being extolled, but some people's idea of it is that they are free to say what they like, but if anyone says anything back, that is an outrage." --Winston Churchill |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
Trunks
Regular
Joined: Feb 07, 2005
Posts: 177
Points : 268
Status: Offline
|
Posted:
Wed Feb 09, 2005 8:45 pm
Post subject: Re: iraq |
|
|
| LEstay wrote: |
I think it's made up just like the right to privacy and rights to abortion.
|
only the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
lsuhockey4
I'm a Newbie!
Joined: Mar 12, 2003
Posts: 23
Points : 0
Status: Offline
|
Posted:
Wed Feb 09, 2005 10:23 pm
Post subject: iraq |
|
|
Bush violated the War Powers Act because there was no imminent threat posed by Iraq to the United States. Bush violated the Nueremburg Charter that says it is a crime to plan a war of aggression (invasion of Iraq). Bush violated the UN charter by not gaining permission from the UN security council to invade Iraq, not to mention part of the UN charter only allows for defensive wars. Just because Congress wants to erode their constitutional powers and give more power to the executive does not make Bush right in going to war. The of point it all point being that we had no reason to invade Iraq. On the "War on Terrorism," it is not illegal, it is stupid. You cannot fight a war on a tactic. Are we going to declare war on guerilla warfare or nuclear weapons next?
I never said the United States "sucks" or the "military is always going to lose." Am I taking the negative if the man in charge is wrong? Am I belittling a voluntary soldier if I tell them the president sent them to die for a lie? That they were sent to die for the sake of the American empire? U.S. Soldiers were only supposed to be used for the defence of the United States. Is it wrong to tell them the orders they were following were wrong? I do care about the soldiers that's why I've said what I've said. What I say is harsh, but it comes with a promise. The promise is that a United States soldier will not have to leave these shores, save for defending this country. That they will not be coerced into war under the guise of defence. Iraq was and is none of our business period.
True democracy? Your going to have to claify that. But for the U.S., we are a Constitution based Federal Republic with a democratic tradition, hence the representative democracy elements. However, Federal implies that the states that make up the United States are autonomous in certain respects. Republic means we have no king or similar leader.
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
lsuhockey4
I'm a Newbie!
Joined: Mar 12, 2003
Posts: 23
Points : 0
Status: Offline
|
Posted:
Thu Feb 10, 2005 12:42 am
Post subject: iraq |
|
|
Before this thread gets anymore off topic or out of hand, I should restate the reason why I started it.
I disagree with the legitimacy of the Iraqi elections because the U.S. is an occupying force during the election. There it is, my motivation, plain and simple.
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
rwnugent
Sexiest Man Alive
Joined: Sep 16, 2003
Posts: 2353
Points : 1262
Location: baton rouge
Status: Offline
|
Posted:
Thu Feb 10, 2005 1:08 am
Post subject: |
|
|
I'd just like to say that everyone on this page of this thread has represented their point of view quite well. Howard, Phil and lsuhockey4. While I don't entirely agree with any of the points made here I would like to congratulate each of you on representing the first amendment. The fact that we can have this discussion is one of the most important reasons this country is so great.
|
____________
"That´s my opinion I could be wrong." -Dennis Miller
Procrastination is like masturbation. It seems like a good idea at the time time but in the end you´re just fucking yourself. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
Back to top |
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Forum FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
