Obama honors Neil Armstrong

[Aus22]

To me it means that the dems are very afraid of the muslims. meanwhile the pubs were afraid enough to give us silly reasons to have a war with afghan. The take away is that all of our leaders no matter what side they are on are afraid. Its not like muslims don't represent about 20% of the worlds population and any honest reading of the Koran and appraisal of their actions should lead us to believe that they would be very happy with our destruction.

Seeing Texas does not want to discuss my views on the USA constitution I will reply to DR Who. You views thatThe constitution does not contain a clause authorizing the gov to send men into space so that we can all benefit through advances in science (or just beating the Ruskies) any more than it contains a clause authorizing giving Indians bibles so that we can all get along better. seems to be sensible. No written document can be used to justify all future actions of a government.

However I am surprised by your statement that a honest reading of the Koran and appraisal of their actions should lead us to believe that they would be very happy with our destruction. I find no such evidence in the Quran although some Muslims actions do indicate they would be happy with our destruction. I do not find this with most Muslims. Even it is true what are we going to do about this. If Afghanistan was wrong what war would you suggest?

 

[Cruella]

And why do you think we went to Afghanistan?

 

[Aus22]

And why do you think we went to Afghanistan?

Cruello you tell me. I believe that the USA went into Afghanistan to get Bin Laden who train the Saudi terrorist to attack new York. In the end Bin Laden was found in Pakistan. Why did we not just attack Saudi Arabia where most of the terrorist came from?

 

[Cruella]

Cruello you tell me. I believe that the USA went into Afghanistan to get Bin Laden who train the Saudi terrorist to attack new York. In the end Bin Laden was found in Pakistan. Why did we not just attack Saudi Arabia where most of the terrorist came from?

Osama fled to Pakistan but we didn't know where he went. We had also given the Taliban an ultimatum to get out, and that is who we are fighting now. I hate to see us pull out, but all those different tribal factions play all sides against the middle. There seems to be no end to the insanity in muslim countries.

 

[dogtowner]

Cruello you tell me. I believe that the USA went into Afghanistan to get Bin Laden who train the Saudi terrorist to attack new York. In the end Bin Laden was found in Pakistan. Why did we not just attack Saudi Arabia where most of the terrorist came from?

same reason we didn't go to war with Austria just because Hitler was from there.

truth is after Al-Q was generally chased from Iraq they took up residence in Afghanistan so it was really just a matter of taking the fight to them. and more impotently away from us. thank goodness this aspect of the Bush policy was carried forward. I'm sure BO had his eyes opened as to why this had to be this way. Which is to say the White House is not impervious to attack by an unchecked enemy.

even pols understand protecting their arse is job 1. ahead of even fund raising.

 

[Aus22]

same reason we didn't go to war with Austria just because Hitler was from there.

truth is after Al-Q was generally chased from Iraq they took up residence in Afghanistan so it was really just a matter of taking the fight to them. and more impotently away from us. thank goodness this aspect of the Bush policy was carried forward. I'm sure BO had his eyes opened as to why this had to be this way. Which is to say the White House is not impervious to attack by an unchecked enemy.

even pols understand protecting their arse is job 1. ahead of even fund raising.

You got Bin Lade and some of his organization. However you will not defeat the Taliban who you are negotiate with to take over

 

[dogtowner]

You got Bin Lade and some of his organization. However you will not defeat the Taliban who you are negotiate with to take over

was the Taliban responsible ? not really apart from harboring Al-Q.

it was liberals very concerned with the Taliban for their destruction of art and human rights abuses. now they are OK with that.

 

[Dr.Who]

Seeing Texas does not want to discuss my views on the USA constitution I will reply to DR Who. You views thatThe constitution does not contain a clause authorizing the gov to send men into space so that we can all benefit through advances in science (or just beating the Ruskies) any more than it contains a clause authorizing giving Indians bibles so that we can all get along better. seems to be sensible. No written document can be used to justify all future actions of a government.

The const does give the gov the authority for all future actions that are necessary. There are a variety of clauses that permit a variety of things specifically stated, like defense. But the general welfare clause also permits the gov to do things that are for everyone's benefit generally. The key is simply not to overgeneralize the concept so that every action becomes permissible and the concept of a limited government no longer exists. Fighting a defensive war for example is clearly of benefit to everyone - it is both general and welfare (benefit). Fighting pirates would also meet both criteria. But fighting a company in another country that threatens the price of sugar here would only benefit those here who produce sugar - this would b stretching the meaning of the clause. I believe that the space program stretched the meaning of the general welfare clause (if they even justified the expense at all instead of just ignoring the const) I understand that others might think that the invention of Tang is proof that the space program created great benefits to the country as a whole.

However I am surprised by your statement that a honest reading of the Koran and appraisal of their actions should lead us to believe that they would be very happy with our destruction. I find no such evidence in the Quran although some Muslims actions do indicate they would be happy with our destruction. I do not find this with most Muslims. Even it is true what are we going to do about this. If Afghanistan was wrong what war would you suggest?

If you do not understand that the religion of Islam contains inherent aspects that demand the destrucion of all that is not sharia then you need to do some research. I have no doubt that many muslims do not understand that either. Just like the millions of shallow Christians who do not understand christianity there are shallow muslims who do not understand islam.

The case was not well made to me that the war in Afghan was justified. I assumed at the time that the reasons must have been secret since an overwhelming majority of congressmen from both parties including those on the security committees all voted for it.


Generally I favor only defensive wars.

 

[Gipper]

The const does give the gov the authority for all future actions that are necessary. There are a variety of clauses that permit a variety of things specifically stated, like defense. But the general welfare clause also permits the gov to do things that are for everyone's benefit generally. The key is simply not to overgeneralize the concept so that every action becomes permissible and the concept of a limited government no longer exists. Fighting a defensive war for example is clearly of benefit to everyone - it is both general and welfare (benefit). Fighting pirates would also meet both criteria. But fighting a company in another country that threatens the price of sugar here would only benefit those here who produce sugar - this would b stretching the meaning of the clause. I believe that the space program stretched the meaning of the general welfare clause (if they even justified the expense at all instead of just ignoring the const) I understand that others might think that the invention of Tang is proof that the space program created great benefits to the country as a whole.



If you do not understand that the religion of Islam contains inherent aspects that demand the destrucion of all that is not sharia then you need to do some research. I have no doubt that many muslims do not understand that either. Just like the millions of shallow Christians who do not understand christianity there are shallow muslims who do not understand islam.

The case was not well made to me that the war in Afghan was justified. I assumed at the time that the reasons must have been secret since an overwhelming majority of congressmen from both parties including those on the security committees all voted for it.


Generally I favor only defensive wars.

If Bush were not a pro-war progressive, he would have taken out the al qaeda in Afghanshitland and LEFT. And not invaded Iraq.

War is seldom the answer and often leads to very negative consequences. But, we know from history that politicians, government, and the military industrial complex love war as it concentrates power to the central state.

 

[Cruella]

Generally I favor only defensive wars.

You don't consider going after bin Laden as defensive?

 

[Dr.Who]

If Bush were not a pro-war progressive, he would have taken out the al qaeda in Afghanshitland and LEFT. And not invaded Iraq.

War is seldom the answer and often leads to very negative consequences. But, we know from history that politicians, government, and the military industrial complex love war as it concentrates power to the central state.

You are right that war does assist governments to concentrate power. All the more reason for everyone of us conservatives or liberals to advocate smaller government.

 

[Dr.Who]

You don't consider going after bin Laden as defensive?

Going after bin laden would be a defensive mission taking on the rest of Afghanistan and building a government there was not.