Originally posted by generals3

Originally posted by deviliscious

Originally posted by C-B-M

What, abortion?  I hear you.

 Yes. Barbaric slaughter of innocents. Even when the science used to justify it in this nation was proven false with advancement in medicine, they still continue disregarding the fact they were wrong.

I agree abortion is bad. However look at the alternative: bringing an unwanted child to the world which will have parents who didn't want him/her. Good way to raise mentally unstable people!

Childhood is often seen as one of the most important phases in a human's life when it comes to psychology.

 Not sure about where you live, but here in the US, the waiting list to adopt infants is 5+ years. Yes, so apparently there are mobs forming to adopt unwanted children into good homes. They are resorting to paying lavish amounts of money to do so.

Originally posted by C-B-M

What, abortion?  I hear you.

 Yes. Barbaric slaughter of innocents. Even when the science used to justify it in this nation was proven false with advancement in medicine, they still continue disregarding the fact they were wrong.

Originally posted by zereelist

Who's to say Mr. Tony Phillips is really from NASA.  I could go on the radio and claim I was someone from NASA.  It would seem pointless to do so but meh, I will wait and see if this goes up on their site first before thinking anything of it.

 Well according to this there is a Dr. Tony Phillips Authoring articles for them. You can ask him about it. LOL

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2011/04may_epic/

Honestly, the fact that this barbaric practice is still carried out in so called modern nations, including my own makes me want to vomit. I have a hard time even discussing it without getting sick to my stomach.

Originally posted by smokemonsc

Originally posted by Faxxer

gee, so here's a dumb question:

 

Is this war more or less illegal than Bush going into Iraq?

I think they are both illegal.  I could've give a shit what the War Powers Act says.  The Constitution is very clear - the power to declare war lays with Congress.  Congress is not given the authority to delegate this authority nor abridge it in any way.  If we are to go to war - it must be by a Declaration of War.

 

Shit - FDR, I wasn't a fan, but at least that fucker Declared War.

 

My two cents.

  Though I also think that breaking more laws would techincally make it even more illegal. Adding logs to the fire makes a bigger fire, so I would say piling up more illegal activity would add to the crimes being committed.

Originally posted by Faxxer
 

gee, so here's a dumb question:

 

Is this war more or less illegal than Bush going into Iraq?

 While both wars are blatantly a misuse of our military, the first Iraq war in 1991, the second Iraq war in 2003, and the Afghanistan war in 2001, the president sought and obtained prior congressional authorization, President Obama did not. IMO this would make his war More illegal, because it is not only an abuse of the use of our military against a nation who was not a threat to us, and he never bothered to comply with the 1973 War Powers Act.

From my perspective, he is MORE of a warmonger than Bush.  I tried to tell people he would open up war on more fronts, not less, due to his methods, but people didn;t want to hear that.  

Not only did he start his own war with Libya, he has escalated hostilities with our ally, Pakistan,  who is now going to china for support to prevent future invasions by the US into their nation. From my understanding of his methods, that will not be the only nation he escalates hostilities with due to a total disregard for their sovereignty as a nation.

When he signed the order that would allow our military to carry out military operations in allied nations without their knowledge or consent, he is forcing us into hostilities with nations that we would have had support from.

 When a guy walks into a room and makes an ass of himself pushing around everyone around him to " help himself", when people mob up and woop his ass, there isn;t anyone who is going to come to his side to stop them. That pretty much sums up the situation he is creating through his methods.

Originally posted by Vato26

Originally posted by deviliscious

Originally posted by Ihmotepp

Originally posted by deviliscious

Originally posted by Vato26

First, we should have NEVER been involved in Libya.  Now, that out of the way....

Based on the act, he does have 30 days to withdraw all US forces from Libya.  If he does not, then the question becomes, is this an impeachable offense?  If it is, then I can almost guarantee that the Teabaggers of the House will be frothing at the mouth for impeachment of Obama.  The question then becomes, will the Senate Democrats agree with the impeachment or not.

 I don;t think anyone would allow for the impeachment of Obama, even if he breaks the laws of this nation.  Hell When it came down to it, Pelosi singlehandedly blocked the impeachemnt of Bush by refusing to allow them to vote on it, like hell they would allow Obama to be impeached, so he is going to be placed " above the law" no matter how wrong his actions may be.

Freedom, Liberty Justice  was a nice dream. We now live in the time of Emperors.

 Do not expect any future leader to adhere to the law either. The precedent will be set here.

 

 

I'm not sure your "Constitutional" argument holds any water. I think you'd need an Amendment to the Constitution, since the President is SUPPOSED to have this power, and the War Powers Act was a power grab by Congress.

 

Constitutional Questions Raised

From its inception, the War Powers Resolution was controversial because it operated on the national war powers, powers divided by the Constitution in no definitive fashion between the President and Congress. Congress adopted the resolution in response to the perception that Presidents had assumed more authority to send forces into hostilities than the framers of the Constitution had intended for the Commander-in-Chief. President Nixon in his veto message challenged the constitutionality of the essence of the War Powers Resolution, and particularly two provisions. (8) He argued that the legislative veto provision, permitting Congress to direct the withdrawal of troops by concurrent resolution, was unconstitutional. He also argued that the provision requiring withdrawal of troops after 60-90 days unless Congress passed legislation authorizing such use was unconstitutional because it checked Presidential powers without affirmative congressional action. Every President since the enactment of the War Powers Resolution has taken the position that it is an unconstitutional infringement on the President's authority as Commander-in-Chief.

 

 

The purpose of the War Powers act is to restrain the Presdents power to go to War.

If Congress doesn't disagree with the War, there's no need to invoke the War Powers Resolution.

 

Major Cases and Issues Prior to the Persian Gulf War

Perceptions of the War Powers Resolution tended to be set during the Cold War. During the 1970s the issues revolved largely around the adequacy of consultation. The 1980s raised more serious issues of Presidential compliance and congressional willingness to use the War Powers Resolution to restrain Presidential action. With regard to Lebanon in 1983, Congress itself invoked the War Powers Resolution, but in the 1987-1988 Persian Gulf tanker war Congress chose not to do so. Following is a summary of major U.S. military actions and the issues they raised relating to the War Powers Resolution from its enactment in 1973 to August 1990. (21)

http://www.fas.org/man/crs/RL32267.html#_1_11

 

Your real complaint boils down to, Congress doesn't disapprove of the actions in Libya.

Well, if you don't like what Congress is doing,  we know the solution for that.

Vote.

 Congress has been rasing objections to the military action in Libya, and are planning on holding a vote on the matter. Please show me where congress has voted to approve or disapprove on actions in Libya as of yet? Oh yea they haven't so your statement makes no sense.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/05/24/senate.libya.resolution/

The supreme court has not ruled that the war powers act of 1973 is unconstitutional, so as far as the law is concerned, he is breaking the law.

We have plenty of laws that may or may not be constitutional, but as you love to remind people, the Supreme Court is who decides that, not  congress, the president, or brainy smurf.

My issue with the President is that he did not get authorization from congress, and until he does so, he is breaking the law as it stands now. I also disagree with his stance on Libya.

If congress approves of his war, that is an issue you take up with them when it comes down to elections. How many Americans approve of opening a war on a 3rd front right now against a nation that was not attacking us?  I personally do not know any in my so called " Warmongering state of Texas".

Actually, even with Congress' permission for this war, he has already gone past the 60 day period.  Thus, he would still have to withdraw all US troops from Libya or be in violation of this act.

 I agree. But how the hell are you going to get Democrats to ever agree to this? The majority are so far up his ass, there is no way in hell they would force him to do anything, and they sure as hell are not going to allow them to start impeachment if he fails to comply..

Originally posted by generals3

Originally posted by deviliscious

I personaly do not think we should run parties at all, instead run individuals with their own ideas and we get to choose the best ones, not have some " platform" choose them for us.

You didn't think that through a lot i think. How will these people make their publicity? not everyone has billions and most won't have the resources to even raise funds. There is a reason why politicians group together.

Additionally i firmly believe it would be a mess. The advantage of parties is that at least you have a big group of politicians who already agree on many things. Now put a bunch of politicians who have never discussed with each other in a parliament and you can be sure nothing will happen.

 Actually I discussed this alot years back, instead of the nonsense we do now, we have a series of debates, the winners of each debate move on until we get down to a select few that actually are put on the ballot. Instead of having a bunch of nonsense commercials, we set aside time for each to air their platform. Set a cap on what can be spent, level the playing field.

I would much rather nothing happen than the insane amount of something that has happened over the years. LOL

Originally posted by Ihmotepp

Originally posted by deviliscious

Originally posted by Vato26

Originally posted by deviliscious

Originally posted by Vato26

First, we should have NEVER been involved in Libya.  Now, that out of the way....

Based on the act, he does have 30 days to withdraw all US forces from Libya.  If he does not, then the question becomes, is this an impeachable offense?  If it is, then I can almost guarantee that the Teabaggers of the House will be frothing at the mouth for impeachment of Obama.  The question then becomes, will the Senate Democrats agree with the impeachment or not.

 I don;t think anyone would allow for the impeachment of Obama, even if he breaks the laws of this nation.  Hell When it came down to it, Pelosi singlehandedly blocked the impeachemnt of Bush by refusing to allow them to vote on it, like hell they would allow Obama to be impeached, so he is going to be placed " above the law" no matter how wrong his actions may be.

Freedom, Liberty Justice  was a nice dream. We now live in the time of Emperors.

 Do not expect any future leader to adhere to the law either. The precedent will be set here.

That is why we need a 3+ party system.  All to get rid of the collusion and corruption of this 2 party crapfest.

The usage of the military, without support of Congress, is a direct violation of the balancing of powers that the Constitution set up and laws further developed from the Constitution.  The act is there just for a release valve for immediate military actions as Congress usually takes their massively sweet time to argue, bitch, and moan before they pass or deny an act.  However, it still has a limit.  And if Obama doesn't meet that limit, then he's violated the balancing of powers set by the Constitution.  Therefore, his action would be Unconstitutional, which should be an impeachable offense.

 I agree completely. I am just pointing out the reality of the situation. Congress is no longer a safety net for abuse of power. They support abuse of power and are actively expanding the federal government  well beyond what was designated to them by law.  The president will never be impeached and they will be able to expand their powers in the process as well.  Both the white house and congress get more power, what do they care?

 

You really want the tie vote deciding major issues to be cast by the "Animals are People Too" party, or some other fringe group that manages to get a few people elected?

Hmmm. We think dogs should get social security cards. The war in Libya? Well, what are they doing for cats there? We'll vote for or against it, if you vote to increase spending on animal rights.

No thanks.

A third party makes it much WORSE IMO, not better.

 

 I disagree with your view of a 3rd party. I think the independent vote would help keep them from passing terrible laws, and increase our chances of blocking bad legislation.

I personaly do not think we should run parties at all, instead run individuals with their own ideas and we get to choose the best ones, not have some " platform" choose them for us.

Originally posted by Ihmotepp

Originally posted by deviliscious

Originally posted by Vato26

First, we should have NEVER been involved in Libya.  Now, that out of the way....

Based on the act, he does have 30 days to withdraw all US forces from Libya.  If he does not, then the question becomes, is this an impeachable offense?  If it is, then I can almost guarantee that the Teabaggers of the House will be frothing at the mouth for impeachment of Obama.  The question then becomes, will the Senate Democrats agree with the impeachment or not.

 I don;t think anyone would allow for the impeachment of Obama, even if he breaks the laws of this nation.  Hell When it came down to it, Pelosi singlehandedly blocked the impeachemnt of Bush by refusing to allow them to vote on it, like hell they would allow Obama to be impeached, so he is going to be placed " above the law" no matter how wrong his actions may be.

Freedom, Liberty Justice  was a nice dream. We now live in the time of Emperors.

 Do not expect any future leader to adhere to the law either. The precedent will be set here.

 

 

I'm not sure your "Constitutional" argument holds any water. I think you'd need an Amendment to the Constitution, since the President is SUPPOSED to have this power, and the War Powers Act was a power grab by Congress.

 

Constitutional Questions Raised

From its inception, the War Powers Resolution was controversial because it operated on the national war powers, powers divided by the Constitution in no definitive fashion between the President and Congress. Congress adopted the resolution in response to the perception that Presidents had assumed more authority to send forces into hostilities than the framers of the Constitution had intended for the Commander-in-Chief. President Nixon in his veto message challenged the constitutionality of the essence of the War Powers Resolution, and particularly two provisions. (8) He argued that the legislative veto provision, permitting Congress to direct the withdrawal of troops by concurrent resolution, was unconstitutional. He also argued that the provision requiring withdrawal of troops after 60-90 days unless Congress passed legislation authorizing such use was unconstitutional because it checked Presidential powers without affirmative congressional action. Every President since the enactment of the War Powers Resolution has taken the position that it is an unconstitutional infringement on the President's authority as Commander-in-Chief.

 

 

The purpose of the War Powers act is to restrain the Presdents power to go to War.

If Congress doesn't disagree with the War, there's no need to invoke the War Powers Resolution.

 

Major Cases and Issues Prior to the Persian Gulf War

Perceptions of the War Powers Resolution tended to be set during the Cold War. During the 1970s the issues revolved largely around the adequacy of consultation. The 1980s raised more serious issues of Presidential compliance and congressional willingness to use the War Powers Resolution to restrain Presidential action. With regard to Lebanon in 1983, Congress itself invoked the War Powers Resolution, but in the 1987-1988 Persian Gulf tanker war Congress chose not to do so. Following is a summary of major U.S. military actions and the issues they raised relating to the War Powers Resolution from its enactment in 1973 to August 1990. (21)

http://www.fas.org/man/crs/RL32267.html#_1_11

 

Your real complaint boils down to, Congress doesn't disapprove of the actions in Libya.

Well, if you don't like what Congress is doing,  we know the solution for that.

Vote.

 Congress has been rasing objections to the military action in Libya, and are planning on holding a vote on the matter. Please show me where congress has voted to approve or disapprove on actions in Libya as of yet? Oh yea they haven't so your statement makes no sense.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/05/24/senate.libya.resolution/

The supreme court has not ruled that the war powers act of 1973 is unconstitutional, so as far as the law is concerned, he is breaking the law.

We have plenty of laws that may or may not be constitutional, but as you love to remind people, the Supreme Court is who decides that, not  congress, the president, or brainy smurf.

My issue with the President is that he did not get authorization from congress, and until he does so, he is breaking the law as it stands now. I also disagree with his stance on Libya.

If congress approves of his war, that is an issue you take up with them when it comes down to elections. How many Americans approve of opening a war on a 3rd front right now against a nation that was not attacking us?  I personally do not know any in my so called " Warmongering state of Texas".

I did read about that interstellar cloud that they said should not exist that the solar system is passing through, is it related to data gathered from that?

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2009/23dec_voyager/

December 23, 2009: The solar system is passing through an interstellar cloud that physics says should not exist. In the Dec. 24th issue of Nature, a team of scientists reveal how NASA's Voyager spacecraft have solved the mystery.

Using data from Voyager, we have discovered a strong magnetic field just outside the solar system," explains lead author Merav Opher, a NASA Heliophysics Guest Investigator from George Mason University. "This magnetic field holds the interstellar cloud together and solves the long-standing puzzle of how it can exist at all."

"The fact that the Fluff is strongly magnetized means that other clouds in the galactic neighborhood could be, too. Eventually, the solar system will run into some of them, and their strong magnetic fields could compress the heliosphere even more than it is compressed now. Additional compression could allow more cosmic rays to reach the inner solar system, possibly affecting terrestrial climate and the ability of astronauts to travel safely through space. On the other hand, astronauts wouldn't have to travel so far because interstellar space would be closer than ever. These events would play out on time scales of tens to hundreds of thousands of years, which is how long it takes for the solar system to move from one cloud to the next.

"There could be interesting times ahead!" says Opher"

Not sure about that guy, but I did post a while back on the giant hole in our elecromagnetic field,  The poles moving at the highest rate ever recorded, and the solar storm warning that Nasa has issued we are under until 2015, if that is what you are referring to.

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2008/16dec_giantbreach/

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2003/29dec_magneticfield/

"The pole kept going during the 20th century, north at an average speed of 10 km per year, lately accelerating "to 40 km per year," says Newitt. At this rate it will exit North America and reach Siberia in a few decades.

Keeping track of the north magnetic pole is Newitt's job. "We usually go out and check its location once every few years," he says. "We'll have to make more trips now that it is moving so quickly."

NASA Solar Storm warning

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2006/10mar_stormwarning/

Dire warning: U.S. unprepared for massive solar flare storm; could lose power, communications

http://articles.nydailynews.com/2010-06-24/news/27068218_1_solar-storms-geomagnetic-storm-solar-flares

Get ready for a 'global Katrina': Biggest ever solar storm could cause power cuts which last for MONTHS

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1359136/Global-Katrina-Biggest-solar-storm-cause-power-cuts-MONTHS.html


 

Originally posted by Lerxst

Wait, is Lybia officially a "war"?  Vietnam lasted a decade and was never declared a war.  So if it's never officially declared a war, does the president have to ever get congressional approval?

 Yes, it is a war. The law was put into place to ensure another Vietnam happened again. It is the War Powers Resolution of 1973

He was given 60 days to comply, and ignored it. He now has 30 days to withdraw.

http://www.civics-online.org/library/formatted/texts/war_powers.html

Act of war legal definition

An act of war is an action by one country against another with an intention to provoke a war or an action that occurs during a declared war or armed conflict between military forces of any origin.

Would it not be an intention of war by assisting those actively attacking another country? Would it not be an act of war to fire missles at said country?

If Obama does not get authorization for funding his war from Congress, he cannot pay for it.

Originally posted by Vato26

Originally posted by deviliscious

Originally posted by Vato26

First, we should have NEVER been involved in Libya.  Now, that out of the way....

Based on the act, he does have 30 days to withdraw all US forces from Libya.  If he does not, then the question becomes, is this an impeachable offense?  If it is, then I can almost guarantee that the Teabaggers of the House will be frothing at the mouth for impeachment of Obama.  The question then becomes, will the Senate Democrats agree with the impeachment or not.

 I don;t think anyone would allow for the impeachment of Obama, even if he breaks the laws of this nation.  Hell When it came down to it, Pelosi singlehandedly blocked the impeachemnt of Bush by refusing to allow them to vote on it, like hell they would allow Obama to be impeached, so he is going to be placed " above the law" no matter how wrong his actions may be.

Freedom, Liberty Justice  was a nice dream. We now live in the time of Emperors.

 Do not expect any future leader to adhere to the law either. The precedent will be set here.

That is why we need a 3+ party system.  All to get rid of the collusion and corruption of this 2 party crapfest.

The usage of the military, without support of Congress, is a direct violation of the balancing of powers that the Constitution set up and laws further developed from the Constitution.  The act is there just for a release valve for immediate military actions as Congress usually takes their massively sweet time to argue, bitch, and moan before they pass or deny an act.  However, it still has a limit.  And if Obama doesn't meet that limit, then he's violated the balancing of powers set by the Constitution.  Therefore, his action would be Unconstitutional, which should be an impeachable offense.

 I agree completely. I am just pointing out the reality of the situation. Congress is no longer a safety net for abuse of power. They support abuse of power and are actively expanding the federal government  well beyond what was designated to them by law.  The president will never be impeached and they will be able to expand their powers in the process as well.  Both the white house and congress get more power, what do they care?

Originally posted by Vato26

First, we should have NEVER been involved in Libya.  Now, that out of the way....

Based on the act, he does have 30 days to withdraw all US forces from Libya.  If he does not, then the question becomes, is this an impeachable offense?  If it is, then I can almost guarantee that the Teabaggers of the House will be frothing at the mouth for impeachment of Obama.  The question then becomes, will the Senate Democrats agree with the impeachment or not.

 I don;t think anyone would allow for the impeachment of Obama, even if he breaks the laws of this nation.  Hell When it came down to it, Pelosi singlehandedly blocked the impeachemnt of Bush by refusing to allow them to vote on it, like hell they would allow Obama to be impeached, so he is going to be placed " above the law" no matter how wrong his actions may be.

Freedom, Liberty Justice  was a nice dream. We now live in the time of Emperors.

 Do not expect any future leader to adhere to the law either. The precedent will be set here.

Originally posted by Xirik

Originally posted by deviliscious

Originally posted by Xirik

Originally posted by deviliscious

Originally posted by Xirik

Originally posted by Ihmotepp

Originally posted by Xirik

Originally posted by xpowderx

Originally posted by Xirik

You think the Middle-east will let the US take out the poison that is the various terrorist organizations? They will not simply because they see terrorists as a better poison then letting the US muck around there country. They only need to look at the past to see what that would cause.

 

I think the answer is yes. The ME will let teh US take out the poison.

The people in the ME, now exposed to the internet, cell phones, twitter, facebook, satellite TV, and a plethora of other communication options, are beginning to realize that life under a Totalitarian Theocracy ain't so great, and it could be a lot better.

Oh the horrors of Coke Cola, and driving an SUV, and having a big screen TV.  Instead you should live in squalor because your Mullah overlords don't want you educated, and prefer to keep you in poverty and ignorance.

I think those days are numbered.  

 

They are realizing that Dictators aren't that great actually and we know who installed them hmm?

You are kidding yourself if you think that if every ME country was a "liberal democracy" that the hate would simply go away and they would all love israel and the US.

They could still support various terrorist organizations and be a liberal democracy. They could choose to go to war with israel and still be a Liberal democracy.

The Mullah's may be promoting the hate but you can't start a fire without wood, and the US did provide a LOT of wood.

This is almost a 100 year old grudge that has been passed down many a generation.  Liberal Democracy won't suddenly make that go away.

 LOL Liberal democracy will not solve anything in the region. It will just allow for mob rule. The mob is angry. So you get " angry mob rule".

exactly!

Now instead of ignorant people that don't know anything about science and building weapon systems they have Smart people who know how to build exactly that. They also the population would grow do to the lack of poverty.

P.S the angry mob has valid reasons to be angry about. They aren't making something out of nothing.

 Yes, they have much to be angry about. They also have a heavy religious influence that tells them they must destroy Israel and take over the world.. That combination is a very very bad thing.

there is a religious influence but I think if someone walked up to Muslims on the street in egypt and other nations they would probably list the things they do have the right to be angry about before saying " Allah told me".

 I have watched many many interviews with those in the region. Al Jaeeezra has tons of them.  You have people saying," why shouldn't we support the Muslim brotherhood, they provide us with food, clothing, shelter? "  Many have much to say on the subject, and they do believe that it is Islams destiny to rule the world, that is what their holy prophecy tells them, so it must be true.

They also believe it is their right to have " Muslim privilege" over other religions, because that too is what their religion teaches.  You see, Islamic crusades erased the true history from the region, they erased history and rewrote it to their liking and that is all the people there know to be true. They think when you tell them the actual history of the region you are " lying to them". Control over their information for so long has also allowed for them to gain a firm grip on their society as whole.  It is impossible to reason when they are convinced the lies of their past to be the truth. Have you ever tried to convince a diehard Christian that what the Bible says about other religions is not reality? It is a futile effort.  Diehard Muslims, just like Diehard Christians will not be swayed by revealing the truth that every other religion out there isn't evil.  They will never accept other religions, and due to that they will never really have peace, just oppressive periods between wars.

Originally posted by Xirik

Originally posted by deviliscious

Originally posted by Xirik

Originally posted by Ihmotepp

Originally posted by Xirik

Originally posted by xpowderx

Originally posted by Xirik

You think the Middle-east will let the US take out the poison that is the various terrorist organizations? They will not simply because they see terrorists as a better poison then letting the US muck around there country. They only need to look at the past to see what that would cause.

 

I think the answer is yes. The ME will let teh US take out the poison.

The people in the ME, now exposed to the internet, cell phones, twitter, facebook, satellite TV, and a plethora of other communication options, are beginning to realize that life under a Totalitarian Theocracy ain't so great, and it could be a lot better.

Oh the horrors of Coke Cola, and driving an SUV, and having a big screen TV.  Instead you should live in squalor because your Mullah overlords don't want you educated, and prefer to keep you in poverty and ignorance.

I think those days are numbered.  

 

They are realizing that Dictators aren't that great actually and we know who installed them hmm?

You are kidding yourself if you think that if every ME country was a "liberal democracy" that the hate would simply go away and they would all love israel and the US.

They could still support various terrorist organizations and be a liberal democracy. They could choose to go to war with israel and still be a Liberal democracy.

The Mullah's may be promoting the hate but you can't start a fire without wood, and the US did provide a LOT of wood.

This is almost a 100 year old grudge that has been passed down many a generation.  Liberal Democracy won't suddenly make that go away.

 LOL Liberal democracy will not solve anything in the region. It will just allow for mob rule. The mob is angry. So you get " angry mob rule".

exactly!

Now instead of ignorant people that don't know anything about science and building weapon systems they have Smart people who know how to build exactly that. They also the population would grow do to the lack of poverty.

P.S the angry mob has valid reasons to be angry about. They aren't making something out of nothing.

 Yes, they have much to be angry about. They also have a heavy religious influence that tells them they must destroy Israel and take over the world.. That combination is a very very bad thing.

Originally posted by Xirik

Originally posted by deviliscious

So what you are saying xirik is that you support fundamentalist Islam's political power? I ask you for solutions, what is it you are supporting or proposing. I am not seeing any " solution here". Considering fundemental Islam has not been shy in the least about their religious and political agenda. Their prophecy is well known, this doesn;t stop with Israel.

Once Israel is eternally destroyed, they can move on to the other prophecies, such as uniting to take on the world. I do see the whole picture here, not just the propaganda to  get people to think that carrying out that prophecy is a good thing. If we fail to deal with fundemental islam all we are doing is postpoing the inevitable war.

Stop acting like an Idiot Devil its not very becoming of a lady.

I never said I support Fundamentalist islam so don't put words in my mouth.

I also never said I had a solution I was simply laying out the fact that don't support any peace talks that it will eventually end in War. One that does not favour the US.

If you really wanted to take out the fundamentalist you SHOULD let there be a peace deal.  That way when people still fire rockets into Israel you can simply say "SEE I told you!" and everyone would rally behind the US and Israel because they finally see what "fundamentalists" really are.

It would be a total switch around in public opinion!

 Stop acting like a Douchebag Xirik, it is not very becoming of a Canadian.

All peace talks will eventually result in war there because they just postpone it. War will happen sooner or later, as long as religion is seeking to destroy others. The problem being the bombs they have access to now vs the past are a lot bigger. We want to just let them blow up Israel so we can sway public opinion? The problem is, the jewish people are so few left in the world, as it is they will never be able to repopulate their numbers as before, but the more we allow to persih, the increased probability they will eventually become entirely exinct.

Not sure if public opinion matters all that much when there is none of them left to rally behind..

Originally posted by Xirik

Originally posted by Ihmotepp

Originally posted by Xirik

Originally posted by xpowderx

Originally posted by Xirik

You think the Middle-east will let the US take out the poison that is the various terrorist organizations? They will not simply because they see terrorists as a better poison then letting the US muck around there country. They only need to look at the past to see what that would cause.

 

I think the answer is yes. The ME will let teh US take out the poison.

The people in the ME, now exposed to the internet, cell phones, twitter, facebook, satellite TV, and a plethora of other communication options, are beginning to realize that life under a Totalitarian Theocracy ain't so great, and it could be a lot better.

Oh the horrors of Coke Cola, and driving an SUV, and having a big screen TV.  Instead you should live in squalor because your Mullah overlords don't want you educated, and prefer to keep you in poverty and ignorance.

I think those days are numbered.  

 

They are realizing that Dictators aren't that great actually and we know who installed them hmm?

You are kidding yourself if you think that if every ME country was a "liberal democracy" that the hate would simply go away and they would all love israel and the US.

They could still support various terrorist organizations and be a liberal democracy. They could choose to go to war with israel and still be a Liberal democracy.

The Mullah's may be promoting the hate but you can't start a fire without wood, and the US did provide a LOT of wood.

This is almost a 100 year old grudge that has been passed down many a generation.  Liberal Democracy won't suddenly make that go away.

 LOL Liberal democracy will not solve anything in the region. It will just allow for mob rule. The mob is angry. So you get " angry mob rule".

Friday May 20th marks the 60th day since the president notified Congress that he committed U.S. military forces in Libya. Under the War Powers Act (WPA), the president may order military action on his own under certain conditions. But the WPA then gives the president 60 days to gain congressional authorization; if none is forthcoming, the president must then withdraw all forces within 30 days.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kent-greenfield/obama-libya-and-executive_b_864529.html

This is the first time a US president has defied the War Powers Resolution’s deadline for participation in combat operations without any concurrent steps by Congress to fund or otherwise authorize the role. With as much as a Warmonger as Bush was, at least he obatined congressional consent, as required by law.