The Official Religious/Political Debate Thread (country, rock, single, American)

[IamAlejo]

so, was i happy about finding long range missles in Iraq, yes. was i happy about the amount of resources, lives, and money that it costed, No. can i sleep easier at night knowing that Iraq doesnt have these weapons (by the way, can you post something on this because, unless im wrong, i have only known the following :The U.N. inspectors swarming over Iraq's missile industry found an infraction last week: The short-range Al Samoud 2 sometimes flies a few miles farther than allowed. But the experts have reported no sign of any longer-range missiles that could strike Israel or neighboring oil nations as Washington fears.), well i cant sleep easier because i know that there are many many other countries and terrorist groups that have REAL TANGIBLE weapons of mass destruction. that thought is what keeps me up at night. my only real hope is that this president can be taken out of office before its to late to take action on this.

The fact is, Congress voted to go to war. And if you think that Congress voted to go to war just because of what our President stated, I think you are foolish. Congress thought Hussein was a threat, with nuclear weapons (which still, he probably had if not given the almost year of time in which we just told him we were going to attack) or without them. If Congress feels bad about the war now, they can stop it. CONGRESS CAN STOP A WAR AT ANY TIME. Of course, you, Mr. "The Constitution isn't Important" wouldn't know. Congress is responsible for all spending. They can completely stop funding the war, and the war will stop.

I believe that North Korea is a problem. But we are trying to depend on China for help in that situation. China does not like us, and does not want us anywhere NEAR North Korea. That is a very iffy situation. But I do agree, North Korea is a threat.

[IamAlejo]

Originally Posted by franscar

So who should they ask to choose the American president then? Sort of worries me if Americans themselves don't have enough faith in each other's intelligence to choose the man who has to keep the world free of nuclear war.

The people should vote for President, America is a Democratic Republic and most likely will be for a very long time. But see my last paragraph for an interesting thought.

On the 35%...I'd say that a majority of non-voters are from that 35% who don't know who wrote the Constitution. So they don't play too important of a role.

But in US History class we had an interesting discussion. If a President loses the election (especially a President as popular with the military as Bush)...who is to make him leave office? He is still the Commander-in-Chief, control of the armed services. If he took control of the troops, who is going to make him leave? It's an interesting thought to just think about in the middle of all this debate.

[David Frost]

"Congress thought Hussein was a threat"

Because they were under the assumption that Iraq HAD WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION that were capable of doing damage to not only our country, but our allies (Saudi Arabia.. ect). Immediately following the invasion of Afghanistan, it was also believed by many people that Saddam was directly related to 9/11. why did they think this, the president stated it.

" CONGRESS CAN STOP A WAR AT ANY TIME"
We never officially declared war with Iraq. we havent been officially at war since Pearl Harbor and WW2. But even if you totally disregard that, your wonderful commander and cheif declared that major military operations in iraq were over and we won the war in iraq. if this is true, why has the american military death toll risen so much?

"Mr. 'The Constitution isn't Important'"

and where does this come from? why do you think that i dont believe that the constitution isnt important? you are the one supporting a man that tried to ruin the constitution by making an amendment to ban *** marriage. and if he is elected he will override roe v. wade.

"I believe that North Korea is a problem." North Korea was a bigger threat before 9/11. they were bigger before the war in iraq. they are a bigger threat now. how much more are we going to need untill something happens? do you or do you not agree that Iran, North Korea, even Saudi Arabia pose bigger threats than Iraq at the time. if you dont, you have been watching to much fox tv.

"If a President loses the election (especially a President as popular with the military as Bush)...who is to make him leave office? He is still the Commander-in-Chief, control of the armed services. If he took control of the troops, who is going to make him leave? "

this is just a scary thing to think about. but you know what, i think bush would love it. he has said on several occasions on television that it would be ALOT easier to lead a dictatorship. and with the voting situation in florida, and many parts of the patriot act, racial and ethnic profiling, and attempting to change the constitution.. i would have to say he is on his way.

But, i have heard that if Bush is re-elected, many people are planning on ruining his inauguration (much like last time, but much worse).

People dont understand, for many this is not a Kerry v Bush election... its a Bush v Anyone not Bush. we have seen what bush can do, and quite frankly... i cant take 4 more years of misleading, ruining an economy, and leading our youth to death.

[franscar]

Originally Posted by IamAlejo

But in US History class we had an interesting discussion. If a President loses the election (especially a President as popular with the military as Bush)...who is to make him leave office? He is still the Commander-in-Chief, control of the armed services. If he took control of the troops, who is going to make him leave? It's an interesting thought to just think about in the middle of all this debate.

It's called a military dictatorship. You wouldn't want to live in one.

[IamAlejo]

Congress thought Hussein was a threat with or without Nuclear weapons. A majority of Congress who "believed" they had WMD's, believed this before Bush stated his ideas of where the WMD's where, etc.

We actually did vote to go to War on Terror, not Afghanistan. That included Iraq. Yes, the war is being funded completely by Congress. They could stop in when they please. And again, the death toll is risen because instead of putting down the Iraqis like we should, we try to appease people like you who would cry their eyes out if "innocent" Iraqis were killed. The same "innocent" Iraqis that are using car bombs every day to attack our troops.

I do support the banning of *** marriages to tell you the truth. Our country, while not fully supporting one religious belief, was founded on religious belief. Marriage is stated as a bonding between a man and a woman. I don't see it as ruining the Constitution at all. Do you think the people who wrote it would support *** marriages?

I agree that Saudi Arabia and North Korea are HUGE problems, but there are also HUGE difficulties with going into these countries. I don't really see us attacking either of these without a complete UN backing (which I don't think there is any way we get anytime soon...I don't really like the UN anyway, and I think NATO should have been done with some time ago)

David, we all know that Bush wouldn't do what I just stated, it was just a thought. A very interesting one I believe. It could be done quite easily.

If Bush is re-elected, I think people "ruining" his inauguration are retarded, and will probably end up being jailed and fined. I also think the whole "Anybody but Bush" thing is the most retarded thing ever. Just because someone is bad (and I admit, Bush is not the greatest thing since sliced bread) you should have a reason to vote for someone other than "it's not him". How do you know you are not putting someone else in office that is even worse. If you look at Kerry's record, it is not impressive at all. I believe that Bush will win the election on Tuesday, and I think chaos does occur...some places.

Franscar, I know what it would be, nor do I want to live in one. But it's amazing how easily it could be done by a President, and how based on trust it hasn't happened in 150+ years.

[franscar]

Originally Posted by IamAlejo

Franscar, I know what it would be, nor do I want to live in one. But it's amazing how easily it could be done by a President, and how based on trust it hasn't happened in 150+ years.

You seem to be forgetting that the US armed forces happen to be the single most incompetent set of military personnel in the developed world though dude. American soldiers have been responsible for killing more British troops since the end of World War 2 than all of our enemies PUT TOGETHER. This is why I hate the idea of Britain acting like the US' personal bitch, because there is a large proportion of American soldiers who haven't the faintest idea what they are doing. They wouldn't be capable of organising a military coup, or indeed a democratic government.

Originally Posted by IamAlejo

we try to appease people like you who would cry their eyes out if "innocent" Iraqis were killed. The same "innocent" Iraqis that are using car bombs every day to attack our troops.

That's an incredibly naive view. Are you saying that all, or even the majority of Iraqi's that have been killed by US troops have been potential car bombers, kidnappers or murderers? There is no reason why a single Iraqi civilian should have been killed by an American gun in the past 12 months, because America hasn't been at war. Apparently.

[jibber]

[QUOTE=IamAlejo]I do support the banning of *** marriages to tell you the truth. Our country, while not fully supporting one religious belief, was founded on religious belief. Marriage is stated as a bonding between a man and a woman. I don't see it as ruining the Constitution at all. Do you think the people who wrote it would support *** marriages?[QUOTE]

I've been trying to stay out of this for the last, oh about 7 pages, but this I had to respond to. The government has to be able to adapt to changes in society as the years pass, and to say that we have to stick with the ideals and values upheld by the founders of the country over a hundred years ago is absurd. Social climate changes, and as that changes, the government has to be able to change as well. up until the later 1900's blacks were treated as inferior citizens, because that's the way the founders of the US considered them. does that mean that by giving black's equal rights the US was undermining the values that the country was built upon? of course not. anyone trying to argue that would be deemed ignorant and intolerant (not to mention a racist a**hole but i'm trying to keep this post clean.) so why is there a double standard for homosexuals?

[David Frost]

Originally Posted by jibber

I've been trying to stay out of this for the last, oh about 7 pages, but this I had to respond to. The government has to be able to adapt to changes in society as the years pass, and to say that we have to stick with the ideals and values upheld by the founders of the country over a hundred years ago is absurd. Social climate changes, and as that changes, the government has to be able to change as well. up until the later 1900's blacks were treated as inferior citizens, because that's the way the founders of the US considered them. does that mean that by giving black's equal rights the US was undermining the values that the country was built upon? of course not. anyone trying to argue that would be deemed ignorant and intolerant (not to mention a racist a**hole but i'm trying to keep this post clean.) so why is there a double standard for homosexuals?

Agreed completely.

but as for the rest of this, im done with this post. myself and Alejo are not going to agree on probably any point at all. so we are getting nowhere fast. i just think you are an incredibly close minded conservative... and if you have to see things only in black and white, then so be it. but as for this, im done.

[IamAlejo]

Originally Posted by franscar

You seem to be forgetting that the US armed forces happen to be the single most incompetent set of military personnel in the developed world though dude. American soldiers have been responsible for killing more British troops since the end of World War 2 than all of our enemies PUT TOGETHER. This is why I hate the idea of Britain acting like the US' personal bitch, because there is a large proportion of American soldiers who haven't the faintest idea what they are doing. They wouldn't be capable of organising a military coup, or indeed a democratic government.

Seeing as though I have many friends in the military, I take offense to that, but realize it is just your point of view. But can you at least give some evidence of that information?

Originally Posted by franscar

That's an incredibly naive view. Are you saying that all, or even the majority of Iraqi's that have been killed by US troops have been potential car bombers, kidnappers or murderers? There is no reason why a single Iraqi civilian should have been killed by an American gun in the past 12 months, because America hasn't been at war. Apparently.

....We have been at war. What are you talking about? I'm saying that the Iraqi people are keeping information from the American troops. I'm saying that many Iraqi people are housing the people doing the attacks. To not believe that is naive.

[IamAlejo]

Before I start with Jibber's post, I just want to agree that me and David are getting no where fast. To call me a "close minded conservative" is the same as me calling you a close minded liberal. And that's slightly funny, since the Liberal candidate running doesn't even want to admit he's the ultra-liberal that he is.