Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
How is that different than any politics, anywhere? In the US both parties would do anything to see the complete elimination of the other side so they could rule over the country in a single party dictatorship. The battle is relentless in that direction. The tactics may be different, but that the end result they want.
are you actually trying to compare an actual civil war with both sides in an armed conflict with each other to a verbal argument in this country over politics??
After the World Trade center was hit, no one had a clue as to who even did it. Even years later you'll find people who say Sadaam Hussein had something to do with it.
Actually, looking at some of the video footage immediately following 9/11 I noticed a professionally lettered banner that said 'Mr. Bush, invade Afghanistan Tonight". This was before anyone had a clue about what was going on, so how did some angry Joe citizen spontaneously come up with THAT?
If 72% supported the Iraq invasion, it was in the immediate turmoil following the attack. The entire drumbeat of every news broadcast was for revenge against something or someone.I bet you wouldn't find 20% today, now that people's eyes are a little more open.
A poster commented about the military fighting primarily "brown-skinned" populations.
Perhaps they should rephrase that. We don't only attack brown people, we only attack poor people with weak defenses and no air power, who had no say in their goverment's actions.
Whatever that means. The reply was in response to the statement that a large number of people (who had no clue except what they were told by the government influenced media) supported the actions in the ME after 9/11. It's been a fact time and time again that what we are told and what the truth is are different in hindsight.
Although, perhaps that's also related to the wealth of primarily white nations...or the military power of primarily white nations.
And then there's the issue of what poor losers we are...good winners, poor losers.
In all fairness, Modern warfares is about the conflicts between two or more super powers.
For example,
As the United States poured men and money into South Vietnam, Chinese and Soviet involvement in Vietnam also increased. As the world’s largest communist powers, both the Soviet Union and the People’s Republic of China also lent moral, logistic and military support to North Vietnam. Both Moscow and Beijing hoped to consolidate and expand communism in the Asian hemisphere.
I find the obsession and hyper glorification of the armed forces to be both disturbing and alarming. Not to mention the absurd amount of resources we poor into our military. Also hyper militarized nations throughout history have generally ended up in ruins.
I'm late to the party, and if my view has been covered, then great, but here it is:
NO. I applaud our men and women in the services, and I also greatly appreciate every other professional and volunteer who serve our neighbors in many varied capacities.
But I would love to have a constitutional amendment that says the following:
1) Any candidate for the presidency shall be a regular armed services veteran with at least a good conduct discharge. No National Guard or Reserve service.
2) That candidate shall also qualify for at least a TOP SECRET security clearance BEFORE the election, and if not, then REMOVED from the ballot!
I'm late to the party, and if my view has been covered, then great, but here it is:
NO. I applaud our men and women in the services, and I also greatly appreciate every other professional and volunteer who serve our neighbors in many varied capacities.
But I would love to have a constitutional amendment that says the following:
1) Any candidate for the presidency shall be a regular armed services veteran with at least a good conduct discharge. No National Guard or Reserve service.
2) That candidate shall also qualify for at least a TOP SECRET security clearance BEFORE the election, and if not, then REMOVED from the ballot!
I definitely support item #2 but I think there is a lot of wisdom in our system, that is, civilian control over the military. Many presidents in the past were veterans, and that's great. But the active component of the U.S. military is smaller now than, say, post WWII-Vietnam and it gets even smaller when considered as a percentage of the population. The ranks of willing and eligible candidates may be a bit thin if we institute this policy.
#2, definitely. I'd support that for the House and Senate as well, and in the event a sitting congressional member or senator does something that renders him or her ineligible for the clearance he/she should be unable to continue to hold the seat. The state represented would then have to hold a special election.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
