Supreme Court Upholds 2nd Amendment...

[Al Agnew]

Sorry, can't quite agree. We're getting far off the topic here, but if you were a terrorist and your ultimate goal was the destruction of the United States, would you rather fight the U.S. military in the Middle East, or blow up unprotected civilians in the U.S.? If your answer was to fight the military, then you're giving the terrorists more honor than I think they deserve. How in the world can you think that giving them a hard target in Iraq is keeping them from attacking a soft target here? The only thing in that vein that putting U.S. soldiers in Iraq has accomplished is to give the radicals a target that the average Islamist can admire them for attacking. They get more support from the Islamic "street" for fighting us in Iraq than they would if they did another 9/11. If they had the means and the will, I think they would have already attacked the U.S. again, regardless of whether we were in Iraq or not.

You simply CANNOT equate Iraq with 9/11. The links are very tenuous at best. There wasn't an al Queda presence in Iraq until we got rid of Saddam. There still isn't all that much of one. I will never believe that the main reason for going into Iraq was because it was a threat to the U.S. I think it was done mainly to mold one Middle Eastern country with a lot of oil into a Western style democracy that would be friendly to the U.S., so that in the future there would be at least one stable and friendly country over there with oil, in case Saudi Arabia fell to the radicals that infest it.

[Trav]

Valid point Al, but lets not forget we needed a strong hold in the area and years from now it will pay off. You also make a good point that most the terrorist of 9-11 were Saudi. And if we are to push the buttons of the Saudi government then we must have a back up in the oil region. All this is an orchestrate to our security as a nation. Militarily and Economically. This whole thing isnt black and white. There is alot of issues and cards being played here.

To say it was wrong is like saying FDR ruined the US economy by starting welfare and Social Security. Some legacies are started with anomosity. FDR had alot of people outraged with his policies. But he is seen as a great Prez today. I say this being a hard core Republican.

Abe Lincoln was probably the most hated Prez of all time until Goerge W, but we put his actions right up there with Martin King! I would be safe to bet that the Prez that handled 9-11 and the war on terror will be known in high merits in the future.

There were 2.5 million union soldiers in the civil war. 750, 000 of them were German immigrants fleeing a war torn fight for democracy. If it werent for those Battle savvy soldiers this country will still be divided. I only bring that up because that is what we have in the Mid East. Battle savvy soldiers with strong beliefs that they are in the right and we are in the wrong.

Sure, they would rather have a soft target and thier promise of multiple virgins after death, but our prescence in thier holy land will attract them closer to thier home. It is inconveniant enough for just myself to travel around so I know it would be prefered to lay roadside bombs and be the cowards they are.

All that and a burning hornets nest, I am still throwing rocks! Haha

[bigredbirdfan]

Speaking of a beauracracy not being held accountable...how about our current beauracracy? $9.4 trillion dollar National debt. $450 billion dollars per year in interest payments on that debt. $300 economic stimulus check...the American people being lied to in order to justify war with Iraq....priceless.

Is there anything about the topic in this I think the discussion has led elsewhere?

[Fishhand]

There's been many leaders in the past who've been very inspirational, but have ended up doing much harm to their courtry and the world. I've been living in the South-Chicago suburbs for a little under a year now, and will be moving back in August. People are stuck on hand-outs here. They expect the government to provide everything they need, and couldn't fathom being responsible for themselves - just like in New Orleans with Katrina. Obama's policies - and Democrat policies by extension - do little to abate this problem. In fact, most of their policies perpetuate it.

People dependant on the government are not free. Their well-being is in the hands of the government - inparticular a beauracracy that's not accountable. Government can't give freedom, it can only take it away. It can't create money, it can only redistribute it. (Even if it prints more it's not creating wealth since the additional dollars decrease the value of the dollars that are currently in circulation.)

My statement regarding the National Debt was not off topic. I was responding to a portion of Catman's post about beauracracy. Not that I disagree with all of what he was saying, just that, in my opinion, our government needs to be held accountable for the hole they're putting us in. The beauracracy of non elected officials is not the problem. I think either you or Trav brought the Obama and McCain debate into this thread. My statement was a sarcastic attempt along those lines...The Republican party (McCain) will continue to deficit spend and the Democrat Party (Obama) will tax and spend. I personally don't like to spend money I don't have. Oh my, I might be a Conservative!

[bigredbirdfan]

My comment was not necessarily directed at you Jim. I was just trying to say it has gotten off topic.

[gonefishin]

Sorry, can't quite agree. We're getting far off the topic here, but if you were a terrorist and your ultimate goal was the destruction of the United States, would you rather fight the U.S. military in the Middle East, or blow up unprotected civilians in the U.S.? If your answer was to fight the military, then you're giving the terrorists more honor than I think they deserve. How in the world can you think that giving them a hard target in Iraq is keeping them from attacking a soft target here? The only thing in that vein that putting U.S. soldiers in Iraq has accomplished is to give the radicals a target that the average Islamist can admire them for attacking. They get more support from the Islamic "street" for fighting us in Iraq than they would if they did another 9/11. If they had the means and the will, I think they would have already attacked the U.S. again, regardless of whether we were in Iraq or not.

You simply CANNOT equate Iraq with 9/11. The links are very tenuous at best. There wasn't an al Queda presence in Iraq until we got rid of Saddam. There still isn't all that much of one. I will never believe that the main reason for going into Iraq was because it was a threat to the U.S. I think it was done mainly to mold one Middle Eastern country with a lot of oil into a Western style democracy that would be friendly to the U.S., so that in the future there would be at least one stable and friendly country over there with oil, in case Saudi Arabia fell to the radicals that infest it.

Yes this is off topic but, is kind of related. Having the right to bear arms allows us to defend our homes against foreign invasion which is what the terrorists would like to do.

The whole 'cost' argument is a matter of perspective. Yes the war is expensive but, what would it cost if we fought them here? The strategy is a very simple one that has been used for centuries. Attack them with a strong force on their home turf they have to pull their fighters in to defend their home turf and are hence are put in a position of defense rather than offense. Simple and effective and costs much less in infrastructure damage to our country.

The argument you use was also used in the 1930's when Hitler was taking over Europe and sinking our ships off shore here in America. The argument was Ohhh, the cost! and we don't need to get involved. Long story made short is history now tells us how much it cost to wait and deal with it later.

I have to disagree with you and anyone else who believes this argument. The argument is flat wrong.

[Trav]

Shoot me if I am wrong, ....but isnt deficit spending the American way? Do we not have morgages, car payments, and credit cards?

[Fishhand]

You're right, Trav, it seems deficit spending is the American way. I'll shut up now. This forum thing can turn into a full time job at the rate I type.

[bigredbirdfan]

Easy Trav.

In my opinion that is exactly why we have a very weak dollar. To much debt. I swore to myself I wouldn't comment on this topic anymore but couldn't. Bye Bye now.

[Trav]

Funny Jim. I type rather fast. Its correcting all the mispelled words that gets me. Haha

Red, your right. But if we didnt go into some debt we wouldnt have anything! Everything is just too darn expensive!