U.S. lowers it's flag.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RetiredJedi

The government actually works for us and if they fail to do their job we can fire them.

Go Noles >>-----;;>>

---

When I said support them I was referring to the previous question asked about why we pay taxes. I did NOT mean support whatever decisions they decide to make.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShortStop

When I said support them I was referring to the previous question asked about why we pay taxes. I did NOT mean support whatever decisions they decide to make.

---

Cool...understand.

This most recent war in Iraq should not have happened because we should have either dealt with Sadaam the first time around or washed our hands of it. It is an example of what happens when you halfway address a situation--it comes back to bite you in the keister.

BTW, war as a form of diplomacy, as in win their hearts and minds, is a gross futility. People forget that war is what happens when diplomacy has failed and a conflict can only be resolved by the stronger party/parties imposing their will upon the weaker. Sometimes war is necessary and I'd point to WWII as one that needed to be fought because the Nazi party not only had steamrollered over Germany and surrounding countries but was gaining enough strength to potentially dominate the planet if someone hadn't stood up and imposed their will that they had gone too far.

Then, there are tragically stupid wars. Vietnam. The war with Vietnam was not a war about anything in Vietnam. It was a pissing contest between the US and China. Since we were not willing to take on China, we should have stayed the heck out. Either go to war or do not go to war. Anything else burns up lives in vain on both sides of the table until someone decides to call it quits.

Iraq was kind of a stupid war. There were indications that WMDs existed. Saddam was not exactly a trustworthy kinda guy when he said there weren't. Heck, I'm glad the SOB got take out--it should have been done ages ago. But he was dead a good while back and we've been involved in what amounts to a family feud within a country. We should have gotten out a ways back. The factions within that land have to come to their own solutions. We cannot prevent intermural bloodshed by being unwelcome referees.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShortStop

We are suppose to support the government. Because the government is suppose to be FOR the people. That is not necessarily the case anymore...

---

Right. So, your grandpa who worked 30-50 years for a money hungry boss who decided not to match his retirement is out of money now and receives SSI. Are you saying he no longer deserves support from the people he supported his whole life? Does he not deserve medical care? This is the support I'm talking about. Life is tough right now for everybody and we are still paying taxes, in fact, there are talking about increasing the taxes even more and have done so recently. Your saying we should not recieve support in times like this. What about the 12,000,000 Americans who are going to run out of benefits on January 1st if the government doesn't reach an agreement by December 31st this year? Mind you, a lot of those people are not scum bags, they have worked a long time in established careers(paying taxes the whole time, some of them paying large amounts). IMO, your "daycare" statement was cold hearted and uneducated. The money would have been well spent here in our country taking care of people like this instead of funding a political war...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RichsBallPythons

Or this move back home could be due to the NADD act coming into law come 2012.

Many say Obama will Veto it but its 50 50 on whats going to happen.

---

Rich does it have anything to do with this??

http://news.yahoo.com/us-congress-cl...213727175.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by twistedtails

Rich does it have anything to do with this??

http://news.yahoo.com/us-congress-cl...213727175.html

---

Corrected. It passed the House on December 14th, 2011(283-136) and passed the Senate on December 15th, 2011(86-13) and is expected to be signed by Obama today(December 16th, 2011). He did threaten veto, but, has withdrawn the threat.

Information can be found here..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationa...horization_Act

I'm having a hard time with the new law that allows the government to detain American citizens, SUSPECTED of terroists acts, indefinately without a trial. Does the IV and VI Amendment mean anything? I have my own beliefs about someone who leaves and fights for the other side on the battlefield or actual terrorists. But to hold American citizens SUSPECTED of terrorism without a trial just opens doors to other things. That means that the talking heads in the government get to decide what is considered a suspected terrorist.

"Military given go-ahead to detain US terrorist suspects without trial"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RetiredJedi

I'm having a hard time with the new law that allows the government to detain American citizens, SUSPECTED of terroists acts, indefinately without a trial. Does the IV and VI Amendment mean anything? I have my own beliefs about someone who leaves and fights for the other side on the battlefield or actual terrorists. But to hold American citizens SUSPECTED of terrorism without a trial just opens doors to other things. That means that the talking heads in the government get to decide what is considered a suspected terrorist.

"Military given go-ahead to detain US terrorist suspects without trial"

---

The funniest thing of it all is the fact that Obama ordered the shutdown of Gitmo and now he is going to approve a bill like this?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by twistedtails

The funniest thing of it all is the fact that Obama ordered the shutdown of Gitmo and now he is going to approve a bill like this?

---

Good point. I almost forgot about the shut down part.

Not Only is he approving it, but hes tossing Bill of Rights out the window.