Dems lose control of Senate?

\\OFF-TOPIC// conversations about everything that has nothing to do with Conquer Club.

Moderators: Global Moderators, Community Team

Forum rules
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.

Postby happysadfun on Sun Dec 17, 2006 3:42 pm

Now let's get back on subject. Americans: Will the Dems lose control?
What do you think of Operation Surrender, being plotted by the Dems?
Ann Coulter vs. George Steph?
ImageChildren, this is what happens to hockey players, druggies, and Hillary Clinton.

Rope. Tree. Hillary. Some assembly required.
User avatar
Cadet happysadfun
 
Posts: 1251
Joined: Mon Jul 10, 2006 9:06 pm
Location: Haundin at DotSco, Being Sad that Mark Green Lost in Suburban Wisconsin

Postby vtmarik on Sun Dec 17, 2006 4:51 pm

happysadfun wrote:Now let's get back on subject. Americans: Will the Dems lose control?


Who cares? They both serve the same PACs.

What do you think of Operation Surrender, being plotted by the Dems?


Hubba-wha?

Ann Coulter vs. George Steph?


George is cute, but I'd still rather get at Ann. I'd let George get to second base.
Initiate discovery! Fire the Machines! Throw the switch Igor! THROW THE F***ING SWITCH!
User avatar
Cadet vtmarik
 
Posts: 3863
Joined: Mon May 15, 2006 9:51 am
Location: Riding on the waves of fear and loathing.

Postby spiesr on Sun Dec 17, 2006 5:05 pm

On a positive note, at least this reminds people that South Dakota exsists, because I know alot of people tend to forget.
User avatar
Captain spiesr
Suggestions Moderator
Suggestions Moderator
 
Posts: 2806
Joined: Mon May 08, 2006 10:52 am
Location: South Dakota
Medals: 23
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (1)
Assassin Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (1)
Ratings Achievement (3) General Achievement (5) General Contribution (2)

Postby Backglass on Sun Dec 17, 2006 5:16 pm

happysadfun wrote:Ann Coulter vs. George Steph?


Ann Coulter would win hands down. If she didnt scare him to death with that horse-face, the acid spewing from her mouth would! :lol:

I would like to see Ann Coulter and Nancy Grace in a cage-match...and hope they end up killing each other! I have never seen two nastier women.
Image
The Pro-Tip®, SkyDaddy® and Image are registered trademarks of Backglass Heavy Industries.
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class Backglass
 
Posts: 2212
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2006 5:48 pm
Location: New York
Medals: 8
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1)
Fog of War Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (1)

Postby reverend_kyle on Sun Dec 17, 2006 5:39 pm

happysadfun wrote:I am not anti- any civilzed country. I believe that we should be carpet bombing Syria back to the Stone Age and at war preventing Iran from getting nukes.



And then with all of our army elsewhere we can endanger the rest of our citizens with no one here to protect them, or if we get attacked by someone else like say north korea no one to protect us over there..


Now do you see how preemptive attacks hurt us?
DANCING MUSTARD FOR POOP IN '08!
User avatar
Sergeant reverend_kyle
 
Posts: 9268
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2006 4:08 pm
Location: 1000 post club
Medals: 13
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (2) Freestyle Achievement (1) Teammate Achievement (2)
Cross-Map Achievement (1) Map Contribution (1) Tournament Contribution (1)

Postby DogDoc on Sun Dec 17, 2006 5:57 pm

reverend_kyle wrote:
happysadfun wrote:I am not anti- any civilzed country. I believe that we should be carpet bombing Syria back to the Stone Age and at war preventing Iran from getting nukes.



And then with all of our army elsewhere we can endanger the rest of our citizens with no one here to protect them, or if we get attacked by someone else like say north korea no one to protect us over there..


Now do you see how preemptive attacks hurt us?


Oh my God. This is surely a sign of the coming of the Apocalypse. I actually agree with the Reverend on this one.

We can't afford to spread our troops out any more than they already are. North Korea is a powder keg with a madman holding a lit cigarette and if we get too bogged down in too many other places, he's apt to try to take advantage of it.

And don't forget about China. Everything is hunky-dory right now with them because they're burying us in the free trade department but remember they still regard Taiwan as a renegade province. Eventually they will want them (read: require them) to rejoin the Mainland.

And as much as the idea of Iran having nukes troubles me, an attack is not the solution. Not with our current troop strength. As it is now, units are already on their 3rd and 4th tours as they keep cycling back to Iraq. Even our National Guard units are spent.

People who know me can attest I am no dove when it comes to global politics, but reality is a sad fact of life. The United States cannot afford to become embroiled in another major conflict until Iraq is put to rest.
WARNING: The light at the end of the tunnel is a train.
User avatar
Corporal DogDoc
 
Posts: 514
Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2006 10:13 pm

Postby reverend_kyle on Sun Dec 17, 2006 6:03 pm

happysadfun wrote:Now let's get back on subject. Americans: Will the Dems lose control?
What do you think of Operation Surrender, being plotted by the Dems?
Ann Coulter vs. George Steph?



And the second two, what did they have to do with the original subject?
DANCING MUSTARD FOR POOP IN '08!
User avatar
Sergeant reverend_kyle
 
Posts: 9268
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2006 4:08 pm
Location: 1000 post club
Medals: 13
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (2) Freestyle Achievement (1) Teammate Achievement (2)
Cross-Map Achievement (1) Map Contribution (1) Tournament Contribution (1)

Postby vtmarik on Sun Dec 17, 2006 6:06 pm

DogDoc wrote:Oh my God. This is surely a sign of the coming of the Apocalypse. I actually agree with the Reverend on this one.

We can't afford to spread our troops out any more than they already are. North Korea is a powder keg with a madman holding a lit cigarette and if we get too bogged down in too many other places, he's apt to try to take advantage of it.

And don't forget about China. Everything is hunky-dory right now with them because they're burying us in the free trade department but remember they still regard Taiwan as a renegade province. Eventually they will want them (read: require them) to rejoin the Mainland.

And as much as the idea of Iran having nukes troubles me, an attack is not the solution. Not with our current troop strength. As it is now, units are already on their 3rd and 4th tours as they keep cycling back to Iraq. Even our National Guard units are spent.

People who know me can attest I am no dove when it comes to global politics, but reality is a sad fact of life. The United States cannot afford to become embroiled in another major conflict until Iraq is put to rest.


Agreed. We can all rant and complain about the war, but regardless of how we got there we are there now. Let's finish the job properly so we don't get dragged back in there for pulling out cold and leaving an untrained force there to deal with the fermenting rebellion.

We cannot afford to become a war-based nation at this moment, we don't have the personnel, the money, or the clear focus of purpose that we need.
Initiate discovery! Fire the Machines! Throw the switch Igor! THROW THE F***ING SWITCH!
User avatar
Cadet vtmarik
 
Posts: 3863
Joined: Mon May 15, 2006 9:51 am
Location: Riding on the waves of fear and loathing.

Postby Stopper on Sun Dec 17, 2006 8:16 pm

happysadfun wrote:I am not anti- any civilzed country. I believe that we should be carpet bombing Syria back to the Stone Age and at war preventing Iran from getting nukes. I believe that Americans know more about American government than they do, say the British or Irish of Brazilian systems. And since the British and Irish and Brazilian systems don't affect them, they shouldn't go on arguing about them. And Irish shouldn't argue about British of American or Brazilian politics, because it doesn't affect them. If it doesn't affect you, you tend to not really see it as how it is, but a little skewed. For example, I have no idea what the Oireachtas has the right to decide, or how many there are, or anything. Plus, it doesn't affect me, so I shouldn't argue about it. I can learn, such as I just learned that there are three tiers, but I still shouldn't argue about it. On the other side of the equation, Qeee1 shouldn't argue about Congress, because he probably doesn't know much about Congress, and probably doesn't want to. It doesn't affect him, so why should he even care? You can care about it, such as how I oddly keep track of the Canadian parliament, but I still shouldn't argue about it because I don't live there and it doesn't affect me.


Eire is a tiny country with no military to speak of, so Irish politics generally don't affect anyone except the Irish, so no-one except the Irish gives two shits about them.

America is not a tiny country, has a large military, and is quite interventionist, so Amercian politics affect many people beyond America, so lots of non-Americans know quite a lot about American politics. That's the difference.
User avatar
Lieutenant Stopper
 
Posts: 2244
Joined: Mon May 29, 2006 5:14 am
Location: Supposed to be working...

Postby reverend_kyle on Mon Dec 18, 2006 2:35 am

Stopper wrote:
happysadfun wrote:I am not anti- any civilzed country. I believe that we should be carpet bombing Syria back to the Stone Age and at war preventing Iran from getting nukes. I believe that Americans know more about American government than they do, say the British or Irish of Brazilian systems. And since the British and Irish and Brazilian systems don't affect them, they shouldn't go on arguing about them. And Irish shouldn't argue about British of American or Brazilian politics, because it doesn't affect them. If it doesn't affect you, you tend to not really see it as how it is, but a little skewed. For example, I have no idea what the Oireachtas has the right to decide, or how many there are, or anything. Plus, it doesn't affect me, so I shouldn't argue about it. I can learn, such as I just learned that there are three tiers, but I still shouldn't argue about it. On the other side of the equation, Qeee1 shouldn't argue about Congress, because he probably doesn't know much about Congress, and probably doesn't want to. It doesn't affect him, so why should he even care? You can care about it, such as how I oddly keep track of the Canadian parliament, but I still shouldn't argue about it because I don't live there and it doesn't affect me.


Eire is a tiny country with no military to speak of, so Irish politics generally don't affect anyone except the Irish, so no-one except the Irish gives two shits about them.

America is not a tiny country, has a large military, and is quite interventionist, so Amercian politics affect many people beyond America, so lots of non-Americans know quite a lot about American politics. That's the difference.



and back when America was like Eire, no one gave two shits about their politics.
DANCING MUSTARD FOR POOP IN '08!
User avatar
Sergeant reverend_kyle
 
Posts: 9268
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2006 4:08 pm
Location: 1000 post club
Medals: 13
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (2) Freestyle Achievement (1) Teammate Achievement (2)
Cross-Map Achievement (1) Map Contribution (1) Tournament Contribution (1)

Postby ksslemp on Mon Dec 18, 2006 1:04 pm

vtmarik wrote:
DogDoc wrote:Oh my God. This is surely a sign of the coming of the Apocalypse. I actually agree with the Reverend on this one.

We can't afford to spread our troops out any more than they already are. North Korea is a powder keg with a madman holding a lit cigarette and if we get too bogged down in too many other places, he's apt to try to take advantage of it.

And don't forget about China. Everything is hunky-dory right now with them because they're burying us in the free trade department but remember they still regard Taiwan as a renegade province. Eventually they will want them (read: require them) to rejoin the Mainland.

And as much as the idea of Iran having nukes troubles me, an attack is not the solution. Not with our current troop strength. As it is now, units are already on their 3rd and 4th tours as they keep cycling back to Iraq. Even our National Guard units are spent.

People who know me can attest I am no dove when it comes to global politics, but reality is a sad fact of life. The United States cannot afford to become embroiled in another major conflict until Iraq is put to rest.


Agreed. We can all rant and complain about the war, but regardless of how we got there we are there now. Let's finish the job properly so we don't get dragged back in there for pulling out cold and leaving an untrained force there to deal with the fermenting rebellion.

We cannot afford to become a war-based nation at this moment, we don't have the personnel, the money, or the clear focus of purpose that we need.


I agree with most of what you said, although I'm not sure if rebellion is the term i would have used.

In regards to the "War-Based Nation" sentence, I'm not sure if we really have a choice! At least a choice that we could live with.
User avatar
Major ksslemp
 
Posts: 482
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 11:30 pm
Location: Slemp, KY 41763 Pop. 'nough
Medals: 17
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (3)
Fog of War Achievement (2) Cross-Map Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (3)

Postby vtmarik on Mon Dec 18, 2006 2:12 pm

ksslemp wrote:I agree with most of what you said, although I'm not sure if rebellion is the term i would have used.


Well, if we were to leave, they'd set their sights on the new government. Insurgency, insurrection, rebellion; they're all synonyms.


In regards to the "War-Based Nation" sentence, I'm not sure if we really have a choice! At least a choice that we could live with.


We do have a choice. I mean, we're fighting in Iraq but we're talking to Iran and N. Korea. At the moment we just aren't equipped to fight any more wars.
Initiate discovery! Fire the Machines! Throw the switch Igor! THROW THE F***ING SWITCH!
User avatar
Cadet vtmarik
 
Posts: 3863
Joined: Mon May 15, 2006 9:51 am
Location: Riding on the waves of fear and loathing.

Postby ksslemp on Mon Dec 18, 2006 4:54 pm

vtmarik wrote:
ksslemp wrote:I agree with most of what you said, although I'm not sure if rebellion is the term i would have used.


Well, if we were to leave, they'd set their sights on the new government. Insurgency, insurrection, rebellion; they're all synonyms.


In regards to the "War-Based Nation" sentence, I'm not sure if we really have a choice! At least a choice that we could live with.


We do have a choice. I mean, we're fighting in Iraq but we're talking to Iran and N. Korea. At the moment we just aren't equipped to fight any more wars.


I'm saying, The War is coming to us whether we like it or not. whether we are prepared for it or not. That's what i meant by "might not have a choice".
User avatar
Major ksslemp
 
Posts: 482
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 11:30 pm
Location: Slemp, KY 41763 Pop. 'nough
Medals: 17
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (3)
Fog of War Achievement (2) Cross-Map Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (3)

Postby edmundomcpot on Mon Dec 18, 2006 5:04 pm

i think if anything they''l be a n.korea china war. It will be kin jong that starts it tho. china wont want to endanger there economy by going to war
Would you choose supremecy if it lead to isolation?

(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")
User avatar
Cook edmundomcpot
 
Posts: 464
Joined: Tue Aug 29, 2006 10:18 am
Location: N.wales
Medals: 2
Doubles Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1)

Postby vtmarik on Mon Dec 18, 2006 5:04 pm

ksslemp wrote:I'm saying, The War is coming to us whether we like it or not. whether we are prepared for it or not. That's what i meant by "might not have a choice".


Which is why, before that happens, we need to regroup and get our military back up to spec.

I think the first step would be to take away the "Commander-In-Chief" power from the President and promote/appoint a General to that position. The President, regardless of his military background, is a civilian leader and he needs to focus on that. Congress would still have oversight over the C-in-C, so there needen't be much worry over the General taking over in a coup.
Initiate discovery! Fire the Machines! Throw the switch Igor! THROW THE F***ING SWITCH!
User avatar
Cadet vtmarik
 
Posts: 3863
Joined: Mon May 15, 2006 9:51 am
Location: Riding on the waves of fear and loathing.

Postby Stopper on Mon Dec 18, 2006 5:31 pm

vtmarik wrote:Which is why, before that happens, we need to regroup and get our military back up to spec.

I think the first step would be to take away the "Commander-In-Chief" power from the President and promote/appoint a General to that position. The President, regardless of his military background, is a civilian leader and he needs to focus on that. Congress would still have oversight over the C-in-C, so there needen't be much worry over the General taking over in a coup.


You people are making me nervous with this kind of talk. The only genuine war the US is in is one of its own making. Plus, shifting control of the military TO the military is always a bad idea - do you think men with lots of guns and bombs care about "oversight"? You just need to elect a half-decent president.

Give that Barack Obama fellow a pop, or failing that, Hillary Clinton - I've always fancied her.
User avatar
Lieutenant Stopper
 
Posts: 2244
Joined: Mon May 29, 2006 5:14 am
Location: Supposed to be working...

Postby vtmarik on Mon Dec 18, 2006 5:36 pm

Stopper wrote:
vtmarik wrote:Which is why, before that happens, we need to regroup and get our military back up to spec.

I think the first step would be to take away the "Commander-In-Chief" power from the President and promote/appoint a General to that position. The President, regardless of his military background, is a civilian leader and he needs to focus on that. Congress would still have oversight over the C-in-C, so there needen't be much worry over the General taking over in a coup.


You people are making me nervous with this kind of talk. The only genuine war the US is in is one of its own making. Plus, shifting control of the military TO the military is always a bad idea - do you think men with lots of guns and bombs care about "oversight"? You just need to elect a half-decent president.

Give that Barack Obama fellow a pop, or failing that, Hillary Clinton - I've always fancied her.


It just seems to make sense to give control of the military to the military. That way we can avoid the thing we've got now with a president marching troops into Iraq on a personal vendetta.

That being said, if the current system continues, I'm hoping and praying for John McCain. Let's get someone in there who knows both the ups and the downs of being a soldier.
Initiate discovery! Fire the Machines! Throw the switch Igor! THROW THE F***ING SWITCH!
User avatar
Cadet vtmarik
 
Posts: 3863
Joined: Mon May 15, 2006 9:51 am
Location: Riding on the waves of fear and loathing.

Postby happysadfun on Mon Dec 18, 2006 6:06 pm

... We have bombs that could take out all of Manchuria. North Korea too. That'll rid us of quite a few idiots. Then we can bomb Syria back to the Stone Age and concrete over Iran and give it to the Iraqis so they'll shut up. :D I'd love that

BTW, every single NATO country has an obligation to be carpet bombing Syria. The Syrian Government was behind the torching of the Danish embassy in Syria, folks. And acts like that against any one of our brothers in NATO, according to the treaty, should result in us having the obligation to go to war with them, once we're done handling Iraq and giving a quick nuke to Pyongyang in a Trojan horse. Every single member of the North Atlantic Treaty Conference should be hacking away at the nation of Syria, reducing it to a large ruin of rubble, leaving a few signs that say, "NATO was here." Or does that rule not apply with the Liberals' precious Muslims?
ImageChildren, this is what happens to hockey players, druggies, and Hillary Clinton.

Rope. Tree. Hillary. Some assembly required.
User avatar
Cadet happysadfun
 
Posts: 1251
Joined: Mon Jul 10, 2006 9:06 pm
Location: Haundin at DotSco, Being Sad that Mark Green Lost in Suburban Wisconsin

Postby reverend_kyle on Mon Dec 18, 2006 6:17 pm

happysadfun wrote:... We have bombs that could take out all of Manchuria. North Korea too. That'll rid us of quite a few idiots. Then we can bomb Syria back to the Stone Age and concrete over Iran and give it to the Iraqis so they'll shut up. :D I'd love that

BTW, every single NATO country has an obligation to be carpet bombing Syria. The Syrian Government was behind the torching of the Danish embassy in Syria, folks. And acts like that against any one of our brothers in NATO, according to the treaty, should result in us having the obligation to go to war with them, once we're done handling Iraq and giving a quick nuke to Pyongyang in a Trojan horse. Every single member of the North Atlantic Treaty Conference should be hacking away at the nation of Syria, reducing it to a large ruin of rubble, leaving a few signs that say, "NATO was here." Or does that rule not apply with the Liberals' precious Muslims?



And all this happened because the democrats might lose the senate?


What ever happened to your idea of staying on topic?
DANCING MUSTARD FOR POOP IN '08!
User avatar
Sergeant reverend_kyle
 
Posts: 9268
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2006 4:08 pm
Location: 1000 post club
Medals: 13
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (2) Freestyle Achievement (1) Teammate Achievement (2)
Cross-Map Achievement (1) Map Contribution (1) Tournament Contribution (1)

Postby happysadfun on Mon Dec 18, 2006 6:20 pm

Stopper wrote:
vtmarik wrote:Which is why, before that happens, we need to regroup and get our military back up to spec.

I think the first step would be to take away the "Commander-In-Chief" power from the President and promote/appoint a General to that position. The President, regardless of his military background, is a civilian leader and he needs to focus on that. Congress would still have oversight over the C-in-C, so there needen't be much worry over the General taking over in a coup.


You people are making me nervous with this kind of talk. The only genuine war the US is in is one of its own making. Plus, shifting control of the military TO the military is always a bad idea - do you think men with lots of guns and bombs care about "oversight"? You just need to elect a half-decent president.

Give that Barack Obama fellow a pop, or failing that, Hillary Clinton - I've always fancied her.

Yes. We wanted to go to Iraq, and have no good reason to. Our president is a one-sided evil man. Hillary Clinton is a saving angel, and the Muslims are perfect people who practice a religion of peace, and America is the dumbest country to ever see the daylight. You are one twisted fellow, Stopper, if this is your delusional view of the world.

Yes, we made the war, Stopper, didn't we? I'll tell you who made the war! The terrorists. Not a good reason? Why, I'd say that people who destroyed of one of our national landmarks and killed 3000+ people purposely because Mohammed said so are people to go to war with. However much you may cringe in your hippie-painted peace-proclaiming turtle shell, there is evil in the world. And this evil destroys innocent lives. We have abortion to worry about, stem-cell research, and insane dictators who believe that their measly countries actually stand a chance against a united West. When a group of Holocaust-denying infidel-murdering woman-hating power-hungry Muslim extremists decides to hijack planes and crash them into some of the tallest, people-packed buildings to kill infidels and have sex with virgins in heaven, they WILL NOT go free. What did you propose, Stopper? Abandoning Iraq completely and making the government, which is shaping up decently, hate the West as much as the Iranian network of protegees? Not even going to war and letting the deliberate killing of 3000+ innocent people just minding their own business go unpunished, and the crazy terrorists run free. I bet if they flew jumbo-jets into some towers in London, you'd care a hell of a lot more. But America is evil, right Stopper? They're not perfect like you are, right Stopper?
ImageChildren, this is what happens to hockey players, druggies, and Hillary Clinton.

Rope. Tree. Hillary. Some assembly required.
User avatar
Cadet happysadfun
 
Posts: 1251
Joined: Mon Jul 10, 2006 9:06 pm
Location: Haundin at DotSco, Being Sad that Mark Green Lost in Suburban Wisconsin

Postby reverend_kyle on Mon Dec 18, 2006 6:48 pm

happysadfun wrote:
Stopper wrote:
vtmarik wrote:Which is why, before that happens, we need to regroup and get our military back up to spec.

I think the first step would be to take away the "Commander-In-Chief" power from the President and promote/appoint a General to that position. The President, regardless of his military background, is a civilian leader and he needs to focus on that. Congress would still have oversight over the C-in-C, so there needen't be much worry over the General taking over in a coup.


You people are making me nervous with this kind of talk. The only genuine war the US is in is one of its own making. Plus, shifting control of the military TO the military is always a bad idea - do you think men with lots of guns and bombs care about "oversight"? You just need to elect a half-decent president.

Give that Barack Obama fellow a pop, or failing that, Hillary Clinton - I've always fancied her.

Yes. We wanted to go to Iraq, and have no good reason to. Our president is a one-sided evil man. Hillary Clinton is a saving angel, and the Muslims are perfect people who practice a religion of peace, and America is the dumbest country to ever see the daylight. You are one twisted fellow, Stopper, if this is your delusional view of the world.

Yes, we made the war, Stopper, didn't we? I'll tell you who made the war! The terrorists. Not a good reason? Why, I'd say that people who destroyed of one of our national landmarks and killed 3000+ people purposely because Mohammed said so are people to go to war with. However much you may cringe in your hippie-painted peace-proclaiming turtle shell, there is evil in the world. And this evil destroys innocent lives. We have abortion to worry about, stem-cell research, and insane dictators who believe that their measly countries actually stand a chance against a united West. When a group of Holocaust-denying infidel-murdering woman-hating power-hungry Muslim extremists decides to hijack planes and crash them into some of the tallest, people-packed buildings to kill infidels and have sex with virgins in heaven, they WILL NOT go free. What did you propose, Stopper? Abandoning Iraq completely and making the government, which is shaping up decently, hate the West as much as the Iranian network of protegees? Not even going to war and letting the deliberate killing of 3000+ innocent people just minding their own business go unpunished, and the crazy terrorists run free. I bet if they flew jumbo-jets into some towers in London, you'd care a hell of a lot more. But America is evil, right Stopper? They're not perfect like you are, right Stopper?


People have never died in the name of christianity..


I will stand by that.
DANCING MUSTARD FOR POOP IN '08!
User avatar
Sergeant reverend_kyle
 
Posts: 9268
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2006 4:08 pm
Location: 1000 post club
Medals: 13
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (2) Freestyle Achievement (1) Teammate Achievement (2)
Cross-Map Achievement (1) Map Contribution (1) Tournament Contribution (1)

Postby AndyDufresne on Mon Dec 18, 2006 7:28 pm

vtmarik wrote:...It just seems to make sense to give control of the military to the military...

That sounds like giving prisoners control of the prison. :)


--Andy
User avatar
Sergeant AndyDufresne
Retired Administrator
 
Posts: 25469
Joined: Fri Mar 03, 2006 8:22 pm
Location: A Banana Palm in Zihuatanejo
Medals: 20
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (1)
Freestyle Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (1) Trench Warfare Achievement (1) Speed Achievement (1) Teammate Achievement (1)
Cross-Map Achievement (3) General Achievement (4) General Contribution (2)

Postby ksslemp on Mon Dec 18, 2006 8:25 pm

AndyDufresne wrote:
vtmarik wrote:...It just seems to make sense to give control of the military to the military...

That sounds like giving prisoners control of the prison. :)


--Andy


I agree. One of the Great things about America is the Civilian Controlled Military. Wouldn't have it any other way.
User avatar
Major ksslemp
 
Posts: 482
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 11:30 pm
Location: Slemp, KY 41763 Pop. 'nough
Medals: 17
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (3)
Fog of War Achievement (2) Cross-Map Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (3)

Postby DogDoc on Mon Dec 18, 2006 9:19 pm

Stopper wrote:
vtmarik wrote:Which is why, before that happens, we need to regroup and get our military back up to spec.

I think the first step would be to take away the "Commander-In-Chief" power from the President and promote/appoint a General to that position. The President, regardless of his military background, is a civilian leader and he needs to focus on that. Congress would still have oversight over the C-in-C, so there needen't be much worry over the General taking over in a coup.


You people are making me nervous with this kind of talk. The only genuine war the US is in is one of its own making. Plus, shifting control of the military TO the military is always a bad idea - do you think men with lots of guns and bombs care about "oversight"? You just need to elect a half-decent president.

Give that Barack Obama fellow a pop, or failing that, Hillary Clinton - I've always fancied her.


I don't know enough about Obama to dislike him yet but, well, if Hillary by some fate of the gods gets elected, then I'll be moving to the dark cold border country between England and Scotland. :)
WARNING: The light at the end of the tunnel is a train.
User avatar
Corporal DogDoc
 
Posts: 514
Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2006 10:13 pm

Postby DogDoc on Mon Dec 18, 2006 9:24 pm

vtmarik wrote:It just seems to make sense to give control of the military to the military. That way we can avoid the thing we've got now with a president marching troops into Iraq on a personal vendetta.

That being said, if the current system continues, I'm hoping and praying for John McCain. Let's get someone in there who knows both the ups and the downs of being a soldier.


Very bad idea. The Founding Fathers created a separation of powers for good reason - primarily to prevent a ruling monarchy or military dictatorship. Best not to screw with that.

By any chance, have you ever seen the movie "Seven Days in May"? You may want to watch it and then see if you think having a general as the CIC would be a good idea (Yeah, I realize it's only a movie, but . . . )
WARNING: The light at the end of the tunnel is a train.
User avatar
Corporal DogDoc
 
Posts: 514
Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2006 10:13 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Babble-On Five

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: jonesthecurl

Login