What would the founding fathers think about this.

[DSchmitt]

ouengr, a voice of reason.[#ditto]

[Anonymous]

Regardless of if this war if for "democracy" or for "oil", I seriously doubt anyone that died on September 11th would want 2000 more of their fellow citizens to die for them.

There is a saying "Charity starts at home". When there is less poverty , less homelessness, less hardship overall here at home I might believe Bush has interests other than his own and his "base" as he calls the "haves and the have mores".

I was incensed by September 11th, I was thrilled when we invaded Afghanistan and again when we went into Iraq. I stood by Bush ,even though I consider myself a Democrat, when he unveiled the "Mission Accomplished" banner. Even for awhile after that I still thought we had done the right thing.

Then more guys started dying, more troops started going over there. When a mission is "accomplished" we are supposed to ramp down, not up. When it started coming out that the intelligence was flawed I didn't want to believe it at first but since it was the same news agencies that had led me to believe we were right to go into Iraq why shouldn't I believe them when they have new information.


I want to say that I totally support the military-they had no choice. They are doing the job they signed up for. The problem is they are obeying faulty orders given by people that ( I don't think anyway) really don't have the best interests of this country or the men they are commanding at heart.

I also don't think we can just pull out-the war has destroyed so much that we have to clean up our mess. Were we to just leave things as they are the warlords would take over and everything we supposedly fought to end would come back to being.

[ouengr]

I too am very concerned about the continual loss of Americans lives in Iraq. I believe that much of the violence could be quelled if we were willing to accept limited civilian casulties. At the present time we seem to be willing to accept the deaths of our soldiers instead of allowing for the use of tactics that could break the will of the insurgency. We need to free the hands of out military and allow them to do their job. War is an ugly thing and things will happen that do not make since back home. We have good men and women who are trained to do the job. We need to let them do it and not second guess their every action. There is a apolitical was to deal with US Military personell that do not act in accordance with the UCMJ and this procees should be followed. We must not try our soldiers in the stateside media for doing what is neccessary to win the war. The enemy that we face knows our weaknesses and knows how to manipulate the media.
I do not know what we need to do to end the insurgency, but I have heard far to many time from our soldiers that they feel as though their hands are tied and that they are not able to do what is neccessary to end the conflict.

When President Bush gave the speech abourd the Aircraft Carrier with the Mission Accomplished, my reccollection was that he was referring to the removal of saddam from office. I also believe that he indicated that we continued to face challenges in the reconstruction of Iraq. Personally I believe that the banner in the back ground of his speech only confused the message and was a mistake. I understand that the purpose of his speech was to honor the sacrafice and the success of the early phases of Iraqi Freedom.

[Anonymous]

Big_Girl_4005 and ouengr,

You have stated very eloquently what so many others have tried to say, but unfortunately got caught up in their emotions. I was rather surprised by how irate some people were getting. Many of them had in the past posted very informative and interesting threads and topics. But this was getting absurd.

I remember reading somewhere that the two things one should never discuss unless you want an argument are politics and religon.

Thank you both for your clarity.


So...........who wants to discuss the existence / nonexistence of God? [}:)]

[jockellis]

G'day, Y'all,
James,
You may recall that the early American government provided for post roads, which of course were not made of 4x4 treated posts, but were for the postal riders to use while delivering the mail. While Jefferson, Madison, et al, were a bunch of theorists with their own views on what a democrarcy should be, George Washington was a pragmatist who understood very well that a government had to provide certain things for the states and people to survive the real world. At the time of his death, the only railroads were coal minetrains hauled by horses. The 29 mph recorded by the steam locomotive 30 years later would have been considered HSR. Knowing how Washington felt about being out of touch with his troops during battle and with those in other areas of the conflict, I think that he would have been the first to approve of a system which would have allowed him to send orders from one end of the country to the other in the dizzying speed of about a day rather than a couple of weeks or so. I don't think that as the centuries progressed he'd expect it to stay at that same speed. As a farmer, he understood the need to have income when you have outgo. He was very, very adamant that whatever Mount Vernon did promised a profit. He would have been renting out the railroad track down the eastern seaboard and turning a profit for the government.
Jock Ellis
Cumming, GA US of A

[dharmon]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Lotus098

Did you serve? Are your children serving? Are any Democrats children serving?

My parents are Democrats...and I am serving...right now, so you you can continue to spout whatever.....

[DSchmitt]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jockellis

G'day, Y'all,
James,
You may recall that the early American government provided for post roads, which of course were not made of 4x4 treated posts, but were for the postal riders to use while delivering the mail. While Jefferson, Madison, et al, were a bunch of theorists with their own views on what a democrarcy should be, George Washington was a pragmatist who understood very well that a government had to provide certain things for the states and people to survive the real world. At the time of his death, the only railroads were coal minetrains hauled by horses. The 29 mph recorded by the steam locomotive 30 years later would have been considered HSR. Knowing how Washington felt about being out of touch with his troops during battle and with those in other areas of the conflict, I think that he would have been the first to approve of a system which would have allowed him to send orders from one end of the country to the other in the dizzying speed of about a day rather than a couple of weeks or so. I don't think that as the centuries progressed he'd expect it to stay at that same speed. As a farmer, he understood the need to have income when you have outgo. He was very, very adamant that whatever Mount Vernon did promised a profit. He would have been renting out the railroad track down the eastern seaboard and turning a profit for the government.
Jock Ellis
Cumming, GA US of A

The Federal Government has been involved in the funding and building of transportation facilities from it's founding.

As I have pointed out several times in this thread, Jefferson was not against spending Federal money on transportation facilities. The Gallatin Report which established the basic policy for financing transportation facilities came from his Administration.

The primary question regarding Federal funding of AMTRAK, HSR or any other transportation mode are: 1. Does it serve a national need? 2. Will it yield a reasonable return on investment? 3. Does it serve national defence?

In the 1800's the goverment decided that for rail across the American west that the answer to these qustions was yes.

Today with the automobile/highway, air transportation, and an established private rail system to haul freight , the debate is whether Federal spendind is justifiable for AMTRAK and/or HSR.

[edkowal]

I've not been paying attention to this thread for a number of days, but it's certainly gratifying to see that the discussion has managed to remain on-topic, reasonable, and interesting, without major bouts of irrationality, name calling, mis-spellings, and personal vitriol.

-Ed

[Anonymous]

Ed, was that sarcastic, or not?

[Big_Boy_4005]

QUOTE: Originally posted by edkowal

I've not been paying attention to this thread for a number of days, but it's certainly gratifying to see that the discussion has managed to remain on-topic, reasonable, and interesting, without major bouts of irrationality, name calling, mis-spellings, and personal vitriol.

-Ed

Gee Ed, either you are being sarcastic, or you missed reading 6 pages in the middle. Please use more smileys so we can tell. [swg]

[edkowal]

Was going for irony rather than sarcasm.

-Ed

[Big_Boy_4005]

Ed, unfortunately we don't have the "eyeroll" smiley in our forum library, but there are outside sources of smileys available on the web. Actually the [banghead] and [sigh] work well.[;)]

[rvos1979]

Munch, munch, munch.... OWWW!!!! #^^# seeds!!

Munch, munch, munch........

Anyone for popcorn? I've got chocolate and caramel corn as well........


Randy

[blhanel]

I can check and see if they're done with the popper over at the diner, and wheel it back over here!

I have to agree with Big_Girl_4005 and ouengr re the side topic. Now if we could just prevent the idiots in this world from recruiting and training more idiots, maybe the government would be able to afford considering HSR.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Big_Girl_4005

Regardless of if this war if for "democracy" or for "oil", I seriously doubt anyone that died on September 11th would want 2000 more of their fellow citizens to die for them.

There is a saying "Charity starts at home". When there is less poverty , less homelessness, less hardship overall here at home I might believe Bush has interests other than his own and his "base" as he calls the "haves and the have mores".

I was incensed by September 11th, I was thrilled when we invaded Afghanistan and again when we went into Iraq. I stood by Bush ,even though I consider myself a Democrat, when he unveiled the "Mission Accomplished" banner. Even for awhile after that I still thought we had done the right thing.

Then more guys started dying, more troops started going over there. When a mission is "accomplished" we are supposed to ramp down, not up. When it started coming out that the intelligence was flawed I didn't want to believe it at first but since it was the same news agencies that had led me to believe we were right to go into Iraq why shouldn't I believe them when they have new information.


I want to say that I totally support the military-they had no choice. They are doing the job they signed up for. The problem is they are obeying faulty orders given by people that ( I don't think anyway) really don't have the best interests of this country or the men they are commanding at heart.

I also don't think we can just pull out-the war has destroyed so much that we have to clean up our mess. Were we to just leave things as they are the warlords would take over and everything we supposedly fought to end would come back to being.

Therein lies your hypocrasy. Those same news services did mention that the intellegence turned out to be faulty to a certain degree (yes, there were no WMD's found, but there were WMD plans found, buildings that could only be designed for the purpose of manufacturing WMD's, traces of WMD material such as yellow cake uranium), yet somehow you and the others are blaming Bush for the faulty intellegence. Don't you know that when a new President takes office, he inherents the CIA, State Department, et al, of his predecessor. You can't make wholesale replacements of CIA agents out in the field just because a new Administration has taken office. You can't make wholesale replacements of diplomats and State Department beauracrats just because a new Administration has taken over. Like Rumsfeld said, you don't go to war with the army you wish you had, you go to war with the army that you've got. The same holds for those other agencies - you don't go to war with the CIA you wish you had, you go to war based on the CIA you've got. I for one wish it had been possible to fire every single one of the Clintonista's that had inflitrated the CIA and State Department when Bush came to office. I have no doubt that if that could have been availed, we would have had a different outcome of events, including the probability that 9-11 never happens.

You make the allegation that the President, whatever his faults may be, does not have the best interests of the nation at heart. Tell me, do you think Clinton had the best interests of the nation at heart when he bombed the hell out of our ally Serbia? What did he accomplish with that war, other than to divert attention away from the Lewinsky scandal? "But no one died when Clinton lied" is your mantra, yet 10,000 Serbs died needlessly. Well, at least your side admits Clinton lied, and therein lies the basis for your hatred of Bush, in that you assume the worst in him based on your assessment of Clinton's character. Every president slides to the lowest common denominator in your narrow view, so you assume Bush lied about WMD's because you are so used to the lies of Clinton that you think such action is par for the course for US Presidents.

The truth is, you are right to assume Clinton did not have the best interests of the nation at heart, because that fits his personallity profile, e.g. it was all about him, not us. That's one of the prima facia aspects of today's Democrats, it's all about what's best for the party, and screw the nation in the process. Republicans don't think like that, they put the nation first, even to the point of being politically naive. Sometimes I wi***he Republicans would play as dirty as the Democrats just to keep the slime from regenerating into office, but they just won't play that game.

Bush has the best interests of the nation at heart, on that you can rely. Whether his actions are the best option, or if there are other things that would work better for the current situation is a viable subject of debate. The problem is, your side doesn't want to discuss different ideas, you just want to undermine our President and the armed forces, and somehow ride that bandwagon from Hell to victory in 2006. "Support our troops, oppose the war" is one of the dumbest slogans I have ever heard. Kind of in the vein of "Support your church, but don't attend services", or "Support your team, oppose them playing the game".

[zardoz]

Blah, blah, blah.

Yadda, yadda, yadda.

Whatever.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz[zzz][zzz][zzz][zzz]

[oltmannd]

QUOTE:

Bush has the best interests of the nation at heart, on that you can rely. Whether his actions are the best option, or if there are other things that would work better for the current situation is a viable subject of debate. The problem is, your side doesn't want to discuss different ideas, you just want to undermine our President and the armed forces, and somehow ride that bandwagon from Hell to victory in 2006. "Support our troops, oppose the war" is one of the dumbest slogans I have ever heard. Kind of in the vein of "Support your church, but don't attend services", or "Support your team, oppose them playing the game".

Egads! I actually agree with Dave!