Troop Reduction Is Possible, Bush Says

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

How do you figure he does not have a legal one. The people of this country have the final say to what happens. We are supposed to be in control of our government not the other way around. Come on people know where we come from, and what are founding fathers established.

Epxroot, while I agree with you that Bush should listen to the will of his people, I still stand by my point. As I described above, America is a representative democracy, not a direct democracy like in ancient Greece. You're supposition that Bush must bow to the will of the people seems to be based on principle, not on interpretation of legal precedent. In the system under which America currently resides, leaders are accountable to the people by being voted in or out. The only way the people could legally force the army out of Iraq would be to hold a vote, and that unfortunately is done by the discretion of the government. Even if a pull-out vote was held, it would more than likely be done through congressional means; and in fact it was a few months back.

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

I love the comparrisons to our "founding fathers". They were only 53 days away from the closest enemy by boat. The enemy we face today is much, much closer than people want to realize.

I wonder how G.W. (George Washington) and Congress would have reacted if the Brits had I.C.B.M.s with nuclear tips back in the day?

Have a good one!:s4:

So P4B are saying the current administration is justified in throwing certain aspects of the constitution to the wind when circumstances change? Constitutional amendments are at times necessary, but shit like the patriot act goes one step further and completley disregards the principles on which your country was founded. This administration is spying on its own people without warrants, arresting without warrants, holding prisoners without charge, and now declaring any enemy a terrorist organization whether it be actual terrorists, or just a legal national army.

Sorry man, while I respect you as a decent and intelligent person, wake up! The precedents set by your current administration have given the government power to stampede over any constitutional rights in the name of protection from terrorism. Do you remember when Bush had one of his "Bush moments" and said "any Iraqi soldier that fight's for Saddam will be considered a terrorist". He declared legal combatants terrorists because they dare fight the will of the infallable USA.

[Psycho4Bud]

So P4B are saying the current administration is justified in throwing certain aspects of the constitution to the wind when circumstances change? Constitutional amendments are at times necessary, but shit like the patriot act goes one step further and completley disregards the principles on which your country was founded.

The Founding Fathers of American Intelligence
by P.K. Rose


George Washington was theobvious choice for acquisition of foreign intelligence. The Father of our Country was an adroit spymaster. Over the course of his long military career, he directed numerous agent networks, provided comprehensive guidance in intelligence tradecraft to his agents, and used their intelligence effectively when planning and conducting military operations.


John Jay--who later became Chief Justice of the United States--is consideredthe FoundingFather of American counterintelligence. Jay is seldom cited for his achievements in this arena; his historical reputation stems largely from his political and judicial accomplishments. But he clearly deserved to be considered the first national-level American counterintelligence chief.


Benjamin Franklin was the American icon after whom the remaining room was named. His efforts in what is known today as covert action were wide-ranging and usually successful. During the Revolutionary War period, Franklin engaged in propaganda operations and agent-of-influence activities and directed paramilitary operations against British property.
https://www.cia.gov/library/center-f...nce/art-1.html

Many, many more articles, etc...on spying during the Revolutionary War on our "citizens".

This administration is spying on its own people without warrants, arresting without warrants, holding prisoners without charge, and now declaring any enemy a terrorist organization whether it be actual terrorists, or just a legal national army.

Are you making an international call to a man called Afshine in Pakistan, Iran, Afghanistan? If not, don't worry about the wire taps. If so, Why???

Club Gitmo.....since when did non-citizens obtain the same rights as us? To bad that the enemy doesn't abide by the same rules.

Ahhh, Irans revolutionary gaurd.....the same that trains people such as Hezbollah and insurgents in Iraq. They ARE a terrorist group in not only our eyes but other nations in the world.

Sorry man, while I respect you as a decent and intelligent person, wake up!

Sorry my friend....I believe that it is you with the sleep in your eyes.

Have a good one!:s4:

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

The Founding Fathers of American Intelligence
by P.K. Rose


George Washington was theobvious choice for acquisition of foreign intelligence. The Father of our Country was an adroit spymaster. Over the course of his long military career, he directed numerous agent networks, provided comprehensive guidance in intelligence tradecraft to his agents, and used their intelligence effectively when planning and conducting military operations.


John Jay--who later became Chief Justice of the United States--is consideredthe FoundingFather of American counterintelligence. Jay is seldom cited for his achievements in this arena; his historical reputation stems largely from his political and judicial accomplishments. But he clearly deserved to be considered the first national-level American counterintelligence chief.


Benjamin Franklin was the American icon after whom the remaining room was named. His efforts in what is known today as covert action were wide-ranging and usually successful. During the Revolutionary War period, Franklin engaged in propaganda operations and agent-of-influence activities and directed paramilitary operations against British property.
https://www.cia.gov/library/center-f...nce/art-1.html

Many, many more articles, etc...on spying during the Revolutionary War on our "citizens".

I'm more concerned about the constitution and bill of rights than the actions of individuals. Franklin, Washington, Jay, these aren't infallable gods. George Washington was also a slave owner, but we don't condone slavery on that premise.

And I also agree that spying, even domestic spying, is at times necessary. But there's a reason the judicial system requires warrants for these things, and they should not IMO be done away with. If there's legitimate reason to spy, get the warrant, otherwise you're opening the door to every home.

Are you making an international call to a man called Afshine in Pakistan, Iran, Afghanistan? If not, don't worry about the wire taps. If so, Why???

Oh, the government tells us they'll only spy on those calls, so I guess it's true. I don't care what criteria they claim is used for spying, when you eliminate warrant-requirements you're giving the government power that can be easily abused. Even if this administration (in the NSA, CIA, whatever) is honest, the legal standards have been set to allow abuse of the people in the future. These limitations were put in place for a reason!

And for Christ sake, I thought the biggest aspect of traditional conservative philosophy is to keep big brother out of the individual's business. Now they're telling us that, all in the name of "protecting our freedom", the government's ability to spy is based on trust in their honesty rather than real legal restrictions? Patriot act has demolished some of the people's most important safeguards.

Club Gitmo.....since when did non-citizens obtain the same rights as us? To bad that the enemy doesn't abide by the same rules.

They don't have the same rights as American citizens, but they do have rights under the Geoneva (sp?) Convention and international law. But I'll even do away with the Geoneva convention for illegal combatants, and still there are basic human rights they should have to abide to. I don't really care what the enemy does or what laws they break, the soldiers we captured aren't he ones personally instituting these policies. It's kinda like saying "you killed my kids, so I have a right to kill your kids". Any sensible person knows you hold the individual accountable, not the soldiers working for that individual.
Besides, a lot of the tortures I saw had no interrogation value, just asshole guards with a big grin on their face getting their rocks off torturing the enemy. Petty revenge is not justification for anything, we need a system that actually looks at the results of their actions, not those who think in childish terms of "I'm gonna torture them 'cause they deserve it!".

And, finally, the issue I was bringing up about arresting without warrant is more about giving the government despotic powers over its citizens that we should not allow them to have based on trust. I've already heard a few cases of men who were arrested and held without charge for months, sometimes years, then released after they decided on their innocence. Those men did not deserve long-term imprisonment with no access to legal council, informing their family of their whereabouts, and a loss of individual rights before they are even found to be guilty. Once again, the patriot act has alloted powers to the government that allow them to arbitrarily imprison and abuse its own citizens. It would be remarkably naive to believe such powers wouldn't be abused more and more as time goes on.

Ahhh, Irans revolutionary gaurd.....the same that trains people such as Hezbollah and insurgents in Iraq. They ARE a terrorist group in not only our eyes but other nations in the world.

I agree they are a terrorist group carrying out terrorist actions in Iraq. However, if America goes to war with Iran, it is not acceptable to declare government-sanctioned legal combatants "terrorists" and thereby do away with the Geoneva convention.
And like I said, the Bush administration has set a precedent giving the US power to do away with any legal military obligation simply by declaring the enemy a terrorist.

Sorry my friend....I believe that it is you with the sleep in your eyes.

Nope, that's just bloodshot eyes from that bowl I smoked

Have a good one!:s4:

And you too! I know I vehemently disagree with you on some political issues, but I'll say you're a worthy opponent a cut above the rest of this rabble. Boy I grow tired of teenagers arguing with posts like "Fuck Bush! He's a Nazi!" lol.

Respect to ya man:thumbsup:

[Ganja Dude]

We have several concerns for that area........not ONLY the resources but also the concerns with Iran, Al-Quada, not to mention our own credibility to the other Arab Nations that may one day need our assistance OR have a faction that wants to take an offensive stance against us.

I believe with the changes made in such areas such as Mosol, Najaf, Fallujah and of course the Anabar Povince.....progress is being made.

Have a good one!:s4:

I know we cannot pull out of Iraq and leave it in anarchy but I don't think the war was justified. I just don't see why more of our soldiers need to die for this. If Iraq wasn't a direct threat to us then why would we put ourselves in the way of danger and increase the amount of people who want to kill us?

None of this is meant to be personal just so you know P4B I respect your opinions and such.

[Psycho4Bud]

I know we cannot pull out of Iraq and leave it in anarchy but I don't think the war was justified. I just don't see why more of our soldiers need to die for this. If Iraq wasn't a direct threat to us then why would we put ourselves in the way of danger and increase the amount of people who want to kill us?

None of this is meant to be personal just so you know P4B I respect your opinions and such.

Not taken that way at all.....we all have our own opinion and this forum is all about having a respectable debate on issues......you've shown nothing but respect in my opinion.:thumbsup:

Iraq was a threat....Russian intelligence/Putin even told us after the fact that Saddam was planning a 9-11 hit on us.

Have a good one!:s4:

[eg420ne]

:detective1:Finally! P4B found a connection to 911 & Saddam-Iraq...by the ways of Russian intelligence &/or Putin....there it is folks, the last grasp of the captain going down with his ship......:glugglug::glugglug::detective1:

[epxroot]

I love the comparrisons to our "founding fathers". They were only 53 days away from the closest enemy by boat. The enemy we face today is much, much closer than people want to realize.

I wonder how G.W. (George Washington) and Congress would have reacted if the Brits had I.C.B.M.s with nuclear tips back in the day?

Have a good one!:s4:

What I meant when I said that, is we the people have a say in what should happen and what should'nt happen if we are going to be the ones funding this war on terror. People have become so used to just faithfully paying taxes and not even wondering what their tax dollars may have contributed to. No tax dollars, no war. Our founding fathers made it very clear that the government are to work for the people not the other way around.

I am just curious who in their right mind is going to launch a nuke at another country that has nukes. It is well known that they can be seen comming as soon as they are in the sky. It would be a really stupid move for a country to launch a nuke at another country with nukes. Thats like trying to rob somone who is already packing a heat!

[epxroot]

Epxroot, while I agree with you that Bush should listen to the will of his people, I still stand by my point. As I described above, America is a representative democracy, not a direct democracy like in ancient Greece. You're supposition that Bush must bow to the will of the people seems to be based on principle, not on interpretation of legal precedent. In the system under which America currently resides, leaders are accountable to the people by being voted in or out. The only way the people could legally force the army out of Iraq would be to hold a vote, and that unfortunately is done by the discretion of the government. Even if a pull-out vote was held, it would more than likely be done through congressional means; and in fact it was a few months back.

I respect your response and your stance on the subject. I understand the system that we are under, but the free republic which is the system that we were intended to be under has been taken away from us. How can we as americans keep funding this war and not even raise an eye to the fact that we can't say when we leave and when we don't? I just don't understand how we can wake up in the morning and just go on about our day as if we don't even know that 1000's of innocent humans are being killed, and that 1000's of them have no where to sleep. Hey though as long as we have are sports, cars, clothes, gadgets, and titty bars who cares.

I am not arguing your point I am just stating that somthing is really wrong with our current system. If 51% rule over the 49% who gets to decide who is in what group?

[Psycho4Bud]

What I meant when I said that, is we the people have a say in what should happen and what should'nt happen if we are going to be the ones funding this war on terror. People have become so used to just faithfully paying taxes and not even wondering what their tax dollars may have contributed to. No tax dollars, no war. Our founding fathers made it very clear that the government are to work for the people not the other way around.

Preservation of the security of the Nation from its enemies, foreign and domestic, is the obligation of government and one of the foremost reasons for government to exist.
FindLaw: U.S. Constitution: First Amendment: Annotations pg. 13 of 21

And with that our President IS the Commander in Chief of all military forces. I think that between the two the "wishes" of our forefathers is being met.

I am just curious who in their right mind is going to launch a nuke at another country that has nukes. It is well known that they can be seen comming as soon as they are in the sky. It would be a really stupid move for a country to launch a nuke at another country with nukes. Thats like trying to rob somone who is already packing a heat!

Try a society/philosophy like Iran that holds the end of the world as the next coming of Allah.

Have a good one!:s4: