Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics' started by KenH, Jan 10, 2006.
Old Regular you need to wake up ...you chicken
Bush for King! Well at least for a couple of more years.
This is one of you most intelligent postings.
This is one of you most intelligent postings. </font>[/QUOTE]Yours also Terry.
My soul has dwelt too long
With one who hates peace.
I am for peace;
But when I speak, they are for war.
PSALM 120: 6-7
This is one of you most intelligent postings. </font>[/QUOTE]I thought the response fitted the subject.
Why is this just now an issue?
The executive is the most unconstitutional acting branch of government. Its scope and authority have been far beyond constitutional mandate since at least the 1930's. This Genie was long out of the bottle before Bush came to office.
I wish this problem were reversible... but since both parties like the idea of being able to get alot done through "their President"... I doubt that it is.
This is just now an issue because this is the first time in history (that I know of) that America has had an imperial military mobilization.
What about Viet Nam?
Okay SAN, this is the first time (that I know of) that the elite have admited to using the American military as an imperial force.
Really? Every military action since WWII has been without a declaration of war. Iraq and Afghanistan come much closer to presenting reasonable cases for national defense than
BTW, when exactly did Bush legislate his own financing for this effort?
What precisely are you saying was imperial about this that wasn't imperial about say... the Indian Wars?
That doesn't mean every military action since WWII has been an imperial mobilization.
Reasonable to someone that hasn't been reading what the elites had to say before 9/11 maybe.
So I take it you believe congress would refuse to allow imperial pursuits by not funding them?
This has been admited to be an imperial pursuit. I don't know if the indian wars were admited to be such. And besides, we aren't talking about the indian wars here. This is about the war on terrorism, which has been admited to be an imperial pursuit!
Please define imperial as you use it here and cite the proof of such an admission.
I did Scott but you knew that already.
No. Honestly. I saw the quote but have no idea who it is from nor do I necessarily agree with its implicit suppositions. I definitely didn't see any kind of rational explanation for why the war on terror is equivalent to empire building.
I do not believe that it is "imperial" to strike against the havens of criminals who have stated their goal is to do our country harm and bring down our way of life... not even when we attacked the Barbary pirates on the "shores of Tripoli".
Then here is your reading assignment Scott, The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives and PNAC reading "building America's defenses" is a good start here. Pay special attention to page fourteen.
One entry found for imperialism.
Main Entry: im·pe·ri·al·ism
1 : imperial government, authority, or system
2 : the policy, practice, or advocacy of extending the power and dominion of a nation especially by direct territorial acquisitions or by gaining indirect control over the political or economic life of other areas; broadly : the extension or imposition of power, authority, or influence <union imperialism>