Taxation without representation...

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Yes. So the question goes back to yours - how many troops should we have? How many is enough? How many more Iraqs do you foresee within the next decade? Seriously, do you think there's a chance we would invade another country? Iran? North Korea? How are we going to keep paying for such invasions?

another division or two would not hurt. as for how many iraqs in the future, i don't have a crystal ball. do you? yes there is always a chance we'll go into another country. as for paying for it, the same way we paid for ww2. bonds!

And did we go it alone in WW2? We cannot continue the pace we are at without it destroying our economy. We already have a huge bill on our hands with Iraq, which Wolfowitz (one of the engineers of the war) declared to American people that the war in Iraq could be funded by the oil.

What we need is a foreign policy that is radified like the Constitution - possibly an amendment to the Constitution itself. A framework and protocol for how all future interactions with foreign countries will be conducted.

Edited August 27, 2006 by Steven_and_Jinky

[vartan 0]

oh but he did.. he convinced every dumbarse in US that they needed to go to war and PROTECT freedoms, protect democracy and all that BS 'freedom' discourse he's been using for about 7 years

Ohh yeah I forgot the president held a gun to everyones head

If people didn't beleive it and know it .. we wouldn't have went.

[Ban Hammer 14,293]

What we need is a foreign policy that is radified like the Constitution - possibly an amendment to the Constitution itself. A framework and protocol for how all future interactions with foreign countries will be conducted.

isn't that already a part of the constitution? we elect a president based on his vision, and congress is the watchdog? did you forget that congress has its hands in this too, and they could quite easily put a stop to it?

[dalegg 143]

oh but he did.. he convinced every dumbarse in US that they needed to go to war and PROTECT freedoms, protect democracy and all that BS 'freedom' discourse he's been using for about 7 years

Ohh yeah I forgot the president held a gun to everyones head

If people didn't beleive it and know it .. we wouldn't have went.

No, he used his overwhelming powers of cumminication to persuade even members of the opposite party to vote for a authorization to use force. Bush has always been regarded by even the democrats as highly intelligent so not many felt the need to question him.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

If the president didn't

Why must people stick on hating the president when our whole government makes these decisions.. the president alone can not make us go to war...

Remind me again: Where, exactly, does the buck stop?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

oh but he did.. he convinced every dumbarse in US that they needed to go to war and PROTECT freedoms, protect democracy and all that BS 'freedom' discourse he's been using for about 7 years

Ohh yeah I forgot the president held a gun to everyones head

If people didn't beleive it and know it .. we wouldn't have went.

No, he used his overwhelming powers of cumminication to persuade even members of the opposite party to vote for a authorization to use force. Bush has always been regarded by even the democrats as highly intelligent so not many felt the need to question him.

It's the Bush Administration and there's indication that he lets other make a lot of big decisions for him. Although he was set on invading Iraq, it was others within his administration that constructed the strategy, but that doesn't remove his responsibility as being the point man.

Edited August 27, 2006 by Steven_and_Jinky

[Ban Hammer 14,293]

It's the Bush Administration and there's indication that he lets other make a lot of big decisions for him. Although he was set on invading Iraq, it was others within his administration that constructed the strategy, but that doesn't remove his responsibility as being the point man.

oh so maybe it's not bush's fault?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

What we need is a foreign policy that is radified like the Constitution - possibly an amendment to the Constitution itself. A framework and protocol for how all future interactions with foreign countries will be conducted.

isn't that already a part of the constitution? we elect a president based on his vision, and congress is the watchdog? did you forget that congress has its hands in this too, and they could quite easily put a stop to it?

It doesn't address the rights of foreign countries with respect to the U.S.. We need a framework that is more clear about how we can or cannot interact with foreign governments. For example, should the U.S. ever support the overthrow of a foreign government that is democratic? How and when do we recognize the sovereignty of another nation? Should we allow U.S. corporations to pay off foreign governments? There's too much ambiguity and a lot of unethical interactions between the U.S. and other countries which has fostered a lot of resentment and hostility in this world. We need to regain the respect we once had right after WW2 with the rest of the world by showing them that we will hold our conduct accountable when it comes to foreign affairs.

It's the Bush Administration and there's indication that he lets other make a lot of big decisions for him. Although he was set on invading Iraq, it was others within his administration that constructed the strategy, but that doesn't remove his responsibility as being the point man.

oh so maybe it's not bush's fault?

As ET said, where does the buck stop within a presidency?

[Ban Hammer 14,293]

It doesn't address the rights of foreign countries with respect to the U.S.. We need a framework that is more clear about how we can or cannot interact with foreign governments. For example, should the U.S. ever support the overthrow of a foreign government that is democratic? How and when do we recognize the sovereignty of another nation? Should we allow U.S. corporations to pay off foreign governments? There's too much ambiguity and a lot of unethical interactions between the U.S. and other countries which has fostered a lot of resentment and hostility in this world. We need to regain the respect we once had right after WW2 with the rest of the world by showing them that we will hold our conduct accountable when it comes to foreign affairs.

foreign countries have rights in the usa too? wow. where on earth did you draw that conclusion from?

and steven, we have such a framework you ask about, go ask a state department employee.

you want the respect of the world again like we had after ww2, then go pop a few nukes

As ET said, where does the buck stop within a presidency?

sounds to me like there is plenty of blame to spread around. but most just want to point the finger at bush.

[Alex+R 0]

isn't that already a part of the constitution? we elect a president based on his vision, and congress is the watchdog? did you forget that congress has its hands in this too, and they could quite easily put a stop to it?

That implies a system of checks and balances can work when all three branches are controlled by the same party. I...doubt it. How did this thread get to this point again?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

It doesn't address the rights of foreign countries with respect to the U.S.. We need a framework that is more clear about how we can or cannot interact with foreign governments. For example, should the U.S. ever support the overthrow of a foreign government that is democratic? How and when do we recognize the sovereignty of another nation? Should we allow U.S. corporations to pay off foreign governments? There's too much ambiguity and a lot of unethical interactions between the U.S. and other countries which has fostered a lot of resentment and hostility in this world. We need to regain the respect we once had right after WW2 with the rest of the world by showing them that we will hold our conduct accountable when it comes to foreign affairs.

foreign countries have rights in the usa too? wow. where on earth did you draw that conclusion from?

and steven, we have such a framework you ask about, go ask a state department employee.

Foreign countries having rights IN the USA? Huh? Nice twist of logic there, Charles. What it means is that if we are to truly uphold the spirit of our Constitution we will hold our actions accountable with regard to interacting with foreign nations. Somewhere we need to find a balance between Isolationism and Imperialism. Right now, with our military might and our track record, we're leaning more towards Imperialism. Isn't that what our American Revolution fought against?

isn't that already a part of the constitution? we elect a president based on his vision, and congress is the watchdog? did you forget that congress has its hands in this too, and they could quite easily put a stop to it?

That implies a system of checks and balances can work when all three branches are controlled by the same party. I...doubt it. How did this thread get to this point again?

Sorry for the tangent although we're not completely off track - because the issue came up with taxation in regard to military spending. How much is enough?

Edited August 27, 2006 by Steven_and_Jinky

[ChristinaM 0]

My apologies, I think I put my six eggs-worth in at just the right time to drag this completely away from where it was supposed to be.

Sorry!!

I don't mind paying my taxes when I can see a tangible benefit. Y'know, like better schools, decent roads, more police on the street... I don't even mind so much paying them without representation when I can see that they are coming back to the community. When there's no tangible benefit, why should I not have the right to ask where my tax dollars are going, and to vote to change that if necessary. After all, I live here too...

[dalegg 143]

My apologies, I think I put my six eggs-worth in at just the right time to drag this completely away from where it was supposed to be.

Can you actually buy 6 eggs for 2 cents in England?

[ChristinaM 0]

My apologies, I think I put my six eggs-worth in at just the right time to drag this completely away from where it was supposed to be.

Can you actually buy 6 eggs for 2 cents in England?

LMAO

No...

Are you implying that I set too high a value on my opinion??

[dalegg 143]

My apologies, I think I put my six eggs-worth in at just the right time to drag this completely away from where it was supposed to be.

Can you actually buy 6 eggs for 2 cents in England?

LMAO

No...

Are you implying that I set too high a value on my opinion??

Either that or we are paying too much for our eggs here.