Quantcast
Skip to main content

Today's Poll: Should the U.S. use military force to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons?

terry paine
bbj4050's picture
Offline
Joined: Feb 3 2009

Here is the title to a pretty funny Onion piece.
"Iran Worried U.S. Might Be Building 8,500th Nuclear Weapon"

http://www.theonion.com/articles/iran-worried-us-might-be-building-8500t...

Ted Wenzka
Tad's picture
Offline
Joined: May 25 2010

People - haven't we sent enough of our soldiers to be wastefully killed/maimed. Are the citizens of this country so blood thirsty that they want to kill/maim more. This is Israel's fight NOT OURS.

Jeff Allen
dnjallen's picture
Offline
Joined: Jun 5 2009
Member

We cannot rely on the notion that this is Israel's fight. There is much to be said about the destabilization of that entire region. I at least feel confident that Obama and his advisers are only looking at surgical airstrikes on nuclear installations at this point. We must remember that all the same lunatics that want nothing less than the total annihilation of Israel, want the same thing for us. Even though Iran would not have the capability of a direct nuclear strike on the US, their having nuclear weapon capability at all is simply out of the question when it comes to our overall security.

Kyle Couchman
Kyle C's picture
Offline
Joined: Dec 25 2009

Ted I have to agree with you on this. The way that region is Israel isnt going to make a move against Iran unless it knows it can win. They might be very adversarial but they really dont go into outright armed conflict with the chance they will be wiped off the earth. Obamas current stance shows that cant really count on us as much as they would like so that will affect their decision.

Jeff you really cant paint this situation with a sich a generalism. The reason the enemies of Israel want to wipe us out is because of our support of Israel. However if they do end up fighting and we take a sideline and let them hash it out it might even improve our standing with this region (except Israel of course. Your assessment of them being able to strike at us is correct but their technology just isnt that sophisticated and the likelyhood of them hitting their mark isnt very likely at all. On the other side of that coin if they engaged us...wouldnt that end up making them pretty vulnerable to Russia or China just walking in and absorbing their country? They arent gonna fight all 3 of us. They'll just be on par with NKorea which does have nukes but still hasnt hit us despite the hatred they hold for us.

jeff saquella
satch59's picture
Offline
Joined: Sep 30 2008

why take the chance kyle.....these people i believe are a little sicker than north koreans.....no way they should have nukes....no way!

Ted Wenzka
Tad's picture
Offline
Joined: May 25 2010

Kyle - thanks for your support.
Let's all remember how we got dragged into Iraq. I am sorry to say this but If I had a son/daughter in the military right now and they were ordered to attack Iran and they told their commander "Go To H....." I would be proud of them. I no longer trust our politicians or military to tell us the truth. If we allowed Pakistan, India, North Korea to have nukes, WHY NOT IRAN. They see us being cautious around North Korea because they have nukes so naturally Iran wants the same protection. It is only reasonable.

Frank Bartholomew
Frank N. Bartholomew's picture
Offline
Joined: Apr 4 2010

Any Islamic nation with nuke capabilities is a serious threat to all christian nations,this is spelled out in the koran, any religion other than islam is not tolerable to followers of islam, their goal is world domination.
I am not a war monger and hope sanctions work, however, we would be foolish to think that if Iran possesses weapons grade materials, it is only a matter of time before a terrorist group gets their hands on it as well.
In my opinion, Islam is a terrorist organization, so when Iran possesses weapons grade material, so do terrorist.

Kyle Couchman
Kyle C's picture
Offline
Joined: Dec 25 2009

What you fail to realize too is that while they are fanatical and a bit unbalanced is that they also fight amongst themselves and are just as likely to use this on each other...(immediate threat) vs us. The other thing is that a sept 11th type attack on us with nukes is going to end up making the country of origin a parkinglot. So not all the Arab states are gonna want that either. 1 year fighting with the japanese in the 40's we realized how suicidal they were. From what I hear (maybe John has heard the same scuttlebutt)that while there are some suicidal bombers and such, most of the leadership does want to live and isnt as willing to see if there are 40 virgins (goats) waiting for them just yet.

Ed Gentner
Ed Gentner's picture
Offline
Joined: Mar 30 2011

Mr. Bartholomew, to call "Islam a terrorist organization", you sir are a bigot. Any claim that anything Iran will or could do will destabilize the area is laughable given the invasion of Iraq by the U.S. and it's "coalition of the willing". The G.W.Bush administration has done more to make Iran a regional power than the Iranians could have ever hoped to.

The Iranians have as much right to nuclear weapons as Israel or the U.S. does or have we forgotten that Israel has its own stockpile and in light of the recent history of how nations with nukes are treated they would be foolish not to develope them as a deterance. Just look at how we treat Pakistan or North Korea, both nations would be toast if not for their nukes.

Iran is not likely to use it's WMD (chemical&biological) otherwise they would have when they were at war with Iraq. Iraq, did use the WMD they had on provived courtesy of the Reagan/Bush administration. When the time came for Iraq to actually use their WMD as a deterance couldn't because they had already exhausted their supply and and the U.S. knew it because we supplied them and we kept track of them.

Ed Gentner
Ed Gentner's picture
Offline
Joined: Mar 30 2011

Kyle, Iran is not an Arab state and post-9/11 were co-operating with the U.S. to eliminate Al Qaeda. The Persians have their own culture, variety of religion than the Arabs, Iranians are primaraly Shiite where as Arabs are either Sunni or Wahabi followers of Islam, Iran has the second largest population of Jews outside of Israel who enjoy legal protections under their laws.

Frank Bartholomew
Frank N. Bartholomew's picture
Offline
Joined: Apr 4 2010

Mr.Gentner, my interpertation of the koran, or whatever the muslim holy book is called these days, makes it as plain as day we, non-believers, are inferior to muslims, in islam, only those who follow the words of mohammed are worthy. If their goal, according to the "Hadiths" are to convert or kill the infidels, that would make me believe I'm a target, as are all non-muslims. Call it what you will Ed, but many better wake up and see the agenda of this so called religion, aka,terrorist group, before they prove what I said.

RICHARD L. HALE
DICKIE's picture
Offline
Joined: May 22 2009

News Flash.......

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA WILL DO WHATEVER ISRAEL TELLS IT TO DO.....

AND DON'T YOU FORGET IT......

Cj Gorski
Cj Gorski's picture
Offline
Joined: Mar 31 2010

You can't nit pick Koran Verses, I can do the same to the bible.

1 Timothy 5:8 (If you don’t provide for your family, you are an infidel)
Matthew 12:30 (If you’re not with Jesus, you’re against him)
Matthew 15:4 (Death for not honouring your father and mother)
Psalms 137:9 (Violence against children)
Deuteronomy 20:10-14 (Attack city, kill all men, keep women, children as spoils of war)
Deuteronomy 21:18-21 (Death penalty for a rebellious son)
Ecclesiastes 1:18 (Knowledge is bad)
Exodus 21:1-7 (Rules for buying slaves)
Exodus 35:2 (Death for working on the Sabbath)
Ezekiel 9:5-6 (Murder women/children)
Ezekiel 23:19-20 (A whore who had sex with men hung like donkeys)
Galatians 5:2-4 (If you are circumcised, Christ has nothing for you)
Genesis 3:16 (Man shall rule over woman)
Jeremiah 19:9 (Cannibalism)
Leviticus 20:9 (Death for cursing father or mother)
Leviticus 20:10 (Death for adultery)
Leviticus 20:13 (Death for gay men)
Leviticus 20:15 (Death for bestiality)
Leviticus 20:18 (No sex with a woman on her period)
Leviticus 21:17-23 (Ugly people, lame, dwarfs, not welcome on altar)
Leviticus 25:45 (Strangers can be bought as slaves)

Israel's far right-wing is the ONLY real threat to Mideast peace. Israel is NOT part of the nuclear non proliferation treaty and has well over 200 non announced nuclear weapons, IRAN has signed the treaty and has ZERO nuclear weapons. Israel has launched 5 wars, since 1948 and annexed 3 territories illegally by international law. Iran hasn't invaded anyone in over 270 years. Seriously who's the real threat? Do you not remember being lied to and being dragged into Iraq?

I'm 19 years old, and my Country has been at war for over 3/4ths of my life, when does it end?

Nathan Oaksford
nmophoto's picture
Offline
Joined: Jan 14 2011

Bush is not in office anymore. next topic...

Islam is not a peaceful religion. Are there people within that religion that don't think violence yes. However according to sharia law anyone that is not a Muslim or supports anyone that is not Muslim is an infidel, punishable by death.

So anyone who is a follower of this religion that follows this code, well you be the judge. Or Don't be because you are just blaming everything on republicans which goes to show that you are just as bigoted as the person you are accusing of it.

As for their "rights" to WMDs, they are not stable enough to handle these weapons. Korea is testing their weapons in Iran, as well as Iran testing. We have a lot of them however we don't intend to use them, and we have been exploring other alternatives. To suggest that Iran is capable of having nuclear technology and maintain it safely just shows how ill-informed you are regardless of how many little fact nuggets you toss around. I would love to get started on everything past presidents have done wrong, and I would be here all day saying what the current one has done wrong.

Should Iran have this technology? No. Plain and simple. No one should.

Nathan Oaksford
nmophoto's picture
Offline
Joined: Jan 14 2011

What you fail to understand is that though the bible says those things, we don't uphold them in todays society. They however do. They will chop your hand off, or beat you with canes, or run your arm over with a truck.

19 years old. Thats cool. Ever been to Israel? Ever been to Iraq? There is a reason people in Israel are all required to be military trained, its not safe. And if we weren't telling them to back off they would have solved the problems over there already because they aren't as diplomatic as we are. Right-wing. haha If the whole world was left wing we would all be happy right? get real.

People need to drop the wings and start learning what real compromise is. Until that happens we won't progress. Means both sides have to give in a little. I am not willing to give up my freedoms to give in to left wing ideals however.

Nathan Oaksford
nmophoto's picture
Offline
Joined: Jan 14 2011

haha Bring on the thumbs downs Sad

C. M. Barons
C. M. Barons's picture
Offline
Joined: Jul 29 2008

The United States has directly and indirectly backed nuclear technology in Iran since the 1950s. Iran’s nuclear program began as part of the Atoms for Peace Program launched by President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s UN General Assembly address on December 8, 1953. Eisenhower in a stunning turnabout from post-Atomic Age Bomb Paranoia proposed a new mindset, “hasten the day when fear of the atom will begin to disappear from the minds of people.” Eisenhower’s plan established the International Atomic Development Agency and a “uranium bank” ostensibly to draw Moscow into arms talks.

The U.S. Atomic Energy Act was revised in 1954 to allow export of nuclear technology and materials. Corporations were on board to “strengthen American world leadership” and disavow Communist allegations of American nuclear domination. The operative assumption was that sharing U.S. technology would result in no practical nuclear development for decades. One year later, Eisenhower directed the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission to provide “limited amounts of raw and fissionable materials” to “free nations.”

Even minimal rules designed to suppress weapons development were poorly enforced. Under terms of fissionable material export law, spent fuel elements were supposed to be returned to U.S. facilities for processing. Nuclear-material-supplying nations including the U.S. were negligent in enforcing that rule. Trust in safe commercial sharing of material and technology was equally naïve and ill-placed. Nuclear technology custodians were enthusiastic about atomic energy’s political and commercial opportunities, they ignored the flipside of the coin. Their bubble burst in 1974 when India exploded its test bomb. …A bomb essentially based on fissionable material derived from spent fuel elements.

The same year Iran bought 600 tons of ‘yellowcake’ concentrated uranium ore from South Africa.

Humbly initiated in 1957, by 1967, Iran had a state-run nuclear research institute established in Tehran. The institute (TNRC) was outfitted with a 5-megawatt enriched uranium reactor supplied by the U.S. Iran (still under rule of the Shah) signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in 1968, submitting to International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) oversight. The Shah’s vision was to sell oil and power Iran with nuclear fuel. With U.S. aid he intended to build 20 nuclear generating plants by 2000. He became the darling of the U.S. nuclear energy companies.

The Shah’s dreams (and treasury) also invited interest from Western Europe. Germany’s Kraftwerk Union AG entered a 1975 joint venture with Siemens AG and AEG to build a $6 billion pressurized water plant. To fuel the Shah’s dream, France, Belgium, Spain and Sweden entered into billion dollar deals to supply enriched uranium for the future Iranian reactors.

In 1976 President Gerald Ford offered the Shah an opportunity to buy and operate a U.S.-built reprocessing facility to extract plutonium, a complete nuclear fuel cycle. Dick Cheney was Ford’s Chief of Staff; Don Rumsfield, his Secretary of Defense and Paul Wolfowiz was arms control analyst. The Ford administration green-lighted U.S./Iranian designs on major nuclear energy development while affording Teheran control of plutonium and enriched uranium. Simultaneously, the Shah was agreeing to contract with South Africa to develop enriched uranium. Iran’s nuclear program benefited from U.S., commercial and international aid up to the point of the 1979 revolution.

Most agreements collapsed when the Shah was deposed and the revolutionary government assumed control of Iran. …Until Argentina made an agreement with Iran to convert their reactor to low-enriched uranium fuel and supply same.

In 1981, Iran decided to resurrect its nuclear development program. Reports to the IAEA noted local expertise and an ambitious program for fuel cycle technology; also noted, UO2 pellet fuel fabrication and enrichment of fuel grade uranium. In April 1984, West German intelligence reported that Iran might develop a nuclear bomb using uranium obtained from Pakistan. Later that year, Senator Alan Cranston speculated Iran was seven years away from a nuclear weapon.

The Iran – Iraq War (1980 – 88) had resulted in damage to Iran’s nuclear facilities, moreover it underscored Iran’s lack of a nuclear deterrent. Evidence suggests Iran began developing a gas centrifuge in 1985. A centrifuge is used to extract U 235 from heavier U 238. Iranians researched centrifuge equipment abroad, and in 1987 acquired components from A. Q. Kahn (rogue elements of Pakistan’s state-run weapons program). Highly Enriched Uranium (HEU) is the goal of centrifuges; weapons-grade uranium is the most desirable highly enriched uranium- over 90 percent enriched. A single centrifuge might produce about 30 grams of HEU per year. 850 to 1,000 centrifuges, operating continuously for a year, could produce HEU sufficient for one weapon.

Since 1988 Iran expanded its uranium mining and processing capabilities, built a heavy water reactor and associated plutonium production plant and developed a uranium enrichment program. In 1990, Iran imported from China (and failed to report) one metric ton of uranium hexafluoride, essential to their centrifuges. Between 1994 and 1996, Iran also purchased plans and components sufficient to assemble 500 centrifuges from A.Q. Khan.

In early 1995, Russia began reconstructing the Bushehr reactor damaged during the Iran-Iraq War. They also provided assistance designing a heavy water reactor. The repaired reactor was returned to service in 2011. The IAEA visited Iran’s nuclear facilities in February 2003 after international pressure to open Iran’s facilities to inspection. The IAEA inspectors found a pilot enrichment plant designed to hold 1,000 centrifuges with underground facilities to accommodate 50,000. The agency also inspected the heavy water production facility at Arak. In September 2009, the leaders of the United States, France and Britain publicly revealed the existence of a previously undisclosed enrichment site being built near Qom.

Four countries, including Iran and Syria, shared $55 million from a U.S.-supported United Nations program promoting nuclear energy. Iran received more than $15 million from 1997 to 2007 under the IAEA's Technical Cooperation program.

In 2008 the U.S. Energy Department was charged with subsidizing two Russian nuclear institutes, University of Nizhny Novgorod and Institute of Applied Physics RAS, (coincidentally located in same city as nuclear engineering company Atomenergoproekt) allegedly providing key parts for Iran’s Bushehr reactor despite U.S. government efforts to shut it down. Congressmen John Dingell and Bart Stupak notified Energy Secretary Samuel W. Bodman (went from CEO of Fidelity Investments to G. W. Bush Deputy Secretary of Treasury to G. W. Bush Deputy Secretary of Commerce to G. W. Bush Secretary of Energy) that his department had approved projects with the two institutes worth $4 million. Mr. Dingell, in a telephone interview, pointed out that the State Department has accused Iran of using the Bushehr reactor as a cover for obtaining nuclear technologies useful in a weapons program. “We’ve got a bunch of Federal laws that impose sanctions on U.S. companies that develop Iran’s oil,” he said, adding, “Here we’ve got U.S. money providing assistance to help develop a reactor that we’re busy denouncing.”

Ed Gentner
Ed Gentner's picture
Offline
Joined: Mar 30 2011

Mr. Aksford, do you and Mr. Bartholomew drink from the same poisoned well? It's hard to believe that either of you has ever read the Quoran or the Bible let alone have any real comprehension of what you have read. It's time you both came out of your bunkers, stopped tuning into Glenn Beck, Lyndon LaRouche and Rush Limbaugh and stopped parroting their hate speech.

Nathan Oaksford
nmophoto's picture
Offline
Joined: Jan 14 2011

Exuse me Ed, please pass the whiskey. What have I said that was hateful? Actually what I said was pretty well down the middle. You are accusing me of listening to people I have never listened to in my life. I read the Bible quite frequently thank you as many conservatives are Christian in their beliefs.

Ed, I was just being real. You can't bury your head in the sand with out leaving your arse exposed. Wishing the world not to have problems doesn't make them go away. Was that hateful as well? I suppose I am racist because I don't like Obama? haha What else can you come up with that is totally off base? I would love to hear it. And my last name is Oaksford. (Like 2 trees and a truck. One of those american companies that didn't need bailout money)

Nathan Oaksford
nmophoto's picture
Offline
Joined: Jan 14 2011

also if you have some free time, which you obviously do.. go read up on Sharia law and tell me where I am wrong. If NBC can give you those facts.

Phil Ricci
rythmtaz's picture
Offline
Joined: Jul 31 2008
Member

Nathan, Jeff and Frank,

Are you or were you ever in the military?

Nathan Oaksford
nmophoto's picture
Offline
Joined: Jan 14 2011

I was never, I am a Nurse. All of my friends are still currently in the military or former military.

Actually I have been informed lately that I build bunkers as well. haha

Frank Bartholomew
Frank N. Bartholomew's picture
Offline
Joined: Apr 4 2010

Ed, don't want to startle you, but have you read up on jihad? I consider myself to be somewhat republican free, with a dash of libertarian ideals. Can't stomach any of those you say I listen to.
I will also share the fact that I am also a recovering catholic, but I don't recognize religious belief/disbelief as an excuse for world domination, there is only one holy book in the muslim religion, and tells all of its followers to adhere to its principles.
Mohammed was a mass murderer, and the followers of islam worship those ideals.
Remember Ed, these people are illogical, and so is trying to defend a terror organization hell bent on world domination, disquised as a religion.

Phil Ricci
rythmtaz's picture
Offline
Joined: Jul 31 2008
Member

Well I was, and I have seen too many people die, get hurt or become so broken from the pointless wars we have fought, so if you want to go after them, sign up grab a weapon and go for it. But as long as you're going to sit here and watch other people die for your perceived understanding, I really don't think that you should have a say. That goes for any politician that hasn't served as well.

I'm sick of people who hide from conflict that get to send others to die for it.

Frank Bartholomew
Frank N. Bartholomew's picture
Offline
Joined: Apr 4 2010

Phil, what would that have to do with my opinion, or my interpretation of what I read, or see from many forms of media?

Phil Ricci
rythmtaz's picture
Offline
Joined: Jul 31 2008
Member

You can have your opinion, Frank. I just think people who sit around talking about sending kids to war should have to experience it.

Jeff Allen
dnjallen's picture
Offline
Joined: Jun 5 2009
Member

Phil, you just disqualified Obama as Commander-in-Chief. Over 2000 soldiers have lost their lives under Obama's watch including the three deadliest years since the start of the Afghanistan operation.

Cj Gorski
Cj Gorski's picture
Offline
Joined: Mar 31 2010

>Korea is testing their weapons in Iran, as well as Iran testing.

Source please, Korea is not testing any weapons in Iran, let alone a nuclear weapon.

>And if we weren't telling them to back off they would have solved the problems over there already because they aren't as diplomatic as we are. Right-wing. haha If the whole world was left wing we would all be happy right? get real.

I'm not left wing at all. You misinterpreted what I said. Israels right wing party is full of santorums, calling for active war.

>there is only one holy book in the muslim religion

There are five Holy books in Islam. Qur'an, the Bible, the Tawrah, the Zabur, and the Suhuf.

Phil Ricci
rythmtaz's picture
Offline
Joined: Jul 31 2008
Member

I sure did, as well as most of Congress.

I don't think that you can be an effective leader of soldiers' lives when you have no undertsanding of what war is.

Nathan Oaksford
nmophoto's picture
Offline
Joined: Jan 14 2011

As a nurse I have seen many people die, and I have saved a lot of lives. I have also seen the end result of the wars as I have worked at the VA in the past. I feel that I do offer a valid opinion, and at no point did I say I agreed with war or condone it. I just think they shouldn't have nuclear weapons.

And I appreciate your service to the country, but last I knew there wasn't a draft. So anyone in there signed up for it. I am currently in college for PT, and I hope to go work on a military base when I get done so I can help those that have been wounded.

There are a lot of ways to serve your country and Humanity with out joining the military. I also took the Asvab test, I missed 3 questions. I was offered a starting E-3 position however, I decided to go another route.

And I am not giving my source for the previous information CJ. That isn't something you need to know.

Kyle Couchman
Kyle C's picture
Offline
Joined: Dec 25 2009

Phil.... I hate to say it but having come from a family that practically lived the military. And being a vet of 8yrs of service myself I can tell you... Korean War, Vietnam as well as peacetime and Desert Shield/Storm vets in my family all agree on one thing. Anyone who has been through the military and still believes in the statement you made, just doesnt get it at all,but lets look at your statement...

"". But as long as you're going to sit here and watch other people die for your perceived understanding, I really don't think that you should have a say. That goes for any politician that hasn't served as well.""

Speaking for those in my family that I have discussed topics like this, (and believe me the casulties from GW's wars are miniscule compared to the Vietnam War my friend) and we all still believe that what we did and the sacrifices that we made were for EVERYONE to have the right to speak and have whatever say they wish to. Doesnt mean we have to agree with it or support it but Frank, Jeff and Nathan have every right to speak.

Now I havent read the Quaran or Koran yet, but I have discussed with some muslim friends and there are some things in this religion that seem a bit harsh. But there are things in supposed Christian faiths that bother me too. Look up Landover Baptists....claim to be Christian but nto really practising what Christ taught. How about Episcopaliann as well....they dont even believe that Christ is as important as political correctness and numbers of worshipers. There are Christians that bomb abortion clinics, disrespect military dead to push a righteous agenda.

I disagree with things said on both sides of this argument. But I support some of what President Obama has done, he is using more unmanned remote control fighters and special forces groups to extend the smiting arm of the USA. He is bringing troops home and I think one of the positive things to look for in a possible second term is more of this type of thing. Our Naval and Air Forces can also minimize the need to sacrifice so many youn lives in conflicts like GW Bush has fought the last few years.

My final statement though Phil.... I am sick of people who hide behind their service and tell others that they should have to serve before they are "allowed" to speak on anything. Almost as much as the attitude that all muslims are savage jihad screaming fundamentalists. Thats like saying all Christians are judgemental, witch burning, crusaders bent on killing all who dont believe as they believe. Oh wait, lets ask an Aboriginal Amercian (otherwise known as American Indians or Native Americans) What they think about that?

Bigotry is Bigotry..... I'd rather be ignorant than bigoted, at least ignorance can be corrected with education.

Cj Gorski
Cj Gorski's picture
Offline
Joined: Mar 31 2010

>And I am not giving my source for the previous information CJ. That isn't something you need to know.

In other words, it's not true.

bud prevost
buddyholly4863's picture
Offline
Joined: Jan 11 2009

Until Israel becomes an official State, as in the United States of America, we owe them nothing. Period.
And this is a United Nations issue, not a United States issue.
BTW, just a side note.....does anyone else believe our nation is more divided ideologically than it is now since the Civil War? The venom, hatred, accusations and disdain displayed by Americans towards fellow Americans is worse than I've ever seen in my half century of life. Why is it essential that we finger point about problems, rather than solve them? Congress is a microcosm of our nation today (except we don't benefit from insider trading).

Phil Ricci
rythmtaz's picture
Offline
Joined: Jul 31 2008
Member

That's affable and I wish you well. I don't think any nation should have nucs, including us. I just think we have got to get away from this fight first mentality. It doesn't warok, never has, and I'm tired of seeing good people hurt for this nonsense.

As far as the draft goes, no they aren't, but since most recruiters get their greatest number of kids from the lowest socio-economic neighborhoods, I'll argue they aren't there for some old fat politcian's politics. They are there to go to school and make a better way. Regardless, no 18 year old kid understands what war is, just like those who have never done it.

Kyle Couchman
Kyle C's picture
Offline
Joined: Dec 25 2009

Cj I have heard very similar things as well so Cj's truth is almost as genuine as our need to invade Iraq was....

Nathan, you might want to check your sources, my need to know basis sources said that Iran and NKorea collaberated on nuclear weapons in 2010 and 11, the second test that was done in early 2011 in N Korea was a joint effort. Your statement was so close to what I heard I thought maybe you might have transposed minor details Smile

Phil Ricci
rythmtaz's picture
Offline
Joined: Jul 31 2008
Member

Well Kyle I guess you didn't understand my words, so I'll break them down. I didn't say people couldn't speak, have an opinion or express it. I said they shouldn't have a say in sending kids to die in wars.

Next, I am not for war, or a bigot. I find most of what was said here to be foolish, so I don't quite understand your tirade there.

Last, I'm not hiding behind anything. This country is free, or should be, people can speak their minds until they're blue in the face, but I respect life too damn much to watch a bunch of bomb happy people mouth off about sending more people to die because they don't like the book they read.

Kyle Couchman
Kyle C's picture
Offline
Joined: Dec 25 2009

Obviously Phil you haven't had any children close to you try to get into the service. You have to have special permisson called a waiver to get in even enlisted ranks without some college under your belt. Another point is there are alot of kids trying to get into the service.... They feel duty bound because they were the kids in that classroom when GW was told about the attacks on that day in 2011. Hopefully some of the Batavian's younger readers will chime in on this forum on this subject.

Tim Howe
mrmagoo's picture
Offline
Joined: Jan 1 2009

Yeah Bud, Its funny (not ha ha funny) that you should mention this, I have just recently discussed this with some friends. I totally agree with you about the extreme level of division in this country and how it compares historically. Its at a really scary level right now. Those of you who have paid attention to my posts in the past know that i am a hardcore "righty", and might be surprised to know that some of my closest friends (like people i would happily take a bullet for type friends) are left leaners.

The scary thing about the division and the lines that are drawn in the sand is that fact that many americans on both sides are so focused on what side they are on, they seem to forget we are all AMERICANS first, right or left leaners SECOND. Lets pray a civil war 2.0 is not in our future. Sad

Kyle Couchman
Kyle C's picture
Offline
Joined: Dec 25 2009

Sorry Phil they have as much say in what happens with our national policy as you or I do. I respect life as well but theres something your missing Phil we all die and one of the most basic freedoms we have is the option of going into the military and sacrificing our lives for the greater good of the country. Whats the difference if I choose to put my life on the line in our country's military, or fighting a fire, or as a police officer fighting crime, or maybe even going to a foregin land to spread the Word of God in mission work. The end is the same, we can die crossing the street or just while sleeping... It's everyones choice on what to do to validate our own exsistance, and someone like you saying that they CANT have the opportuntiy to go if they wish to fight and die for our country. If there was a draft that would be a different story.

But you are a bigot Phil.... do you know what a bigot is? lets look at a dictionary definition...

Bigot: A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices, especially one exhibiting intolerance, and animosity toward those of differing beliefs.

I can be bigoted in my opinions as well, but I am also aware of my ignorance and try to keep an open mind, I am open to changing my opinion if I learn some facts that make that opinion invalid. Are you?

Ed Gentner
Ed Gentner's picture
Offline
Joined: Mar 30 2011

CJ when you say the Israeli right wing party is full of "santorum" do you mean like the "spreading santorum" definition that appears when looking it up in google or the candidate Santorum who the definition refers to....either of which is a fairly accurate description....

Dave Olsen
daveo's picture
Offline
Joined: Oct 12 2008
Member

Phil is dead on about the "Chickenhawks" who want to start wars, but wouldn't go themselves when they were young, and their children typically don't either.

I think it's something like 20% of Congress have actually served in the Military in any form.

"I got in trouble for saying this before, but I like somebody in the chain of command that has smelled a little powder, as my father used to say, who was a World War I vet. If you smelled powder you have a different view, you think twice and you are very careful. If you haven't, it's just one big adventure until you have seen the first body. And unfortunately we don't have enough people -- all the warriors are in the State Department, Rich Armitage, Colin Powell, there are more medals in the State Department than there are in the Department of Defense, unfortunately."
General Anthony Zinni on the Rumsfeld Defense Dept. 2004

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1142009/posts

His book written with Tom Clancy "Battle Ready" is a great read BTW

Jeff Allen
dnjallen's picture
Offline
Joined: Jun 5 2009
Member

The logic of demeaning leaders who make military decisions when they never served is absurd. President Obama took over GM and Chrysler yet has never worked in the auto industry. President Obama has all but taken over healthcare decisions for the American public yet he has never practiced medicine. President Obama has used taxpayer dollars to pick winners and losers(mostly losers so far) in the private sector "green energy" industry yet has never run a company or worked in capital investments. President Obama has meddled in the housing market yet has never been a realtor. President Obama has issued numerous regulations in the banking and credit industry yet has never worked in either. President Obama has made public judgements about how local police departments conduct their business yet has never been a cop. President Obama has presided over an operation where guns were allowed to funnel into the hands of drug cartels in order to track them yet has never been a drug lord (as a side note, Obama called Susan Fluke to apologize for Rush calling her a slut, but has yet to call the family of Brian Terry, the border agent killed by one of those guns). President Obama has nixed funding for charter schools for low income kids in the D.C. area yet he himself attended an expensive private high school in Hawaii. I could go on and on but the point has been (over)made.

Phil Ricci
rythmtaz's picture
Offline
Joined: Jul 31 2008
Member

Yes Kyle, I am very open to outside facts, swaying my opinion, so now I am not a bigot. You are not stating facts, you are stating your opinion. I respect it, and have not reduced myself to calling you a name. I personally believe that people who do not know what they are sending people to, shouldn't. That is my opinion. I have not called these people any names, unlike you, and I was very open to Nathan's contributions, even wished him well.

So what you're really saying is that because I don't agree with you that I am a bigot? That's fine. I have had many young kids that I worked with in Germany join, then die for what? I'm sorry Kyle, I don't believe in these wars, and all I want is someone who knows what it's like to have seen that first hand to make these choices. Not those who sit in ivory towers that will never be affected.

I respect your service, and that we disagree, but I am not a bigot sir. I am very open and willing to discuss anyone's views and opinions.

Jeff Allen
dnjallen's picture
Offline
Joined: Jun 5 2009
Member

Howard, I was speaking to the logic of leaders making decisions without having direct experience in the field of decision. Our Constitution lays out that elected civilians make the decision to go to war and sworn soldiers carry it out. The only way to get around this being the problem people are making it out to be would be a Constitutional amendment requiring military service as a prerequisite to being a Congressman. Is that what people on here are suggesting?

Mike Kelly
mensev64's picture
Offline
Joined: Sep 1 2009

http://crombouke.blogspot.com/2010/01/triumph-of-islam-how-primitive.html

Ed Gentner
Ed Gentner's picture
Offline
Joined: Mar 30 2011

Howard, we share that common experience of military service at a young age, I was 17 when I enlisted in 1968 and spent my time as a medic, since then I have developed a profound scepticsm when it comes to the issue of sending others into war.

I listen to those who want to be the Republican candidate this time around and except for Ron Paul they all beat the war drum. Ron Paul served as a surgeon and saw first hand the horrors of war, he knows what the others simply do not. Romney and Gingrich are classic chicken-hawks never served when they had the chance and Romney's five sons never served when the opportunity presented itself, Santorum who sees no problem with sending young men and women off to war yet they all claims to believe in the sanctity of life above all else. Ron Paul may not be my choice for President, but he is the one Republican I respect, he's consistant on the issue of war.

Jeff Allen
dnjallen's picture
Offline
Joined: Jun 5 2009
Member

Howard, we are speaking to different logic then. I would never directly compare the magnitude of sending citizens to war with squandering taxpayer dollars. However, Congress has a laundry list of duties and powers and in order to avoid hypocrisies in their decisions they would all have to be ex-military, CPA's, lenders, scientists, judges, transportation experts, and delivery authorities. I believe the reason there are no experiential requisites to serve is the need for all perspectives in issues affecting our country.

Nathan Oaksford
nmophoto's picture
Offline
Joined: Jan 14 2011

"United we stand. Divided we fall."

I can see where this is going....

Nathan Oaksford
nmophoto's picture
Offline
Joined: Jan 14 2011

I actually find it amusing that people are giving me so many thumbs down because I don't agree with you. I really got negative feedback for being a nurse? wow, Hope I don't have you as a patient. I don't think most of you have read what I wrote or you are jaded by my supposed political stance that you just assume everything i say is wrong, open your brains people. THERE ARE NO SIDES. We are America. Supposedly the best country in the world. Start acting like it.

Frank Bartholomew
Frank N. Bartholomew's picture
Offline
Joined: Apr 4 2010

Just to set the record straight, I beleive I said in my initial post I was pro sanction, not pro war.
The war has already been declared, BETTER KNOWN AS JIHAD.

Frank Bartholomew
Frank N. Bartholomew's picture
Offline
Joined: Apr 4 2010

Nathan, most people outside the medical proffession have no idea how tough nursing has become, I do, and can appreciate what it takes as I have 3 close relatives who work in that field. One works at a VA hospital, and I have heard what war does to many men and women, both physically and mentally.

Dave Olsen
daveo's picture
Offline
Joined: Oct 12 2008
Member

#48, Thank you Howard, you made my point perfectly

Dave Olsen
daveo's picture
Offline
Joined: Oct 12 2008
Member

Jeff; everything you write regarding the hypocrisy of President Obama is correct in my view. The power of the chief executive of our government has gone WAY too far. No man or woman is qualified to nor should wield that kind of power. Be it domestic or worldwide. That's not how our system of representative government is supposed to work. Congress has to stop rubber stamping these foreign involvements by our military. If there is a legitimate threat to our security, then it will pass the test of a vote for a declaration of war. There will always be a boogeyman, there will always be unrest, there will always be sabres rattling somewhere. But they and most recent Presidents except for possibly Bush Sr. who had smelled powder BTW; would rather consider political gain or loss over the life, death and wounding (physical and psychological) of our citizens.

I say it sucks.

Nathan Oaksford
nmophoto's picture
Offline
Joined: Jan 14 2011

I know who you are referring to, I never worked with her but saw her around there from time to time. Working there is what prompted me to go back to school actually. Very glad for that opportunity.

Charlie Mallow
cmallow's picture
Offline
Joined: Apr 28 2008

Dave, I was thinking that every talking point Jeff recited, isn't going to help. I don't know about the rest of you but, it's a negative broken record that everyone I know has turned off. It's like living near an airport or a rail line, eventually you don't even hear the noise anymore.

Jeff Allen
dnjallen's picture
Offline
Joined: Jun 5 2009
Member

Charlie, he is running for re-election, I'm sure he would want it treated that way because he cannot possibly run on his record. He continues to exploit these distractions to divert attention. He holds one of his RARE press conferences on Super Tuesday, why? Because all anybody will be talking about is the Republican results and not his usual non-answers to softball questions. His record is real, it's relevant, and it is far from a broken record.

Charlie Mallow
cmallow's picture
Offline
Joined: Apr 28 2008

Jeff, he sure can run on his record, the man brought our economy back from the sorry shape your heros left it in. Ask an auto worker who saved their job. I'm tired of the droning hate speak that comes from the the right. I'm sick of hearing the war mongering theocrats drone on and on about birth control, Mexicans, Muslims, and homosexuals. I'm sick and tired of weak gutless politicians who are too afraid to stand up to a radio show drug addict. I get it we are alll big spending prostitutes, socialists, illegals and immoral, yea I get the party line. I love the Muslim brotherhood and my president is an apologist. Providing health care is socialism. Blah, Blah, Blah... Constitutution... Birth Certificate.. Blah .. Blah.. bailouts and czars. Repeat, regurgitate bomb someone.. The talking points are tired old, boring, senseless and meaningless.

Republicans used to be a party that stood for things now, they are a religious party more interested in what your doing with your private parts.I don't need a government peeping through people's windows.

Jeff Allen
dnjallen's picture
Offline
Joined: Jun 5 2009
Member

Charlie, you mean ask a GM/Chrysler/UAW member. The auto industry was not in dire straits as Obama led us to believe. Toyota, Honda, Mercedes, etc were and are doing fine, they are and were employing hundreds of thousands of skilled American workers, building quality American made vehicles and making a profit. Ford came to the government trough with GM and Chrysler but upon seeing the costs, opted not to participate in the UAW/Obama shakedown. Coincidentally they made the tough choices on their own and returned to profitability LONG before the other two. As a result of OUR tax payer dollars bailing out Chrysler, they are now owned by Fiat. What a success story, American tax dollars spent to sell a major car company to France! Our own Treasury Dept. estimates we will lose $1.3 billion on the Chrysler bailout. If you mean ask one of the 1600 auto workers just laid off because Obama/GM signature Volt is such a flop, I'm not sure they agree. If that is your definition of successful policy then Obama is certainly your guy. I don't do talking points, I can back up all the assertions in the post you are referring to.
As for this statement "Republicans used to be a party that stood for things" I could not agree more

Charlie Mallow
cmallow's picture
Offline
Joined: Apr 28 2008

Jeff, I had forgotten the "party" blames unions for everything and all union members are lazy and greedy. My bat. Can't Republicans even admit to the obvious? The bailout worked and our country is better off today. The rest of us admit mistakes, change and strive to do better next time. The idiologs on the right are incapable of a simple human act. I guess if you just keep repeating and shifting you can put a negative spin on anything. The problem is that the tactic is transparent.

Frank Bartholomew
Frank N. Bartholomew's picture
Offline
Joined: Apr 4 2010

Phil, we have the joint cheifs to advise the president and the congress on all available options, its not like they go into these decisions with a blindfold.
Charlie, Obama also got Bin Ladin, and has kept the country from sinking any deeper into the republican sinkhole created by 8 years of bush/chaney.

John Roach
John Roach's picture
Online
Joined: May 29 2008
Member

Charlie,
Did he save the auto companies or the UAW? The auto companies would have went through the same reorganization if they had been allowed to go to bankruptcy, but the UAW would have been hit very hard. The GM company stock still has to hit about $50 for the tax payer to get their money back, which does not seem likely. And this was Chrysler's second bailout. How many times do they have to be saved by us?

bud prevost
buddyholly4863's picture
Offline
Joined: Jan 11 2009

" And this was Chrysler's second bailout. How many times do they have to be saved by us?"

John, now that Fiat owns Chrysler, hopefully we won't need to bail them out again.

Mark Brudz
Markb's picture
Offline
Joined: Feb 9 2012
Member

That is actually untrue Phil. In the early post Vietnam era it was, but not since the 1980 or so, and especially since 2011.

I served as a Marine for 20 years, there were young marines from all walks of life. My father was an Engineer, I hardly came from a poor social economic background.

The servicemen and women from the 1980's have been and are even more now bright, dedicated and more than competative with thier piers.

The days of enlist or go to jail went away in the 60's

I have personally served with more than a few enlisted men and women that entered the military with associate degrees.

I site the 2004 presidential campaign when John Kerry advanced that agruement only to be met with a barrage of letters, YouTube and other social media postings from service men and women taking offense at populist misconception

Phil Ricci
rythmtaz's picture
Offline
Joined: Jul 31 2008
Member

Actually, Mark the numbers only shifted in the past few years, roughly 2008 the military started seeing a rise in middle class and a closer resemblence of current conditions.

Mark Brudz
Markb's picture
Offline
Joined: Feb 9 2012
Member

The many I have served with from 1972 through the 1980's might disagree with your data.

Especially with the 2008 dateline that you suggest. 9-11 alone saw many leave college and employment to enlist. I was long since retired then but subscribe to several military journals and publications there seems to be a large variance depending on your source.

Jeff Allen
dnjallen's picture
Offline
Joined: Jun 5 2009
Member

Charlie, I will ask one question for you to defend the auto bailouts, how did Ford do it? And just for clarification, I have been a dues paying union member for over 20 years and served as an officer. Am I by no means anti-union, I just don't believe unions are unions anymore when they become major shareholders in the companies they represent. GM, Chrysler, and the UAW pulled the wool over taxpayer eyes and Obama is claiming victory for America, or should I say Viva la France

Charlie Mallow
cmallow's picture
Offline
Joined: Apr 28 2008

Jeff, how about a real life answer to the spin you regurgitated. How would our economy absorb 1 million more lost jobs? Would the ripple effect of that loss destabilize our fragile econometric situation and cause a much larger loss? Yes, it would have. Worse yet the partisan right wing knows this fact and secretly wished our president would have made the wrong decision. The fight against the bank and auto bailouts is purely partisan. The Republicans would have done the same exact thing if they were in power and in fact started the process.

Mark Brudz
Markb's picture
Offline
Joined: Feb 9 2012
Member

The simple answer is Charlie.

Under a Bankruptcy there would have been restructuring just as there was in the Bail out.

The difference is that Bankruptcy law would have been applied, the cost to taxpayer would be less, Companies would be sold (As Chrysler was) and there would NOT have been another 1,000,000 layoffs, the unions would have to make concessions that is all.

BTW, There are approximately 1,125,000 employed in the auto industry nation wide, including the NON Unioun plants in the south.

Facts are Facts Charlie, Right to work States have both out preformed UNION required states in the private sector over the last 15 years. Including during the slow down with few exceptions.

Union membership is only 14% of the entire US workforce and more than half of that are government employees

Right-to-work

Productivity Growth 18.6%

Job Growth 17.6%

Economic Growth 41.6%

Union shop

Productivity Growth 17.3%

Job Growth 8.9%

Economic Growth 33.5%

Charlie Mallow
cmallow's picture
Offline
Joined: Apr 28 2008

Mark, you know very well that the fall out would have gone much further than the auto industry. The industry is supported by thousands of other businesses but, you know that. The fact is there was no liquity in the markets, that's the real fact partisans seem to not want to accept. The right really doesnt care about facts, they make them up on the fly. Anything Obama does is bad, I get it.

I know that Genesee County is a bit of a closed environment. Everyone around you dances to the same song and it's hard to get the real picture of how damaged the Republicans truley are right now.

John Roach
John Roach's picture
Online
Joined: May 29 2008
Member

Charlie,
Don't you think saving the UAW was a major factor?

Mark Brudz
Markb's picture
Offline
Joined: Feb 9 2012
Member

Charlie,

I would like to point out to you the last time a Republican field looked like this, in January 1979, Jimmy Carter Led the front runner 62% - 32% and the folks said no way that the front runner can win,, I don't have to tell you who that was do I?

You are very Partisan, events of the next 3 or 4 months will do more to settle the Novemeber election than anything anyone on either side of the aisle can say or do.

The Bottom line is that the Bail out was nothing more than a bail out for the UAW that is pure and simple.

Ford, Toyota USA, and others survived, restructured oin thier own and thrived with out it

Charlie Mallow
cmallow's picture
Offline
Joined: Apr 28 2008

Saving jobs, yes but, not a union. The right seems so willing to give up our auto industry. I wonder what the talking point would have been if that dream came true? No need to answer, I already know. Obama destroyed our auto industry, he is a failure.

Charlie Mallow
cmallow's picture
Offline
Joined: Apr 28 2008

Mark, what positions does the right take that deserve support? Failure of our key industries? Eternal war without end, bomb, bomb Iran? A theocracy? Perhaps their support of women's issues? Building walls to keep Mexicans out? Maybe their blatent disregard of the civil rights of homosexuals? Could it be the bright shinny future they envision, where kids don't go to colleage? How did Rush put it today, "I don't understand unmarried over educated white women". Just what exactly does that mean?

Mark Brudz
Markb's picture
Offline
Joined: Feb 9 2012
Member

Well I never said nor do I believe that Obama destroyed the auto industry and I do not believe Bush destroyed the economy.

The problem in the economy and the auto industry was 30 years in the making, anyone with a basic understanding of macro economics understands that.

You shouldn't assume that was my premise, nor should you assume that my view of thge "republican party is bound by the eyes a Genesee County republican"

But to say that the auto bail out was anything more than a UAW payoff is just wrong

John Roach
John Roach's picture
Online
Joined: May 29 2008
Member

I don't think the industry would have been destroyed, since Ford survived without any bailout. Smaller, yes, but still here. GM would have gone through reorganization and continued, but the union would have been hurt big time.

Chrysler might have gone under, and been sold off, like it was anyway (really, how many times do we have to save it?).

Mark Brudz
Markb's picture
Offline
Joined: Feb 9 2012
Member

Precisely my point John

Charlie Mallow
cmallow's picture
Offline
Joined: Apr 28 2008

Ok, so we should be happy with 2/3 of our domestic auto industry going under. Sounds like a nice campaign slogan.

Mark Brudz
Markb's picture
Offline
Joined: Feb 9 2012
Member

Charlie,

For you to call anyone an exterme ideolog is laffable.

I crossed party lines a time or two , the last time was to vote for you, after you convinced me how non partisan you were on my front porch one day.

I assure you, that is a mistake I will never repeat.

You up until now have been the ONLY one making the discussion Democrat versus Republican

But my favorite is this, "Building walls to keep Mexicans out? "

Only Democrats say Republicans want to keep mexicans out, Republicans say let them come here by legal means or go home.

Go get your email from the DNC and bring on your next set of talking points irrelavant to the discusion and we"ll chat again

Charlie Mallow
cmallow's picture
Offline
Joined: Apr 28 2008

Mark, the political spectrum has changed alot in the last 7 years, I haven't. Think about where idioligial center was then, somewhere between Al Gore and George Bush. Where is it now? The center has drifted so far right, it left me pretty far behind. At one point, I voted for Bush. By your moving perspective, I guess I'm pretty far left.

Mark Brudz
Markb's picture
Offline
Joined: Feb 9 2012
Member

I will agree to disagree.

The extreme right and extreme left have always been and will always be there. The problem is that these days the focus is always on the extreme.

Have a good night, I am sure we will debate again

Frank Bartholomew
Frank N. Bartholomew's picture
Offline
Joined: Apr 4 2010

It really amazes me how fast attitudes change,after 9/11, the whole damn country was united, well, the next time the terrorist muslims decide to hit America, it may just be some Iranian produced nuke material.If that type of thinking makes me a bigot, so be it. When this happens, it will make 9/11 look like a fender bender in comparison.

Phil Ricci
rythmtaz's picture
Offline
Joined: Jul 31 2008
Member

We were all united at 9/11, Frank. Then this government lied, fabricated and exaggerated facts to send us into two wars. Wars that did not produce what they said they would, but lost our nation more precious lives. Yes I know not to the degree of Vietnam, but sorry any loss of life for this was a waste. Maybe so many of us are against this is because like Mark said, all we get to listen to is the extremes. We either have the far left telling us that being successful means that I should have less, while they expand programs more and more. Meanwhile the far right is more interested in who we can marry, while they're expanding programs as well.

It's a joke.

War is not always the answer.

Mark Brudz
Markb's picture
Offline
Joined: Feb 9 2012
Member

Phil,

I agree with you to a point,

1) We did not go into Afganistan based on a lie, we went there because we had undistbuted fact that the Taliban housed training bases for El Queda and that the 9-11 murderers were tied to those camps, as well as Bin Laden.

2) What one side calls a lie, does not mean that it is, i.e. Iraq. Iraq was more of an Intelligence failure than a lie, that is fact.

The problem is that for political gain on both sides, facts get muddled to support positions. Remember, Bill Clinton believed Iraq was possesing WMD, why, because Sadam believed that by creating the aire that he still had them would protect him from us.

The war in Iraq understandably is questionable, but not Afganistan. What has happened in the ensuing years is what is questionable there. That goes for both administrations.

That said, to simply withdraw at this point has other far reaching implications.

As far as Far Right and Far Left go, you are spot on. The Far Left believes the Government should provide everything, the Far Right believes The Government should be limited to protecting our borders and interest and not much else no matter the cost.

But our politicians are reactive, they go he way of the wind for the most part.

It all began around 1900 and then as well transcended party lines as Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson were extreme progressives. This is an entirely new can of worms, and would be worthy of a thread all it's own, as it has a direct relationship to our polictal woes today.

Phil Ricci
rythmtaz's picture
Offline
Joined: Jul 31 2008
Member

I agree with you Mark, I should have been more specific to Iraq with my comment. Great points!

Kyle Couchman
Kyle C's picture
Offline
Joined: Dec 25 2009

Mark is right.....I can understand both points/sides on the Auto bailout. What I have problems understanding is the Banking/Mortgage bailout. Thats what I dont understand. During a bible study this week our discussion turned political. He said that there are people who come to this country and have children, to make them citizens. Then they ALL go back home and they apply for govt assistance that is sent to them in that country. If this actually goes on why would it be allowed in the first place. I mean if you are a citizen but you choose to live out of the country whay would you expect to collect govt assistance ( which is usually applied for and granted at the state or county level ) Theres so many places where we could make common sense cuts and program removals but dont cause it's politically incorrect or looks bad.

Mark Brudz
Markb's picture
Offline
Joined: Feb 9 2012
Member

The "Birth Rite" stemmed from the old slavery days, It is an interpetation of the 14th Amendment.

It was intended to prevent Southern States from denying Blacks citizenship after slavery was abolished,

It is a perfect example however, of the unintended consequences of legislation in that it's intention was to protect those born here not to be used as a tool to come here.

That is why whenever we get around as a nation to immagration reform, we have to be very careful what law is actually wriitten. We are a nation of immigrants, and we should embrace legal immigration, but we need to be careful not simply let people say they are a citizen just because they crossed the border.

What gets muddled in this discussion is the word "Legal" by both sides. A Legal migrant worker is NOT a citizen in itself, But that same worker who goes through the process to become a citizen can earn his/her way there.

Again, an entirely new thread could start on this topic, The most facinating reading ever, is the US Constitution coupled with the writings of our nations founders, then compare them to recent issues, it is astounding the liberties taken by both extremes in politics

Chris Charvella
C. Charvella's picture
Offline
Joined: Jan 15 2009

"During a bible study this week our discussion turned political."

That's your problem right there.

C. M. Barons
C. M. Barons's picture
Offline
Joined: Jul 29 2008

"They" must earn their right to be here, just as "we" earned our right to be here. While we establish those terms, will the role of smallpox be considered?

Mark Brudz
Markb's picture
Offline
Joined: Feb 9 2012
Member

My Grandparents on both sides "Earned Their Citizenship" C.M. Baron by attending classes, studying our civil system, and going through a formal immigration /naturalization process. They then established my citizenship as well as my parents by thier actions.

I am not sure what you are saying, but if it is Rehtorical, please note that NO COUNTRY IN THE WORLD does not have a formal immigration process.

I have no idea what you are trying to say about small pox please elaborate

Charlie Mallow
cmallow's picture
Offline
Joined: Apr 28 2008

No CM, blankets will not be provided! Nowhere in the constitution does it say we can provide blankets to illegal people.

Mark Brudz
Markb's picture
Offline
Joined: Feb 9 2012
Member

For the record Charlie, I do Not Believe in mass deportation as an answer, My belief is secure the Border first, identify the status next, and provided clean criminal record assimilate through legal means. I strongly believe the immigration process need sto be overhauled to make legal immigration move a a quicker and more open pace. I just think that the law MUST be followed.

It is not simply the constitution, it is a matter of US Code, you know laws passed and enacted by duly elected members of congress, signed by the president and all, They exist now and should be followed, not ignored for this weeks social outcry of choice.

Why is it Democrats always seem to want to turn a simple matter of current law into a social issue?

Charlie Mallow
cmallow's picture
Offline
Joined: Apr 28 2008

Mark, because calling another person illegal is a social issue. This problem is created on our side of the boarder. Americans created the market that drives demand for Mexican labor. Our laws do not keep pace with our internal demand. As long as its profitable to higher Mexicans that don't have the correct papers it will continue.

Also, we need to come to terms with the idea that a good percentage of the population really likes to single out anyone who isn't like them for abuse. Back in the day people loved to crap on the Irish and Itialians, now its the Mexicans turn. Same old America, different scapegoat.

Mark Brudz
Markb's picture
Offline
Joined: Feb 9 2012
Member

Charlie, like I said, I am strongly in favor of streamlining immigration.

I am more down on employers that hire undocumented workers, and myself have no malice toward anyone who wants to live and work here.

Simple law changes could be very effective,For example;

Allow Farm Organizations and Reststiuarant associations to hire representatives that could work with INS to streamline and bulk issue H1B green card applications for foriegn nationals seeking employement in US

Illegal immigration is not just a Mexican Border issue, as well, overstayed visa's from nationals from all over the world are at issue.

It is truly a national security issue as well, simply not enforcing a law allows anyone to walk in and do whta they want, that happens no where else in the world but here, go to Canada and try to get a job or buy a house without proper paperwork and see

Both sides of this issue have politicized this, simple solutions exist, a bloated self serving government is what complicates

Mark Brudz
Markb's picture
Offline
Joined: Feb 9 2012
Member

"Also, we need to come to terms with the idea that a good percentage of the population really likes to single out anyone who isn't like them for abuse. Back in the day people loved to crap on the Irish and Itialians, now its the Mexicans turn. Same old America, different scapegoat."

Actually same old HUMAN NATURE, remember Bosians and Serbs, Shiites and Sunis.... You can not legislate people out of bigotry or prejudice, but what you can do is use an equally applied law to level the playing field. That is the difference, Again, you can not nor will you ever be able to legislate how a person thinks.

When you say it is our fault that people skirt the law, I say BS, it is the fault of employers that BREAK the law who are at fault. I do not blame the immigrant, we are a nation of immigrants. But the best of what our nation is, is because of the rule of law

Charlie Mallow
cmallow's picture
Offline
Joined: Apr 28 2008

Mark, what your doing is facing this issue with reason and you sound like your open to compromise. That's a bit old fashion of you, now a days it's common place to dig in your heals instead. That's why nothing gets done anymore.

Mark Brudz
Markb's picture
Offline
Joined: Feb 9 2012
Member

Well at least we agree on that Charlie.

But take note, it seems that everytime someone on this site post a more conservative view of things, They are met with an onslaught of Cliche rhedoric from the more liberal types that abound.

Then cliche retorts from the more to the right

And the root of the problem gets lost, everyone starts spouting one point or another and noone takes the root of the issue to task.

Our immigration problems began in 1965, with a a well intentioned piece of legislation called " The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 (Hart-Celler Act, INS, Act of 1965" While meant as a means to lift limiting quotas on immigration, the result opened a flood gate which changed the Foriegn Born US pop in 1970 of 4.7% to the 2000 census of 11.7% and the 2010 Census of nearly 20%.

The fears on one side is the loss of the melting pot concept of the United States into a multicultural maze.

Whatever you believe on the issue take note:

The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 granted a path to citizenship to illegal immigrants who had been in the United States before 1982 but made it a crime to hire an illegal immigrant.

We simply need to start by enforcing the law, ythen amending it to suite the the current needs of the nation. But to simply allow a free flow unchecked the borders is not good for anyone

Charlie Mallow
cmallow's picture
Offline
Joined: Apr 28 2008

Mark, I guess which side attacks first is a matter of perception.

Mark Brudz
Markb's picture
Offline
Joined: Feb 9 2012
Member

Does it matter?

I agree with you strongly on one key point, the current state of politics is as devisive as it ever was.

Don't guess my friend, the attacks come first from the first Zealot to type on a keyboard

Premium Drupal Themes