Or rather, how can it possibly be wrong for the Free to kill the Unfree?

Shush gal, the battle royale is about to begin

What if we apply the Bobby McGee Principle, IE that freedom is just another word for nothin' left to lose?

Or...is it possible that if freedom killing unfreedom is wrong, we don't wanna be right?

Because...it hurts so good?

It's a hard habit to break?

Freedom, I can't quit you.

And this from some tax doging pussy who couldn't hack it in the military, more than likely you got your ass kicked out anyway.. Good stuff, carry on. :rattat: HA!

I propose that this execution of an isolationist stance is not relevant to our times, because of the way the economy works. Resources, which represent our interests, aren't geographically located within our borders, so therefore protecting our own interests within our borders means doing some work outside our borders.

Something like "lining our troops up around our borders" would now be more like "lining up our troops around the oil fields in the middle east" which is...what we're doing isn't it? More accurately, establishing a military presence in the region.

Except we would never admit that. Instead we talk about "spreading freedom" and other such nonsense that we really don't give a crap about, or else we'd be doing it in the places where it's really needed most. Instead, we're doing it where our own interests lie, and there's nothing wrong with that.

Except we're too dishonest to admit it, and prefer to lie to ourselves about the reasons for war.

People don't support the war because they don't like being lied to, and they're not stupid.

No one doubts the presence of any of the overseas bases are to project power for our national interests, including preserving the free flow of oil. The sooner we break the bondage from oil the sooner we can worry less about oil.

I'm not talking about established military outposts, I'm talking about having our whole damn military stationed over there...indefinitely (???)

There's been a long list of bullshit reasons to be in Iraq, each one has been thoroughly shot down, only to be replaced by a more ridiculous flim-flam reason. At this point, we're down to pure idealistic fantasies. Yet, a good, valid reason is staring us right in the face...

Why has not one person had the balls to say we're there to be close to the oil our economy depends on?

A mental midget like you are in no position to judge the intellect of his intellectual superiors like me.

How hilarious that a shitbird like you who has absolutely zero understanding of the Constitution would question someone like me who knows it better than any Supreme Court Justice in the last century.

The war in Iraq is 100% unconstitutional. Anyone who says otherwise is a liar, a complete idiot, or an asshole. This includes you.

I have proven many times the unconstitutionality of this war.

1. The U.S. Constitution defines the scope of our military as being a DEFENSIVE one. This means America doesn't start wars or attack first. It means all "pre-emptive" military action is unconstitutional.

2. Only Congress has war making powers and only when it is in the defense of American ships or soil and then only when a formal declaration of war is made and voted upon by Congress.

3. Congress does not have the authority to distribute its powers to other branches of government so it may not "authorize" the president to make war.

4. The invasion of Iraq was not in the defense of America in 1991, in 2002, or at any time in history. Iraq never posed even the slightest threat to America.

5. The war powers act is unconstitutional in its face and the Supreme Court itself said that all laws which contradict the Constitution are automatically null and void without the requirement of judicial review.

6. Each and every single war that the United States has entered into in which America was not defending American soil or ships is unconstitutional. Each and every single war the United States has entered into where a formal declaration of war was not made by CONGRESS, is unconstitutional.

I've stated these indisputable facts many times over. You are just too stupid to read them or too dishonest or morally bankrupt to admit they are true.

Dont' ever try to take the moral or intellectual high ground with me. You will lose every time.

You ask "How could it possibly be wrong for freedom to kill unfreedom?" The question itself proves your ignorance and I'm not just talking about your use of a fictional word.

Freedom doesn't kill anything. Freedom is about living the way you want to live your life without being molested, forced, coerced, or cajoled into doing what others want you to do. Democracy and freedom are not synonymous .

America's authority ends at our own borders. Neither America, nor the UN has any authority whatsoever to tell another country what weapons it may or may not develop or what system of government it will or won't have. America isn't here to "liberate" the people of other nations or to practice nation building. America's military is for the sole use of defending America.

America's military is here to be a DEFENSIVE force to be used when we are attacked and not otherwise. It's not here to be spread out all over the globe like the Roman Empire bullying other nations or sticking our noses into the disputes of other nations. It's not here for humanitarian aid or peacekeeping missions. It's not here to overthrow or prop up dictators or to spread democracy. It's not even here to kill "unfreedom".

Anyone who would use the U.S. military for any of these reasons is a traitor and an idiot.

This is not an isolationist stance. It's a military non-interventionist stance, and they are not the same thing. We defend ourselves, and we trade freely with other nations. We do not get involved in their political affairs or disputes with other nations.

This works in real life. Switzerland has been surrounded by war for hundreds of years and hasn't been in one for 150. It remains neutral in all disputes. It has a very strong defense. It doesn't go around sticking its nose where it doesn't belong. They are very happy and successful for this stance. This was also America's stance until WWI.

I see the candyassed pussy who couldn't hack it in a ring with me for a minute is running his mouth again. I served with honor and I got an honorable discharge when I was done because I realized the military has too many morons and I could make a lot more money outside the military. I'm making more than 80% of Generals currently serving in the military.

I don't appreciate taking orders from idiots so after my term was done, I got out and went to college, and now I'm the one giving orders. Luckily for those who work for me, they don't have to deal with taking orders from an idiot.

Okay, I used the wrong word. The difference in the two things we're describing is: the specific (stated) reason why the troops are there. Which is highly debatable. We're framing it differently, but as a practical matter the results are the same.

I'm saying there may be a good reason for us to be over there, but, mysteriously we are silent on that point.

As a result, we've barrelled into a war with no hope of sustained political support.

All one needs to avoid military conflict is to become a mountainous nation with few natural resources (that's the hard part), and give the entire nation high-powered rifles and train them to be snipers (the easy part).

Hee hee.

True, but you continue to repeat lies. Also, one can hardly expect to persuade those who are intellectually dishonest and morally bankrupt and whose minds (what little they have) are not open to be persuaded.

In other words, you can't persuade a rock, or those who have the intellect and/or stubbornness of one.

Or...bankroll the Nazis and Fascists.