Who is a Hypocrite

[greybeard]

Sure, it's possible. Perhaps it's a disagreement in what "given any quarter" means. To me, it means no surrender of prisoners and no sympathy for bad conduct. I was simply illustrating that the FFs did in fact go to extreme measures in their conflict with the Crown--at least in reference to their own side. You further this by bringing up the slave issue. Is there anything that might strike terror more than the threat of shackles, whips and the taking of slave' daughters for the master's own pleasures? Not to me. So yes, the founding fathers certainly invoked the use of terror, whether it was known by that term in those days or not.

 

[Rafter S]

Miranda rights are the canary in the coal mine.  We have Senators sitting in the highest chamber of this government who are more concerned with patronizing their electorate than upholding the dignity of our Constitution and judicial system.

Our middle east issues are due to 60 years of failed foreign policy.  The US sticks its big nose in other cultures , then we whine and cry when someone gets mad and hits us back.  Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.  We have screwed around with their regimes for a century.

Everyone wants to make this a Holy War.  BS.  It is about screwing around in other people's backyards.  After a while, they get mad and want to kick your azz.

1) This is why I vote against the incumbent every time. Every. Single. Time. Congress has become a career and it shouldn't be.

2) Which is why we won't win this unless we remove ourselves from the region, but we won't b/c there's too much booty to be won. Who really cares if they blow each other up? If they're not on our shores, does it really matter?

3) Why aren't we in African or Asian politics more? Because they don't have anything to offer us monetarily.

I heard an old man say one time that in every election, from dog-catcher to President, he always voted for the incumbent. Someone asked him why. He replied "I just hate to see an honest man turn crooked."

 

[farmerjan]

I personally believe that if you want to claim rights for yourself, you ought to be morally obliged to extend those same rights to anyone else, regardless of who or where they are..

I'm all for holding people accountable for their actions, and don't think a terrorist should be spared capital punishment... I also think 'modern' court cases take FAR too long... but I think there should be a (short) trial.
The ability to declare anyone an enemy of the state and remove their constitutional rights is a slippery slope that could be seriously abused, and I'm a little scared of that... governments are not good at limiting their scope

Well said!

Agreed but if someone has committed an act of terror, then capital punishment should not be taken off the table. And if "caught in the act" they really shouldn't even make it to the jail, let alone court.

 

[lavacarancher]

I understand that the declaration as to his status is an important distinction for obtaining intelligence but no one (IMO) should be tortured in order to obtain information.

I agree in as much as what is the validity of information attained through tortuous means? However, with that being said, their side isn't going to play fair, so why should we? And no, you don't ever have to hit/burn/electrocute anyone to illicit information. Sleep deprivation and starvation work pretty well, too.

Agreed, Maybe I should have quantified what I meant by torture. I also agree that the validity of the information obtained through torture may be limited in its factual content.

I see another topic of discussion coming up and that is "messing in some one else's back yard". If by messing in some ones back yard you mean exploitation of the oil fields in the middle east then I disagree vehemently. ALL of the exploration, drilling and production of the oil reserves in the middle east was done at the behest of the reigning Shaw's (leaders of the respective countries) and therefore we (United States) should not be held accountable for what those leaders did with the ship loads of money we sent them and still send them. Their people received very little of the proceeds from oil revenue. I would be pizzed too but not to the point of taking acts of violence out on innocent folks. I personally never had anything to do with any of those folks but yet I am subject to the violence they force on me and my family - and you.

 

[Commercialfarmer]

lavacarancher:

The undertone of religious ideology exists. No doubt! But as Mark Twain said, it is greatly exaggerated. If we stayed home, they would not know we existed.

What motivates humans to hate, seek retribution, and commit acts of terrorism is more direct.

You kill my son, you violate my territory, you interfere with my beliefs, etc, etc. Then I am motivated to commit what ever act I am capable of to satisfy my need for retribution.

Our foreign policy has violated these people's sovereignity for a century. The US dressed this pig, now we got to eat it. I agree with Fence. The "he hit me first" time has past. We got to finish their gator before it eats us.

Ron,

This couldn't be further from the truth.

Barbary wars being the first US example.

Islam attacked America first. And has continued attacking American interests.

I'm for less involvement in foreign governments, starting with the money that is distributed from tax payers abroad. We should never have instigated the arab spring, that was due to forces in our government. And it was to bolster islam, not dismantle it. They should be tried and hung.

But to say that Islam would not know we existed is completely false. Islam is a form of government that is founded in war. It started attacking foreign people from it's founding and has continued to today.

The crusades were a response to the whole of europe being attacked. No one assaulted the Moores before they started on there conquests.

Islam is bloody. And it's spread is by force. Look at where it started and where it exists today. You can stick your head in the sand all you want, but to say they wouldn't know we existed is silly starting in the 1800's just after the country was founded.

 

[Margonme]

The Crusades predate the United States, it is illogical to associate the crusades with terrorist activities against the United States.

What is messing in someone else's backyard? Securing a reliable Supply of oil does come into the equation but it is much deeper than that. Prior to WW I, the US pursued a policy of isolationism:

Isolationism is the foreign policy position that a nations' interests is best served by keeping the affairs of other countries at a distance. One possible motivation for limiting international involvement is to avoid being drawn into dangerous and otherwise undesirable conflicts. There may also be a perceived benefit from avoiding international trade agreements or other mutual assistance pacts.

After WW II, we started sticking our nose in other world states and their cultures. We supported whoever served our purpose regardless of whether they were scumbags. I hear users here harp about someone getting into their affairs. Well, look in the mirror. This country set the bar for getting into other free state's affairs. We promoted dictators, mass murders, etc if it served our purpose.

No one came on our soil and started this crap. That shoe fits us! After a 100 years of meddling in every sovereign country of the middle east, are you surprised they react the way they do? If any other country in the world did to us what we do to them, I would be right in line to strap a bomb on me and take as many of them as I could with me.

I swear allegiance to the United States of America but I am not going to blindly ignore our arrogant hypocracy.

 

[greybeard]

I am not going to blindlyrics ignore our arrogant hypocracy.
Writin a song are ya?

 

[Commercialfarmer]

The Crusades predate the United States, it is illogical to associate the crusades with terrorist activities against the United States.

What is messing in someone else's backyard? Securing a reliable Supply of oil does come into the equation but it is much deeper than that. Prior to WW I, the US pursued a policy of isolationism:

Isolationism is the foreign policy position that a nations' interests is best served by keeping the affairs of other countries at a distance. One possible motivation for limiting international involvement is to avoid being drawn into dangerous and otherwise undesirable conflicts. There may also be a perceived benefit from avoiding international trade agreements or other mutual assistance pacts.

After WW II, we started sticking our nose in other world states and their cultures. We supported whoever served our purpose regardless of whether they were scumbags. I hear users here harp about someone getting into their affairs. Well, look in the mirror. This cout try set the bar for getting into other free state's affairs. We promoted dictators, mass murders, etc if it served our purpose.

No one came on our soil and started this crap. That shoe fits us! After a 100 years of meddling in every sovereign country of the middle east, are you surprised they research the used? If any other country in the world did to us what we do to them, I would be right in line to strap a bomb on me and take as many of them as I could with me.

I swear allegiance to the United States of America but I am not going to blindlyrics ignore our arrogant hypocracy.

If you can't understand that islam existed long before the us, and that use of their previous actions is appropriate to demonstrates it's history, you sir are beyond hope of rational thought. Don't attempt to twist my statements into something they are not. If you cannot defend your position as it is, then lick your wounds and move on.

Islam attacked europe... ie the moorish invasion, and islam attacked the us... ie the barbary wars. Both without provication.

Not at one time did i say the us had anything to do with the crusades.

Twist some more Ron.

 

[Margonme]

The Crusades predate the United States, it is illogical to associate the crusades with terrorist activities against the United States.

What is messing in someone else's backyard? Securing a reliable Supply of oil does come into the equation but it is much deeper than that. Prior to WW I, the US pursued a policy of isolationism:

Isolationism is the foreign policy position that a nations' interests is best served by keeping the affairs of other countries at a distance. One possible motivation for limiting international involvement is to avoid being drawn into dangerous and otherwise undesirable conflicts. There may also be a perceived benefit from avoiding international trade agreements or other mutual assistance pacts.

After WW II, we started sticking our nose in other world states and their cultures. We supported whoever served our purpose regardless of whether they were scumbags. I hear users here harp about someone getting into their affairs. Well, look in the mirror. This cout try set the bar for getting into other free state's affairs. We promoted dictators, mass murders, etc if it served our purpose.

No one came on our soil and started this crap. That shoe fits us! After a 100 years of meddling in every sovereign country of the middle east, are you surprised they research the used? If any other country in the world did to us what we do to them, I would be right in line to strap a bomb on me and take as many of them as I could with me.

I swear allegiance to the United States of America but I am not going to blindlyrics ignore our arrogant hypocracy.

If you can't understand that islam existed long before the us, and that use of their previous actions is appropriate to demonstrates it's history, you sir are beyond hope of rational thought. Don't attempt to twist my statements into something they are not. If you cannot defend your position as it is, then lick your wounds and move on.

Islam attacked europe... ie the moorish invasion, and islam attacked the us... ie the barbary wars. Both without provication.

Not at one time did i say the us had anything to do with the crusades.

Twist some more Ron.

CF, you confuse twist with disagree.

 

[Commercialfarmer]

I assume in your history books Ron, that the Ottoman Empire was just an innocent bystander in World War 1, right?

The break up had nothing to do with them attempting world domination?

Oh wait.... that was because we had been sticking our nose in their business.

 

[Margonme]

I assume in your history books Ron, that the Ottoman Empire was just an innocent bystander in World War 1, right?

The break up had nothing to do with them attempting world domination?

Oh wait.... that was because we had been sticking our nose in their business.

Assume anything you want. Believe anything you want. And so will I.

The point is we look at history and see it differently. Nothing unique about that.

 

[Commercialfarmer]

Ive got halal beef to go feed, you have fun altering world history to fit your story.

 

[Margonme]

Ive got halal beef to go feed, you have fun altering world history to fit your story.

Ok

 

[Nesikep]

Farmerjan, In my previous post I said I don't think capital punishment should be off the table, but I do think there should be some form of trial.

Ron, I agree with you too.. the west in general has been good at meddling for the last 100 years or so.. pretty much since oil became a prize commodity. There has also been lots of economic warfare as well, deliberately indebting countries by recommending mega-projects with beautiful, rosy economic benefit projections that are a farce (10% yearly economic growth, when reality is 2% growth), but the projects are funded by the world bank, and they will collect interest on that loan FOREVER because the country just can't pay down the principle, or will be driven to poverty in trying.
Those are things we ARE guilty of.. We're guilty of making it easy for people to hate us

 

[Margonme]

Farmerjan, In my previous post I said I don't think capital punishment should be off the table, but I do think there should be some form of trial.

Ron, I agree with you too.. the west in general has been good at meddling for the last 100 years or so.. pretty much since oil became a prize commodity. There has also been lots of economic warfare as well, deliberately indebting countries by recommending mega-projects with beautiful, rosy economic benefit projections that are a farce (10% yearly economic growth, when reality is 2% growth), but the projects are funded by the world bank, and they will collect interest on that loan oFOREVER because the country just can't pay down the principle, or will be driven to poverty in trying.
Those are things we ARE guilty of.. We're guilty of making it easy for people to hate us

Agreed. Unfortunately, these issues are too complex to fully explore on a forum.

The US has had a long standing involvement in the middle east. The Reagan administration supported Sadam Hussein in the Iraq-Iran war. Billions of dollars and other aid. Much too complex to give due credit on a forum.

These issues are complex and doubtful anyone addressing this thread can do the subject any more justice than commentary.

My point is simple. Much more goes into the issue than the notion that it is about Islam. It is about FOREIGN RELATIONS. And the US has to take responsibility. As ye sow, so shall ye reap. Well, we are reaping.

 

[greybeard]

I had Foreign Relations all over the Western Pacific.
:hide:

 

[Margonme]

I had Foreign Relations all over the Western Pacific.
:hide:

Yes, you did. Of the most austere nature!

 

[lavacarancher]

I had Foreign Relations all over the Western Pacific.
:hide:

I hope you didn't catch anything.

 

[Margonme]

I had Foreign Relations all over the Western Pacific.
:hide:

I hope you didn't catch anything.

It might have been worth it!!

 

[TexasBred]

Gb I don't care to get my hat handed to me in a history debate. But as I stated as you pulled up instances supporting one side. Can you honestly say you couldn't pull up instances supporting the other..

You are asking me to do the research to support your assertions? You want fries and an apple pie with that as well?

No sir. I am working today and have packed a fine lunch. don't have the time to do the research. And your twisting my words I didn't ask you to do my research .I ask you if it was possible. Which you dodged.

I will say with the Miranda rights not being added until 1966. I can fully oppose the Miranda and still support the constitution as written by it's founders.( No hypocrisy)

And I could dispute the fact that these rights are guaranteed to all men. Simply because many of the founders owned slaves.

In that case Fence you could also oppose the entire bill of rights as they were added 3-4 years after the original constitution was signed and went into affect. Thus they are "amendments". Too many want to scream "I know my rights then disallow those same rights to those they disagree with or simply cherry pick the constitution and accept only those part that they accept. Can't have it both ways guys or the constitution is little more than a joke and do cherry pick it makes it an even bigger joke.