spartansub
Posts: 1
Joined: 9/29/2007
Status: offline
|
I agree wholeheartedly with the President's statement. On the surface it may seem idealistic and naive, but as a general statement I agree with it 100%.
For the readers, I have both a D and R after my name, or neither, depending on your point of view. I originally voted for Bush, and voted for him the 2nd time even though I had my reservations. To my dismay, I continued to see his administration trample on parts of our constitution, dance around what the majority of people consider torture for enemy combatants, and generally make me regret that I voted for him.
I believe that our actions should express our ideals and represent what we, as Americans, believe. I also believe there are rarely black and white situations, but that the more grey a situation appears, the more slippery the slope becomes, until the difference between us and the side that we're fighting against appears indistinguishable. I'm sure the Nazi officers at Nuremburg were surprised when their defense of " I was following orders" was thrown back at them, with the court citing the requirement for a higher ethical and moral ground. Accordingly, I believe if we justify our actions based on the righteousness of it but we compromise our ideals, principles, or morals, then we are no better than our opponent.
I have high hopes for our new President. I like most of what I've heard and seen so far. I can't imagine him doing worse than his predecessor.
I'm sure there are some who won't agree with what I've just written and will be compelled to say so. That's OK - I'm a big boy and can take it. I can also learn from both substantive rebuttals as well as the other kind.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Coldwarrior57
quote:
ORIGINAL: Owner59
quote:
ORIGINAL: BamaD
Both Carter and Clinton came in talking about how "moral" our forgien policy would be. To prove it they blinded our intellegence comunity and persuaded our enemies that we would not fight back if attacked. This is what scares me about Obama's stance on morality. Besides POWs have no constitutional rights, check any war we or anyone else has fought.
"Homeland was repeatedly discussed from May to August"
"you acknowledged that al-queda cells were in the United States"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DIpEwGmSsmM
Aug 6,2001 PDB -----"bin-laden determined to attack in the United States"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Then that clown made her Secretary of State !
Talk about rewarding failure!!!!
Imagine our enemies thinking,"we just successfully attacked them and the stooge who drooped the ball got a promotion and pay raise".
What better way to say,"attack us"?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Any examples of how Carter or Clinton "blinded our intelligence community".
And when Clinton sent Cruse Missiles deep into Afghanistan to takeout bin-laden,what did the republicans do?
They cheered" No war for Monica!No war for Monica!
I couldn`t think of a better way to tell our enemies to attack us.As soon as a dem POTUS takes action,republicans respond by trying to stop him!!
History`s a bitch,isn`t it?
WOW are you really that ignorant , or just so anti W , that you cannot or will not do any research to find the truth?
I typed this in on google "Clinton blinds intel agency" and there was 185 k responses. but according to you they DONT exists. thats ok keep on living in your foggy world , where only if you have a D after your name your right and if you have a
R after the name their are a NAZI, its your mind set that this country is such a mess, your a partizan HACK.
|
RE: Do you agree with the President? "As for our ... - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread