Quote from: Joshua Ford;240790I'm aware of what a war constitutes thanks. I asked was it necessary and in the best interests of its citizens. Just answer the question.

You can dismiss the deaths of your soldiers (and we'll ignore for the purposes of this debate Iraqi civilian deaths), but should a state heading for recession really be pumping money into the bottomless pit that Iraq currently is?

Why when you get an answer do you keep changing the question?

Quote from: Joshua Ford;240790I'm aware of what a war constitutes thanks. I asked was it necessary and in the best interests of its citizens.

Depends. See, the dirty little secret is that it's all about Oil, but not in the way people think.

Now people will point and shout and say "But look at the oil prices!" But it's a much longer term question/answer than 5 years...more like 25 or 50.

So, yeah, in the long run, it might very well be in the best interests of the US. Patience is a virtue rarely practiced these days.

Quote from: Joshua Ford;240790You can dismiss the deaths of your soldiers (and we'll ignore for the purposes of this debate Iraqi civilian deaths), but should a state heading for recession really be pumping money into the bottomless pit that Iraq currently is?

Depends on A) how important you think it is in the long run, B) what the situation is, C) a thousand other things. Just putting it against a recession is only measure.

Quote from: CavScout;240723I don't know about jail, but they can be dragged in front of a tribual where...

Those aren't cases where a preacher called homosexuality sinful. Sorry, still wrong.

Quote from: CavScout;240744Let us guess, anyone who critiques the HRC is simply "unfamiliar with the actual process".

You might help your case if you link to actual news stories about Human Rights Commissions in Canada, rather than vitriolic opinion-pieces by American conservatives. I mean, if I quoted Michael Moore's blog as my source for how the American corporate economy works, I wouldn't expect to be taken very seriously.

Quote from: James J Skach;240763How widespread is this belief? I wonder. It's complicated because in many cases, the two are not mutually exclusive. IOW, to act on the world stage in defense of universal human ideals is often in the best interests of the US.

Now, whether or not we defend those ideals, or achieve them, is an argument worthy of far more effort than a thread on a forum - it's the overriding question of the day.

However, because those two things coincide but work against the self interest of other players on the world stage does not negate the coincidence of those two things.

Man, James, I don't know how it is in suburban Illinois, but I live in a pretty liberal state, though admittedly an area that contains some more conservative elements than the rest, and I've been hearing shit like Haffrung describes all my life, including from my own parents.

By contrast, I can't recall ever hearing anything like, say, what CavScout's spouting or what Haffrung describes from any of the many foreign folks I've encountered in what is at this point some 15 years spent wasting time on the Internet.

Unless you count reactionary responses to such American exceptionalism of the "You know, we're not exactly communist China over here, either".  Usually however this is in response to the staggering level of ignorance of the actual freedoms of citizens of other Western countries.  You'd be amazed at the sheer number of Americans who honestly believe that most of Europe is basically one step above Soviet Russia, usually for pure kneejerk reasons like them daring provide public health care.  

Frankly, I harbor no such delusions, but I also know what an iconoclast that has typically made me in my life.  Liberal, Republican, right, left, whatever boxes you want to create, the notion of America as some magic land of golden freedom and opportunity amidst of world of dark and evil forces is one I've been hearing drilled into my head from all sides since I was old enough to understand basic speech.

Quote from: CavScout;240797You forgetting Afganistan?

I'd say unlikely. Diluting the military professionalism is just asking to get the same army we had in Vietnam. Perhaps a robust military rebuilding to reverse the cuts started by Bush 41. Bet we wish we had a couple of the division we let go in 41 and 42.

I think you'll find I mentioned Afghanistan in Post 51 - when I asked was it necessary and in the best interests to then go into Iraq. You actually responded to the post but didn't address that point, funnily enough.

My reference to a draft was in reference to a commitment to the State. I see I should have made myself clearer for you.

Quote from: CavScout;240798Why when you get an answer do you keep changing the question?

Answer the original question and then we can actually take this further.

Quote from: Haffrung;240805Those aren't cases where a preacher called homosexuality sinful. Sorry, still wrong.

I suppose you just skipped over this in the linked articles:
"The Canadian HRC has taken 16 months in preliminary consideration of the case a gay activist brought against the small Toronto-based Catholic Insight magazine. Indeed: prolonged and arbitrary delays appear to be part of the method by which the HRCs bleed their respondents dry with legal and other expenses."

Any number of articles can be found by a simple Google search.
Toronto Catholic Magazine Faced with Human Rights Complaint by Homosexual
The latest news on the HRC controversy
Governments Must Reform Human Rights Commissions
Catholic Insight in the news

Quote from: Joshua Ford;240819Answer the original question and then we can actually take this further.

The Constitution trumps the Pledge. You just don't like the answer. One has the force of law, the other does not. Again, you didn't like that answer.

Quote from: James J Skach;240804Depends. See, the dirty little secret is that it's all about Oil, but not in the way people think.

Now people will point and shout and say "But look at the oil prices!" But it's a much longer term question/answer than 5 years...more like 25 or 50.

So, yeah, in the long run, it might very well be in the best interests of the US. Patience is a virtue rarely practiced these days.

Depends on A) how important you think it is in the long run, B) what the situation is, C) a thousand other things. Just putting it against a recession is only measure.

Only a measure, but if you're already committed elsewhere surely Iraq could have waited a year or two, particularly if certain people really are playing the very long game? I think certain people got rather carried away with the support for operations in Afghanistan and went ahead of schedule.

Quote from: CavScout;240821The Constitution trumps the Pledge. You just don't like the answer. One has the force of law, the other does not. Again, you didn't like that answer.

That's fine, the Pledge is just one example of loyalty and thank you for clarifying that. I also mentioned a draft. That's a commitment, right? The USA has laws about treason? That's expecting loyalty and commitment, right? As I asked in my original post.

Now, about my query regarding the necessity of the current conflict in Iraq? Also highlighted in my initial post. Do you want to answer that at some point?

Quote from: Joshua Ford;240830That's fine, the Pledge is just one example of loyalty and thank you for clarifying that. I also mentioned a draft. That's a commitment, right? The USA has laws about treason? That's expecting loyalty and commitment, right? As I asked in my original post.

Now, about my query regarding the necessity of the current conflict in Iraq? Also highlighted in my initial post. Do you want to answer that at some point?

Just how often do you think non-elementary school aged Americans are reciting the Pledge?

Not sure how you are equating the draft with "commitment". A draft is "you will join the army, by force of law". Has little to do with "commitment". Actual "commitment" to the nation is those who volunteer. Treason is specifically defined in the US Constitution. What's your actual point?

Now, about my query regarding the necessity of the current conflict in Iraq? Also highlighted in my initial post. Do you want to answer that at some point?

Whilst you're addressing the question you've consistently ignored (and James has actually responded to) I'll just re-post what I put in my first post.

For me, the state has a responsibility to it's citizens if it expects loyalty and a commitment in return.

You chose to bring the constitution in, I talked about the state.

By living in the States you're making a commitment.

You are indeed subject to the treason laws in your constitution
You abide by the law, or suffer consequences
You pay taxes (well, most of you do)
You serve jury duty if required
If your country wills it, you get packed off to war (unless you skip off to Canada or try to register as an objector)

My point, simply put, is that I do expect something in return for my loyalty and commitment. Hence my replacing the right to bear arms with social welfare/health care as one measure of how a country might be measured.

You wrote in your initial response
Then again, the American Constitution isn't about earning the government the loyalty of the people.

How does that square with laws on treason? Maybe you think the government doesn't have to earn loyalty, but should just expect it? I personally think expectations should go both ways.

Is that simple enough for you?

Quote from: Joshua Ford;240860Whilst you're addressing the question you've consistently ignored (and James has actually responded to) I'll just re-post what I put in my first post.

For me, the state has a responsibility to it's citizens if it expects loyalty and a commitment in return.

You chose to bring the constitution in, I talked about the state.

By living in the States you're making a commitment.

You are indeed subject to the treason laws in your constitution
You abide by the law, or suffer consequences
You pay taxes (well, most of you do)
You serve jury duty if required
If your country wills it, you get packed off to war (unless you skip off to Canada or try to register as an objector)

My point, simply put, is that I do expect something in return for my loyalty and commitment. Hence my replacing the right to bear arms with social welfare/health care as one measure of how a country might be measured.

You wrote in your initial response
Then again, the American Constitution isn't about earning the government the loyalty of the people.

How does that square with laws on treason? Maybe you think the government doesn't have to earn loyalty, but should just expect it? I personally think expectations should go both ways.

Is that simple enough for you?

Why cut the quote? Why not use the entire thing:
Then again, the American Constitution isn't about earning the government the loyalty of the people. It is meant to limit the power the government can acquire.

Quote"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

It establishes the fact that the federal government has no authority outside of what follows the preamble, as amended.