Ophiolite: That is ++ungood. Now, seriously: In what ways are Afghanistan and Iraq not insane victories? Afghanistan and Iraq both had major combat operations cease within two or three months, with an utter overthrowing of the regimes in power. Yes, both Afghanistan and Iraq have had some guerilla warfare persist, but our death tolls are low, and Afghanistan and Iraq are growing into their new governments as we speak. The Islamic world? Yes. You mean the powerless, impoverished, idiot masses of the Islamic world? By a European population that has forgotten war and who had ties with Iraq to warrant their non-participation? By "half my own population? Like the opinion of people counts when the facts are so plain? Yes. I am sorely "rebuffed" by these worthless considerations. hypewaders: Anti-war protests do nothing. "Resemble the Soviet Union"? Yes. I mean, we're really sending people off to gulags, slaughtering millions of our own, et cetera...I mean, this is -obvious-. Every two years the American people have supported the Republican party more and more resoundingly. There will be no "collapse" of this anytime soon. The entire Republican Party would have to be caught in bed with a dead girl or live boy before they were thrown out of power. spidergoat: Exactly, hence to fight guerillas, one simply has to use more and more heavy armour which they cannot assail. hypewaders: Yet what contempt is shown to America when you cannot say "republics, liberty, and justice are great"? And which follies are these? You do note, by the way, that the Empire is the strongest form of government that has ever existed, yes? Rome lasted 1,400 years (counting Byzantium) as an Empire. Japan was an Empire for 2,000 years. China was an Empire for 5,000 years. Let Puerto Rico go. They don't pay taxes, they offer nothing of worth...Either become a state or become a second-world country filled with corruption and poverty. Iraq is "spiralling out of control"? Not anything that cannot be stopped. Just our military is inept and don't know how to dela with insurgencies. Patriotism is necessary for any State to function. Darwin_76: True. Not that impressive to beat any Arabic country. Fighting and losing more troops? Yes. But you do realize that 2,000 troops are essentially throw-away casualities, yes? Onefinity: Nonsense. There is nothing sorrowful about crushing one's enemies and exerting superiority over them. It is a glorious day of primal triumph.
HAHA wow you drink the coolaid in a way that not even the Bush Administration is trying to make you! Dude, it might be nice to watch the news sometime or try to stay up on current events in some way - hell maybe just listen to veterans groups or something because guess what, you're dead wrong!
Yes, the Alllies are the conquerers... but afraid. Conquerers... but surrounded. I guess the frequent insurgent attacks are the Iraqi/Afghani peoples way of thanking the Americans for bombing the shit out of them. Hey, in Arab culture, being bombed is actually a compliment!
Mystech: So Saddam Hussein and the Taliban are in power in Iraq and Afghanistan? mountainhare: And if proper policies were followed, those who surround them would be paying Charon the ferry's toll. See above. A "strawman"? Where?
This discussion is about the Pledge- whether it is Constitutional, specifically concerning the "under God" part. Any arguments circumventing the issue for easier pickings are strawmen. Empire is good, America should pursue it: Straw Man. Nationalism is good, Americans should be demonstrate more nationalist loyalty: Straw Man. The Neoconservative Vision is worthy of our national sacrifice, but our military is failing us in nation-building: Straw Man, etc. While I have thrown in distractions of my own, I think that debating the viability of a new and militaristic American empire is some distance from the subject, even though public pledges would likely be a component of mass marketing/control/programming in such a society should we accept it. The neoconservatives have not managed to consolidate power, although in the beginning of their rise, they were impressive. So I think we can examine the Pledge in the present context without refering to far-flung colonies over the bounding mane, or the White Man's Burden, etc. Is the Pledge an American canon? If it were, should religion come into it? Would that be Constitutional? I say no, no, and no.
hypewaders: My arguments for such were responses to others, not to mention the fact that it was not in anyway meant to cut the argument into a form more easily to break through, which is necessary for it to be a strawman. This is an important point linked into the notion, as espoused by the Virginian judge, that it is a "patriotic tradition". The pledge was sanctioned by congress, so yes, it is "canon". Moreover, America has a tradition of referencing "God" throughout many important documents.
That is misinformation. The founders of "Framers" who authored those documents were publicly opposed to what you are insinuating. You must learn a little bit about Deism, very much in vogue at the time that the USA was born, to understand what was meant by their frequent euphemisms for "God" (it was unfashionable to them to say or write "God" in public writing or speeches. Our "forefathers" did believe strongly in Divine Provenance, but our political ancestors resented the thought of both government-sanctioned religion and religiously-sanctioned government. Remember, many were arriving in the colonies seeking relief from not only religious persecution, disease, poverty, etc. A vocal political majority was seeking unprecedented religious freedom through a new government that was to be Constitutionally required to always stay scrupulously hands-off about religious issues. Read Jefferson and Madison (there is lots to read) and you can understand the consensus that was reached from the beginning, that religion must never receive the official endorsement of the American government. Dig in deeper and you can readily learn how perpetually-familiar bigotry drove many of the original settlers to the Americas. It was for kings and chiefs to invoke God in war and tribal competition. Our patriotic forebears were keenly intent on leaving specifically that behind, and they said so as plainly as possible. And they didn't mix messages, although many contemporary religious zealots exploit popular American ignorance about our own history and civics. THe only religious reference you will find in our original Constitution is Art. VI Sect. 3: Or ponder this: "The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or any pretense, infringed. (Madison)[/quote] Don't take my word for it. Read the First Amendment in its entirety, and then think carefully about what you have said, Prince_James. Today in the USA we don't act like a secular nation. But or government was expressly designed that way. Prince James: "The pledge was sanctioned by congress, so yes, it is "canon". Moreover, America has a tradition of referencing "God" throughout many important documents." Please list them. The point of Congress reconizing the POA (back in 1942 and without the word "God") I do concede. But without "God". "God" was interjected later and apparently without rational consideration and debate. Do please list the important documents containing the word "God".
If and when America decides to play by the terroprist rules(no holds bared) like we did in world wars I&II.then they would settle back down like they did under the taliban and saddam.as long as one side plays political games it will be a long hard road. back to the pledge of allegiance. i like to think of myself as a rational conservative. if you sustitute all hail satan in place of under god i would be the one going to court. fair is fair.
one last thought, slavery is a long and upstanding tradition in many countries up until less than 200 years ago.
hypewaders: And I am not suggesting we ought to have religious sanctioning in government, but surely if we are allowed to speak of "God" in a Deistic sense in many important US documents, we can speak of "God" in the pledge? And is religion anymore sanctioned by saying "under God" in the pledge than it is to say "Endowed by their Creator" in the Declaration of Independence? The above mentioned Declaration of Independence, the congress-recognized Pledge of Allegiance (not in 1942 and without God, but later with), the Act of March 3, 1865 which legalized "In God we Trust" on our coinage, the Joint Resolution of July 30, 1956 made our national motto "In God We Trust", the Articles of Confederation, and I'm sure I could dig up more if I wanted to do so.
I think all that stuff is a moot point. The Founders are long gone. Each generation is a new generation of founders. Shall we be mere inheritors, shirkers of our responsibility, or instead, creators? We are now the founders. What is it that we wish to found?
One question: Why should the choices and beliefs of the long dead remain a sacred cow, dictating policy for all time? The founding fathers were people just as we all are, products of their time. They were not perfect and neither was their document. We amend the constitution all the time for this reason, correcting what we can nickel-and-dime. Again: Why should we be slaves to the dead?
It is not being slaves to the dead to recognize precedent. In order to refine any technology, you must understand past developments. Among the most fundamental and foundational principles of the USA was the concept that this revolutionary democracy would be a secular one. We can study history to understand why this was desireable then. We can compare our government with contemporary outright theocracies, to understand the lasting advantages of a secular system that allows the freedom to practise any religion. Of course we can improve, and of course our system is not and never was perfect. But when it comes to the aspects of our democracy that pertain to the prevention of the creeping-in of tyranny, we should tread more carefully. The Founders had obviously studied history well. They used that knowledge to formulate a system of government that would be inherently resistant to being hot-wired by a tyrant, or tyrant consortium. It was as true 2 centuries ago as it is now, that religion is the most effective vehicle for powerfully influencing whole populations for political ends. While we have freedom of religion, we have inherited the separation of church and state as a necessary firewall. Like the separation of powers, if we fail as citizens to understand and defend these structures as they are incrementally compromised, then our Constitution will come to mean nothing, and we will become highly vulnerable to a sudden failure of our system. Religious and personality cults can take over a dysfunctional democracy with great speed, and lead millions of people just like you and I into misery, violence, and megadeath. The founders feared for our future. They feared the intrusion of religion into our government in the future. We should listen very carefully to them if we truly value what we have inherited.
Onefinity: Evidently many people are pretty pro-religion in this country and would love to have that part of our country in manyways. Clockwood: I am not suggesting "slavery" at all, simply that there is precedence for "God" mentioned in America.
As my heroine Mary Parker Follett pointed out in her seminal 1918 work on democracy, The New State, the conservative needs the liberal and the liberal needs the conservative, if we are to make the best country.
