Terry_Herrington
New Member
Germany declaring war on U.S.
Germany declared war on the United States on December 11, 1941.
Germany declared war on the United States on December 11, 1941.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
For Those Who Refuse to Support our Military
- Thread starter thjplgvp
- Start date
The Galatian
Active Member
Perhaps the greatest disloyalty is to commit our troops to a foolish war, and then hide behind them like cowards when it goes bad.
That is beneath contempt.
That is beneath contempt.
StraightAndNarrow
Active Member
poncho said:
It shows you far far America has slided that they essentially controlled the GW Bush administration. I think (and hope) that after Bush leaves they'll never be heard from again let alone have any power in our government. These guys could take America down just like the Roman Empire and Germany went down.
fromtheright
<img src =/2844.JPG>
thjplgvp,
While I disagree with those who oppose the war, there is nothing treasonous in doing so. I too have worn (and wear) the uniform, but it is for the liberty of those who disagree with me, not just those who agree.
It is also rather twisted to argue that those who oppose war deny God. Dale-c, whom I disagree with about the war, should be proof enough, though by no means the only one here, of that (though he certainly shares your quick judgementalism, as evidenced by his readiness to ascribe readiness to gas Jews to anyone who disagrees with him about the character of Roy Moore). It seems to me extremely prideful to argue that only those who agree with you about this war would stand up for God, not to mention judgemental of the spiritual condition of others.
I probably disagree with Daisy, however, about the character of such as Jane Fonda. She should have been tried for treason and in my opinion, shot as a traitor for sitting in a North Vietnamese anti-aircraft gun making propaganda for an enemy in wartime. There is a strong difference, however, between that and simply opposing a war. I believe that it it healthy in a free country to have an element who oppose war, it serves as a check on those who would jump to war quickly. That doesn't mean that there weren't some in the anti-war movement during the Vietnam War who disgusted me with their actions, including a recent Democratic candidate for President (though his labelling Americans there as "war criminals" was, IMO< giving aid and comfort to the enemy.
Someone else may have answered this (I'm not wild about this new BB format as it's not as easy to maneuver around, but I'll adjust) but you need to read your Constitution. That is not the Constitution's definition of treason, or do you simply wish to toss out the Constitution on this question.
Secondly, though personally I do believe we should support the troops and this war, they are not betrayed because someone disagrees with their employment. By the same token, for the person who argued that those who were sent there who disagreed with the war should be pitied, that is also wrong. Those who put on the uniform aren't given a choice which wars we want to go fight. It's not our job. That is the job of the civilian leadership in this republic. I don't pity them, nor do I want someone's pity if I am called on to fight in a war I disagree with. There are channels and avenues for conscientious objection. One of them is to not raise your right hand and volunteer for military service.
While I disagree with those who oppose the war, there is nothing treasonous in doing so. I too have worn (and wear) the uniform, but it is for the liberty of those who disagree with me, not just those who agree.
It is also rather twisted to argue that those who oppose war deny God. Dale-c, whom I disagree with about the war, should be proof enough, though by no means the only one here, of that (though he certainly shares your quick judgementalism, as evidenced by his readiness to ascribe readiness to gas Jews to anyone who disagrees with him about the character of Roy Moore). It seems to me extremely prideful to argue that only those who agree with you about this war would stand up for God, not to mention judgemental of the spiritual condition of others.
I probably disagree with Daisy, however, about the character of such as Jane Fonda. She should have been tried for treason and in my opinion, shot as a traitor for sitting in a North Vietnamese anti-aircraft gun making propaganda for an enemy in wartime. There is a strong difference, however, between that and simply opposing a war. I believe that it it healthy in a free country to have an element who oppose war, it serves as a check on those who would jump to war quickly. That doesn't mean that there weren't some in the anti-war movement during the Vietnam War who disgusted me with their actions, including a recent Democratic candidate for President (though his labelling Americans there as "war criminals" was, IMO< giving aid and comfort to the enemy.
Someone else may have answered this (I'm not wild about this new BB format as it's not as easy to maneuver around, but I'll adjust) but you need to read your Constitution. That is not the Constitution's definition of treason, or do you simply wish to toss out the Constitution on this question.
Secondly, though personally I do believe we should support the troops and this war, they are not betrayed because someone disagrees with their employment. By the same token, for the person who argued that those who were sent there who disagreed with the war should be pitied, that is also wrong. Those who put on the uniform aren't given a choice which wars we want to go fight. It's not our job. That is the job of the civilian leadership in this republic. I don't pity them, nor do I want someone's pity if I am called on to fight in a war I disagree with. There are channels and avenues for conscientious objection. One of them is to not raise your right hand and volunteer for military service.
Hello, it appears that you misunderstood me, or perhaps and more likely, I was unclear in my statement so I will take responsibility for the misunderstanding but please give me a chance to clarify.
My statements were meant only to warn that giving judges too much authority and following orders regardless of what they are lead to what happened in Germany.
I ma NOT saying anyone on here would do such a thing, I was only meaning that we need to be careful, lest we find ourselves in the same state down the road, which if we keep starting wars in places that we have no business, our president will increasingly be viewed by other nations as being like Adolf Hitler.
Note, I didn't say I viewed him like that, but that is the way other countries do sometimes.
BTW, what if another country were to invade us to stop the killing of unborn babies? Would that be justified?
fromtheright
<img src =/2844.JPG>
Dale,
Thanks very much for the clarification and yes, it did help greatly. I took offense to the earlier statement and I appreciate your answer to that concern.
Wow, you pose a very interesting question! No, I don't think that under natural or international law they would be justified in doing so as their act of aggression is not in self-defense of their own territory or citizens, whose duty it would be for that government to protect. How such an invasion would impose its will on that issue without taking away our right to self-government is another question that complicates the issue.
Another interesting corollary to your question is whether American citizens would be justified in siding with such a foreign power. Again, while an interesting question, no I don't think so. Is it justified to kill fellow citizens to assist an outside invasion seeking to impose the will of a foreign power? No.
Still, a very interesting question that would be great to discuss further.
BTW, welcome to BB, Dale!
Thanks very much for the clarification and yes, it did help greatly. I took offense to the earlier statement and I appreciate your answer to that concern.
Wow, you pose a very interesting question! No, I don't think that under natural or international law they would be justified in doing so as their act of aggression is not in self-defense of their own territory or citizens, whose duty it would be for that government to protect. How such an invasion would impose its will on that issue without taking away our right to self-government is another question that complicates the issue.
Another interesting corollary to your question is whether American citizens would be justified in siding with such a foreign power. Again, while an interesting question, no I don't think so. Is it justified to kill fellow citizens to assist an outside invasion seeking to impose the will of a foreign power? No.
Still, a very interesting question that would be great to discuss further.
BTW, welcome to BB, Dale!
I quite agree!
I agree here too!
Now, as far as my point behind all of this, is that I view our involvement in any war that is not a defensive war to be wrong both Biblically and constitutionally.
For all of the arguments for and against the war in Iraq, we first must ask ourselves if it is a Biblically justified war, and tehn if it is a constitutionally justified war, which is to say, is it really defending our OWN freedom?
We do NOT have the right to start a war for what we THINK someone is going to do. We may think that Iraq would have attacked us but until they did, we have no business being over there, anymore than they do for attacking us to end sodomy and abortion, which I understand are illegal over there (correct me if I am wrong if anyone knows)
fromtheright
<img src =/2844.JPG>
Dale,
ASSUMING that Iran has nuclear weapons and they have stated that they will use them to attack the United States, do we have a right to pre-emptively attack or invade? If we had intelligence that Japan was about to attack Pearl Harbor, would we have the right to attack them? Would we have had the right to attack their battle group which was enroute to do so, before the attack commenced? If there is a point prior to actual attack on us where we are justified in attacking pre-emptively, where is it? How solid need the intelligence be? And, a fun sidebar, need Congress declare war before hostilities commence?
My argument is that the the President as Commander in Chief has the constitutional duty to protect and defend the United States and that when he has reliable intelligence indicating a threat against the United States he has a duty to commence hostilities. He is certainly subject to impeachment for wrongly doing so and Congress has control over the purse strings to fund such hostilities/war.
Still waiting for a response from the original poster, too, as to treason and "not supporting" the troops. Hope to hear back when he can do so.
Thanks, Dale. Enjoying the exchange.
ASSUMING that Iran has nuclear weapons and they have stated that they will use them to attack the United States, do we have a right to pre-emptively attack or invade? If we had intelligence that Japan was about to attack Pearl Harbor, would we have the right to attack them? Would we have had the right to attack their battle group which was enroute to do so, before the attack commenced? If there is a point prior to actual attack on us where we are justified in attacking pre-emptively, where is it? How solid need the intelligence be? And, a fun sidebar, need Congress declare war before hostilities commence?
My argument is that the the President as Commander in Chief has the constitutional duty to protect and defend the United States and that when he has reliable intelligence indicating a threat against the United States he has a duty to commence hostilities. He is certainly subject to impeachment for wrongly doing so and Congress has control over the purse strings to fund such hostilities/war.
Still waiting for a response from the original poster, too, as to treason and "not supporting" the troops. Hope to hear back when he can do so.
Thanks, Dale. Enjoying the exchange.
I stand corrected
From the right,
Obviously my OP was overtly harsh and emotionally motivated. I stand corrected on the issue of what constitutes being traitor. I appologize to all those who stand for America but insist they are not traitors. That being said I still believe that we do not have enough facts in our possession to not stand behind our leadership in this situation. To verbally or in writing cast dispariging remarks toward our military who do such an incredible job given the situation they find themslves in is morally objectionable to me personally.
From the right,
Obviously my OP was overtly harsh and emotionally motivated. I stand corrected on the issue of what constitutes being traitor. I appologize to all those who stand for America but insist they are not traitors. That being said I still believe that we do not have enough facts in our possession to not stand behind our leadership in this situation. To verbally or in writing cast dispariging remarks toward our military who do such an incredible job given the situation they find themslves in is morally objectionable to me personally.
Thanks for your statement.
The facts are quite simple:
1. Iraq has never attacked us.
2. Congress did not declare war and Bush has no right to do so without them.
3. We are sending out women over there in combat, does that not bother anyone?
I don't know of any civilized nation that ever put their women in combat in an offensive war!
It is a shame on our country!
The facts are quite simple:
1. Iraq has never attacked us.
2. Congress did not declare war and Bush has no right to do so without them.
3. We are sending out women over there in combat, does that not bother anyone?
I don't know of any civilized nation that ever put their women in combat in an offensive war!
It is a shame on our country!
fromtheright
<img src =/2844.JPG>
thjplgvp,
Agreed. I have no problem with criticizing the President for a decision with which one disagrees, for any reason. It goes with the territory with free speech and it goes with his job.
And, Dale, we're absolutely agreed on women in combat! That has been a very sore issue for me for a very long time. I don't know if it is available on the Internet but former Secretary of the Navy James Webb wrote an article for the Weekly Standard several years ago pointing out that the intersection between the feminist movement and the anti-war movement is the drive to put women in combat. You're right, and I never thought that the American people would so willingly accept it. Actually I hoped it would never happen. The tolerance of the American people for such wrong policies astounds me.
Agreed. I have no problem with criticizing the President for a decision with which one disagrees, for any reason. It goes with the territory with free speech and it goes with his job.
And, Dale, we're absolutely agreed on women in combat! That has been a very sore issue for me for a very long time. I don't know if it is available on the Internet but former Secretary of the Navy James Webb wrote an article for the Weekly Standard several years ago pointing out that the intersection between the feminist movement and the anti-war movement is the drive to put women in combat. You're right, and I never thought that the American people would so willingly accept it. Actually I hoped it would never happen. The tolerance of the American people for such wrong policies astounds me.
RockRambler
New Member
""JOHN GLENN (ON THE SENATE FLOOR)
Mon, 26 Jan 2004 11:13
Some people still don't understand why military personnel do what they do for a living. This exchange between Senators John Glenn and Senator Howard Metzenbaum is worth reading. Not only is it a pretty impressive impromptu speech, but it's also a good example of one man's explanation of why men and women in the armed services do what they do for a living.
This IS a typical, though sad, example of what some who have never served think of the military.
Senator Metzenbaum (speaking to Senator Glenn):
"How can you run for Senate when you've never held a real job?"
Senator Glenn (D-Ohio):
"I served 23 years in the United States Marine Corps. I served through two wars. I flew 149 missions. My plane was hit by anti-aircraft fire on 12 different occasions. I was in the space program. It wasn't my checkbook, Howard; it was my life on the line. It was not a nine-to-five job, where I took time off to take the daily cash receipts to the bank."
"I ask you to go with me ... as I went the other day... to a veteran's hospital and look those men ...
with their mangled bodies . in the eye, and tell THEM they didn't hold a job!
You go with me to the Space Program at NASA and go, as I have gone, to the widows and Orphans of Ed White, Gus Grissom and Roger Chaffee... and you look those kids in the eye and tell them that their DADS didn't hold a job.
You go with me on Memorial Day and you stand in Arlington National Cemetery, where I have more friends buried than I'd like to remember, and you watch those waving flags.
You stand there, and you think about this nation, and you tell ME that those people didn't have a job?
What about you?"
For those who don't remember ..
During W.W.II, Howard Metzenbaum was an attorney representing the Communist Party in the USA.
Now he's a Senator!
If you can read this, thank a teacher.
If you are reading it in English thank a Veteran."
Actually, a little investigation would show that this part of the email you received was completely false...it was not an impromptu speech, it was a planned part of a debate on Glenn's part in 1974. Plus Glenn was out of the Senate by 1998, don't think he was doing many exchanges on the Senate floor in 2004
[FONT=Trebuchet MS,Bookman Old Style,Arial]http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/glenn.asp[/FONT]
Mon, 26 Jan 2004 11:13
Some people still don't understand why military personnel do what they do for a living. This exchange between Senators John Glenn and Senator Howard Metzenbaum is worth reading. Not only is it a pretty impressive impromptu speech, but it's also a good example of one man's explanation of why men and women in the armed services do what they do for a living.
This IS a typical, though sad, example of what some who have never served think of the military.
Senator Metzenbaum (speaking to Senator Glenn):
"How can you run for Senate when you've never held a real job?"
Senator Glenn (D-Ohio):
"I served 23 years in the United States Marine Corps. I served through two wars. I flew 149 missions. My plane was hit by anti-aircraft fire on 12 different occasions. I was in the space program. It wasn't my checkbook, Howard; it was my life on the line. It was not a nine-to-five job, where I took time off to take the daily cash receipts to the bank."
"I ask you to go with me ... as I went the other day... to a veteran's hospital and look those men ...
with their mangled bodies . in the eye, and tell THEM they didn't hold a job!
You go with me to the Space Program at NASA and go, as I have gone, to the widows and Orphans of Ed White, Gus Grissom and Roger Chaffee... and you look those kids in the eye and tell them that their DADS didn't hold a job.
You go with me on Memorial Day and you stand in Arlington National Cemetery, where I have more friends buried than I'd like to remember, and you watch those waving flags.
You stand there, and you think about this nation, and you tell ME that those people didn't have a job?
What about you?"
For those who don't remember ..
During W.W.II, Howard Metzenbaum was an attorney representing the Communist Party in the USA.
Now he's a Senator!
If you can read this, thank a teacher.
If you are reading it in English thank a Veteran."
Actually, a little investigation would show that this part of the email you received was completely false...it was not an impromptu speech, it was a planned part of a debate on Glenn's part in 1974. Plus Glenn was out of the Senate by 1998, don't think he was doing many exchanges on the Senate floor in 2004
[FONT=Trebuchet MS,Bookman Old Style,Arial]http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/glenn.asp[/FONT]