Who is our enemy?

[Jack Hays]

LOL, I start asking for you to back up your statements so now you're done. Run along, boy.

As you wish. I'll take my win and go.:2wave:

 

[yobarnacle]

Why does the USA HAVE enemies, then it's easier to figure who IS.
Envy is a reason.
Our arrogance is another.
Desperation another. Desperate people do desperate things. being poor is desperation.
Who we choose for our friends and associates make their enemies ours too.
Our position in the world as "most powerful nation" makes us a target. Everybody wants to pull down the fellow on top!
Our open society makes us vulnerable. There are those without and within, who would USE our freedoms, to DESTROY freedom. Stupid, but somehow makes sense to them.
I'm certain more reasons can be listed.

 

[Jack Hays]

LOL, I start asking for you to back up your statements so now you're done. Run along, boy.

A word of advice. Do some reading, otherwise you'll just continue to embarrass yourself.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

A word of advice. Do some reading, otherwise you'll just continue to embarrass yourself.

Says the guy who has refused to answer a single question or provide a single source or quote? All you've done is claim over and over again that you know more, without proving it.

Pardon me if I don't take your advice on anything. When you're ready to answer my questions, I'll be here. Until then, keep cowering.

 

[Jack Hays]

Says the guy who has refused to answer a single question or provide a single source or quote? All you've done is claim over and over again that you know more, without proving it.

Pardon me if I don't take your advice on anything. When you're ready to answer my questions, I'll be here. Until then, keep cowering.

I made my point and directed you to the most esteemed source there is. You remain obdurate in your ignorance. There's little I can do about that.

 

[humbolt]

In light of society's baseline?

It's a ****ing miracle.

I don't disagree. Miracles happen.

 

[sangha]

By the way, I have no idea why you're here. You seem to have absolutely zero interest in debating anything. From the very beginning you've refused to answer questions, refused to explain or source your position, and have simply told me to read a book/article of yours.

Jack doesn't do "debate". He just makes claims and if you disagree, then you are obviously ignorant :roll:

 

[Jack Hays]

Jack doesn't do "debate". He just makes claims and if you disagree, then you are obviously ignorant :roll:

Only some of you are.:mrgreen:

 

[sangha]

Only some of you are.:mrgreen:

:yawn:

 

[Dittohead not!]

I made my point and directed you to the most esteemed source there is. You remain obdurate in your ignorance. There's little I can do about that.

When someone runs our of arguments and begins to attack other members of DP, that is a sure sign that he/she has lost any debate that may be taking place.

 

[Linc]

Our greatest enemy is the domestic terrorist wing of the GOP. First they want a conference with the House. Now they want conditions before the conference. You can'tor agree with a party that is at war with itself.

 

[Dittohead not!]

It seems to me that we can't win a war without a clear idea of who our enemy is, and that, therefore, the war on terror can never be won.

 

[Ford289HiPo]

it was junior BUSH who declared crusade against them

True, but Mr. Hopey-Changey could have altered that course. Instead, he played follow-the-leader.

 

[Ford289HiPo]

It seems to me that we can't win a war without a clear idea of who our enemy is, and that, therefore, the war on terror can never be won.

It sure makes for great profits by the military/industrial complex though.

 

[Dittohead not!]

True, but Mr. Hopey-Changey could have altered that course. Instead, he played follow-the-leader.

He seems to be pretty good at following the leader. So was Bush, when the real leaders were Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz.

Obama = Bush III.

 

[HumanBeing]

Who is our enemy?

Religion and statism are the enemy of mankind, whether people understand it or not.

 

[Mycroft]

Religion and statism are the enemy of mankind, whether people understand it or not.

If you add, "out of control" to those two items, I would agree with you.

 

[Utility Man]

....So, who is our enemy?

[107th Congress Public Law 40]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

<DOC>
[DOCID: fubl040.107]

[[Page 115 STAT. 224]]

Public Law 107-40
107th Congress

Joint Resolution

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those
responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United
States. <<NOTE: Sept. 18, 2001 - [S.J. Res. 23]>>

Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were
committed against the United States and its citizens; and
Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the
United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect
United States citizens both at home and abroad; and
Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign
policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence;
and
Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat
to the national security and foreign policy of the United States;
and
Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take
action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against
the United States: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
States of America in Congress assembled, <<NOTE: Authorization for Use
of Military Force. 50 USC 1541 note.>>

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the ``Authorization for Use of
Military Force''.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) <<NOTE: President.>> In General.--That the President is
authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those
nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized,
committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11,
2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any
future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such
nations, organizations or persons.

(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements.--
(1) Specific statutory authorization.--Consistent with
section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress
declares that this section is intended to constitute specific
statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of
the War Powers Resolution.

[[Page 115 STAT. 225]]

(2) Applicability of other requirements.--Nothing in this
resolution supercedes any requirement of the War Powers
Resolution.

Approved September 18, 2001.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--S.J. Res. 23 (H.J. Res. 64):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 147 (2001):
Sept. 14, considered and passed Senate and House.
WEEKLY COMPILATION OF PRESIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS, Vol. 37 (2001):
Sept. 18, Presidential statement.

<all>

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ40/html/PLAW-107publ40.htm

This law gives our President the war powers needed to fight the "War on Terror" globally, IIRC.
Maybe the legal definition of enemy with regards to "War on Terror" is in there. There is a separate Iraq war resolution.

"....prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons...."

 

[Quik]

Listening to rant radio in the car yesterday, the talk show host was focused on the war on terror and just who we are fighting. Clearly, his opinion was that the enemy was Islam.

Since nearly a third of the human race is Muslim, I find it somewhat frightening that we the "war on terror" could be quite that large.

And it seems unlikely that "terror" itself is our enemy, despite the phrase "war on terror."

Yet, he did make a good point: If you're going to fight a war, you have to know who your enemy is.

So, who is our enemy?

The government is and always will be the enemy of any free society.

 

[Surtr]

So, who is our enemy?

It isn't Islam as a whole, it's radicalized factions within Islam. Huge difference.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

Jack doesn't do "debate". He just makes claims and if you disagree, then you are obviously ignorant :roll:

I can't believe I wasted as much time with him as I did. He seems to have absolutely zero interest in a debate or even two way conversation. He's almost as lazy as Amadeus when he told me "I've given my position before in another thread, go find it."

But I'm sure nearly every middle eastern terrorist in the past 40 years has been lying about his motivations. They're really only doing it because they're jelly.

 

[Dittohead not!]

This law gives our President the war powers needed to fight the "War on Terror" globally, IIRC.
Maybe the legal definition of enemy with regards to "War on Terror" is in there. There is a separate Iraq war resolution.

"....prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons...."

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those
responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United
States.

They're all dead now, aren't they?

 

[Jack Hays]

When someone runs our of arguments and begins to attack other members of DP, that is a sure sign that he/she has lost any debate that may be taking place.

You apparently missed the thread. When another poster uses the phrase "random ass book" to describe the most important article by the most prominent scholar on the topic at hand, I am entitled to question his viability in the discussion. One cannot debate ignorance.

 

[Ford289HiPo]

He seems to be pretty good at following the leader. So was Bush, when the real leaders were Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz.

Obama = Bush III.

Actually Bush/Clinton/Bush......obama is Bush 4.0

 

[Dittohead not!]

You apparently missed the thread. When another poster uses the phrase "random ass book" to describe the most important article by the most prominent scholar on the topic at hand, I am entitled to question his viability in the discussion. One cannot debate ignorance.

There is a vast difference between debating the validity of a source, and engaging in childish name calling. Sorry, but that's my opinion.