An Interesting Quote - Your Thoughts?

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by aletheides, Aug 15, 2007.

  1. #1
    "Preventive war was an invention of Hitler. Frankly, I would not even listen to anyone seriously that came and talked about such a thing."

    Dwight D. Eisenhower

    Does this quote relate to the state our country is in today?
     
    aletheides, Aug 15, 2007 IP
  2. d16man

    d16man Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    6,900
    Likes Received:
    160
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    180
    #2
    Only if you are a liberal nutjob who hates Bush no matter what.
     
    d16man, Aug 15, 2007 IP
  3. lorien1973

    lorien1973 Notable Member

    Messages:
    12,206
    Likes Received:
    601
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    260
    #3
    This is the actual quote.

    A little different; isn't it?
     
    lorien1973, Aug 15, 2007 IP
  4. TheSyndicate

    TheSyndicate Prominent Member

    Messages:
    5,410
    Likes Received:
    289
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    365
    #4
    i do not know what was most fun the jooke or the quote :)
     
    TheSyndicate, Aug 15, 2007 IP
  5. WebdevHowto

    WebdevHowto Peon

    Messages:
    991
    Likes Received:
    23
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #5

    Call me what you will but "Preventive war" is almost an oxymoron imho.

    When I joined the Army, I raised my right hand to and swore:

    "I, (my name here), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

    To break it down, I swore to do two things; defend the Constitution and obey the orders of the President and officers appointed over me.

    There was no mention of "preventive" anything in that oath. I went to Iraq, not because I felt I was defending the Constitution, but because I was following the "orders of the President".

    I didn't take an oath that said obey the orders of the president if you agree with them.

    In fact, I didn't agree with the president or his orders, but I swore an oath and followed through with that oath.

    I had a choice to re-enlist last September. I love my unit and love my country but I could no longer willingly "Obey the orders of the President" as I feel the president is not defending the first thing I took an oath to defend, the Constitution of the United States.

    I have seen this administration use propaganda to create fear in the American people and at the same time pass the "patriot act" which in my mind is anything but patriotic.

    I am proud of my service, I love my country. I am not proud of our current administration and will no longer serve in a "preventive war". The constitution would not have me do so and I can not serve an administration that disregards the constitution.
     
    WebdevHowto, Aug 15, 2007 IP
  6. bfebrian

    bfebrian Peon

    Messages:
    1,246
    Likes Received:
    31
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #6
    Sorry, OOT.
    But, what IF you are an atheist?
    So help me what ever it is? :D
     
    bfebrian, Aug 16, 2007 IP
  7. WebdevHowto

    WebdevHowto Peon

    Messages:
    991
    Likes Received:
    23
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #7
    If I remeber correctly, forgive me it was many years ago, but I if I remember correctly they were PC about it and you could say something other than "God".
     
    WebdevHowto, Aug 16, 2007 IP
  8. tarponkeith

    tarponkeith Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,758
    Likes Received:
    279
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    180
    #8
    Really? Those are the only people that would feel that quote relates to our country? The only ones?

    Yup!

    I believe we all had to repeat that line-for-line except you could remain silent during "so help me God"...
     
    tarponkeith, Aug 16, 2007 IP
  9. d16man

    d16man Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    6,900
    Likes Received:
    160
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    180
    #9
    did you read the quote as part of the entire message, or just the quote itself??? And the ONLY ones? lmfao!!!
     
    d16man, Aug 16, 2007 IP
  10. tarponkeith

    tarponkeith Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,758
    Likes Received:
    279
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    180
    #10
    I read the entire message; but don't believe that it's so cut and dry as some try to make it out to be...

    just because you feel that quote relates to our country doesn't make you a "liberal nutjob who hates Bush"
     
    tarponkeith, Aug 16, 2007 IP
  11. aletheides

    aletheides Banned

    Messages:
    2,016
    Likes Received:
    61
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #11
    Thank you for providing the full quote lorien, and further insight into the insanity our government likes to normalize.
     
    aletheides, Aug 16, 2007 IP
  12. lorien1973

    lorien1973 Notable Member

    Messages:
    12,206
    Likes Received:
    601
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    260
    #12
    He's referring to nuclear pre-emption. Don't selectively read text to make it fit what you want it to say.
     
    lorien1973, Aug 16, 2007 IP
  13. tarponkeith

    tarponkeith Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,758
    Likes Received:
    279
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    180
    #13
    nuclear or not, he's still talking about pre-emptive military action..

    How many iraqi's have been killed? many thousands... and yes, transportation systems (roads and bridges) and sanitation implements (running water) have been set back as well...

    Yes, this quote, in it's entirety, does resemble today's situation...
     
    tarponkeith, Aug 16, 2007 IP
  14. lorien1973

    lorien1973 Notable Member

    Messages:
    12,206
    Likes Received:
    601
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    260
    #14
    You can expand it all you want; OP was attempting to conflate hitler and bush with the re-worded quote. The quote obviously refers to nuclear pre-emption. If you wanna twist it into your own meaning; that's fine. But pre-emption is not the same as nuclear pre-emption.

    The very things mentioned in this quote were not even targets during the initial invasion. They were left in tact, on purpose. Things got destroyed during the insurgency; fine.

    But the OP's point doesn't wash with the entire quote; now does it?

    Once again. Who has been killing them? Insurgents. They target schools, markets, hospitals, et al to maximize casualties. The goal of those attacks seem to sucker many people into what they are intended to do.
     
    lorien1973, Aug 16, 2007 IP
  15. tarponkeith

    tarponkeith Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,758
    Likes Received:
    279
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    180
    #15
    I'm obviously not looking at it from the same perspective... I don't care about the H word being dropped (hitler)... And I'm not looking at it like anyone was being compared to bush... I'm just answering the question:
    And yes, we engaged in pre-emptive war... Not nuclear, but it still has had a similar outcome; deaths and a partially destroyed infrastructure..

    Whos killing the iraqi's? Yes, the insurgents help, but we are helping as well... Can you honestly say that the iraqi civilian death toll would be the same if we never invaded?
     
    tarponkeith, Aug 16, 2007 IP
  16. lorien1973

    lorien1973 Notable Member

    Messages:
    12,206
    Likes Received:
    601
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    260
    #16
    You don't have to. The OP is; and I'm not overly surprised that you cannot admit it doesn't wash.

    How was the war pre-emptive. I suggest you look at how the 1991 war ended over there; and the causes of this one. You really won't see pre-emption in there at all. Do you actually know what the war authorization bill says?

    Yep. They help. I guess that's a good way to put it. In your eyes, our troops are roughly equivolant to the people who just, yesterday, blew up about 200 people - injuring hundreds of others, by using tanker trucks as weapons? Roughly equivolent to the people who put bombs under schools to detonate them when they are in session. I see.

    Hmm. Let's see. We know that Saddam murdered about 2 million of his people over his reign. Do -you- think the toll would have been the same?

    We also know that in places where AQ hangs out, currently, in Iraq, we find the graves of men, women and children they murder while they are there because of religious and ethnic differences.

    I guess we are helping that along too, correct?

    Let's put it another way. Let's assume there was no insurgency. We'd probably be out of there by now. After the Iraqi's held their elections. So the death toll rises while people justify actions of people being funded/armed foreign allies. And that anger is directed at us, instead of where it belongs. Odd, don't you think?
     
    lorien1973, Aug 16, 2007 IP
  17. sandalwood

    sandalwood Guest

    Messages:
    289
    Likes Received:
    8
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #17
    Simply go to Michael Savage's site for the insight on the Iraq war and nuclear pre-emption and a quick lesson on the liberal whack jobs who inhabit the good ole US of A. He is the only one in talk radio who tells it like it is and not like he'd like it to be...
     
    sandalwood, Aug 16, 2007 IP
  18. tarponkeith

    tarponkeith Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,758
    Likes Received:
    279
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    180
    #18
    Yes, I would hope that anyone discussing this topic is familiar with it... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution


    Not even close. But by removing the horrible dictator, and creating the void from government, we allowed the religious civil war to flare up, indirectly causing civilian iraqi deaths.. I don't blame the troops at all, blame the politicians that brought us into this mess; both republican and democrat...


    I would suggest you go back and check your facts... Saddam killed around 2 million people, but not two million of his people... A good write-up of the estimates can be found at: http://www.moreorless.au.com/killers/hussein.html
    Usually the estimates put about 600k to 800k of the 2 million as iranians...

    Do you believe that AQ was in IZ before the invasion? Even the administration will not be daring enough to make that statement...
     
    tarponkeith, Aug 16, 2007 IP
  19. aletheides

    aletheides Banned

    Messages:
    2,016
    Likes Received:
    61
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #19
    Clearly it does.

    Like tarponkeith mentioned, nuclear or not it still relates.
     
    aletheides, Aug 16, 2007 IP
  20. d16man

    d16man Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    6,900
    Likes Received:
    160
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    180
    #20

    And Bush has personally killed millions of iraqi's as well...:rolleyes:
     
    d16man, Aug 16, 2007 IP