Originally Posted by atpcliff (Post 1668344)

This is why it is so important to keep church and state completely separate...if a religious group you don't agree with gets enough political power, and church and state work together, you could have laws passed based on a religion you don't agree with. I don't want to live under sharia law, and I don't want to live under puritan law, and I don't want to live under Jewish law.

Originally Posted by Sum Ting Wong (Post 1668570)

The Constitution, as written, did not "separate" religion nor the Church from active participation within and by the Federal "State". It declared only that the Federal Government could not prefer or "establish" one Church or religion to the detriment of another (as many of the existing Colonies/states had done). One of the first actions of Congress was to fund chapels on military posts and chaplains for the military. No "separation" at all, which accounts for the wording of oaths of office and in courts at the time, as well as for benedictions at government gatherings.

Originally Posted by T45Heinous (Post 1666346)

That option would open a huge bag of worms that none of us could predict...

Originally Posted by T45Heinous (Post 1666346)

You have non-state actors, sponsored/financed by the US, killing citizens/terrorists of another country...IN that country...

Originally Posted by jungle (Post 1666500)

Just a guess, but you have zero military experience and don't really understand the strategy, tactics or logistics required to go into hostile territory; kill or run off large numbers of hostiles and maintain control of the real estate..

Originally Posted by jungle (Post 1666500)

Private security firms have flourished because it is incredibly expensive to fund large standing modern military organizations.

The current situation is likely to end in a long struggle between various tribes and whose invisible man is best, but it is really about money and power for those running the various factions. They just want to carve up their little piece of the pie, and if oil goes up in the meantime they all profit more.

I don't think the Saudis, Kuwait, or Iran would be heartbroken over a spike in oil prices and if it can be gained by cheaply arming 6,000-12,000 savages and turning them loose all the better.

Creating chaos is easy and inexpensive, creating order is difficult and very costly.

Originally Posted by satpak77 (Post 1668469)

Uh, you do know what the back of our currency, issued by the state, says,
Just saying...

Originally Posted by USMCFLYR (Post 1669736)

You'll need to clarify exactly on what level did we get our butts kicked.
Did they not teach the difference between the tactical, strategic, and political in the Army?

Originally Posted by USMCFLYR (Post 1669736)

You'll need to clarify exactly on what level did we get our butts kicked.?

Originally Posted by USMCFLYR (Post 1669736)

Did they not teach the difference between the tactical, strategic, and political in the Army?

Originally Posted by atpwannabe (Post 1669776)

We have no military presence in Vietnam. None, notta; nil. As another poster pointed out..."we drew the line in the sand in Korea"...not so in Vietnam.



Yes, they did. My question is..."Which one did we 'win' or have the upper hand"? When its all said and done, we still have no military presence or political influence in Southeast Asia....at least not like we have in other parts of the world.


atp

Originally Posted by atpwannabe (Post 1669776)

When its all said and done, we still have no military presence or political influence in Southeast Asia....at least not like we have in other parts of the world.


atp