Sentinel947

Not so much parents, but sometimes I point out to some of my Scouts what they post on Facebook. (Remember, I'm 19, I can get away with it). It's amazing how people in general don't think things through before they post them forever under their name and with their picture attached.

Packsaddle: I destroyed your thesis with my reply. I don't know what you are reading... Your thesis: You guys can throw around all the high-minded fantasyland reasons for military action you want. But this country has demonstrated empirically that we are willing to go to war for a reason that can be summarized with a single word: oil. It's that simple. You said empirically. Empirically would mean a MAJORITY of US Military Actions are over oil. And Beavah and I CLEARLY proved that notion to be invalid. You are correct that the Gulf War was over oil. I even granted you an extr

"To all Republicans in this thread.. Let me tell you that I am ashamed you consider yourself representives for scouting.. I did not expect you to shift your position.. But like Beavah, I at least expected you to admit that in this one area, your party is doing wrong.. Instead, you deny, try to shift the blame, and point fingers at what a party did 50 years back, to say what your party is doing today is therefore valid.. " Moosetracker, You should really avoid implicating everyone of a certain group because of the opinions of a few people. It's an easy way to get in trouble. I'll make a wo

To say everyone war America fights is over oil smacks of conspiracy, and a downright disconnect with reality. While 3 previous wars have been over oil or oil played a central role (or even a minor one) Gulf War Iraq - Operation Iraqi Freedom Libya How many wars or military actions happened without Oil being a primary concern? WW1 WW2 Korea Vietnam Grenada Libya bombing 1987 Hondura- Special forces deployed Somalian Intervention. Bosnia Hergovina and the bombing of Serbia. Afghanistan. I could go ON and ON Packsaddle. To summarize. While recently

Unlike many people, I believe all countries have a duty to intervene in genocides. However, most nations don't and most civilians don't support that kind of action. I think it's reprehensible that nations like Sudan, Syria, and Rwanda can get away with the mass killings of civilians, and get an ineffective slap on the wrist from the ICC, and a wink-wink from major power nations who should know better than to support such countries. Before I get accused of being a war chicken, I'm a member of U.S Army ROTC. So I have no problem fighting in any of those sort of conflicts. I'd much prefer t

I'm gonna build off Cambridgeskips comment. What constitutes victory? Is Iraq a victory? A emerging young democracy in the current hotbed of unrest in the middle east? A nation that proves sectarian strife can be overcome? I'd consider that a victory. Even if they are still having some issues and unity problems. I think Afghanistan will end in defeat for the United States and it's NATO allies. The Allies have failed to make capital improvements to Afghanistan, (Electrical services, roads, water, other important building projects, frequently the money has been stolen by local wa

Is Military force justified if evidence of Genocide is evident? Iraq, Rwanda, Bosnia -Hergovina, Somalia, Libya, Syria

The Republican party has lost one of the easiest races to win since Reagan v Carter. They tossed up a moderate candidate, then the primaries forced him to embrace Neo Con Idealogy. As I've stated before, Republicans make up 30% of the population, and therefore must secure a large percentage of independents. They will fail to do so. Romneys new positions make George W Bush look like a bleeding hearted liberal with his NCLB, Medicare Part D and Aids Funding. Beavah: when you said "Gimme a break. I get that da neo-cons are a bunch of chicken-hawks, but I drank a toast to Saddam's end, I

BadenP lets keep it civil here please.

Moose, I apologize for the snipyness. I missed the attempted humor. To add to your comment, the whole Obama is a muslim thing is one of the most absurd things I've ever heard. Also the Rioting in the middle East is a result of American interventionist policies of the last 50 years. The video itself was the spark. The rioting was a convienent way for Al Qaeda affliates to attack our ambassador while pretending it was the "will" of the people of Libya. I think NOW is the time to reinforce our support of Libya and their people. It is too strategic an area to lose to Islamist ter

NJCubScouter: from my observations you are correct about the Republican party primaries drawing their candidates to the far right. The Democrats, while it does happen from time to time, (See the Warren vs Brown race in Mass) it doesn't happen nearly as frequently in my estimation.

What defines clear and present danger? I find that term nebulus.

What must be present for you to believe military force is justified?

"Well if that is a bases for starting a war, why are we tiptoeing around starting up some new war with Iran? Come-on guys! Lets go!." Moosetracker: Way to take my comments out of context. Sponsoring a terrorist organization is a very dangerous threat. However I do not believe it alone is sufficent enough for combat. I did cite a whole host of other reasons, however you decided to selectively edit them out. Furthermore, lets talk about Obama lieing repeatedly about the attack on our Ambassador in Libya. The adminstration was warned it was coming, failed to act, failed to reply decisi

Furthermore, Iraq was a state sponsor of terrorism, funneling money to Al Qaeda and other anti American groups. Iraq also had a large stockpile of chemical weapons, which Saddam used on the Kurds. Genocide, + Chemical Weapons+ Nuclear Ambition+ Prior Aggression+ Not allowing nuclear inspectors= reasonable assumption Saddam is up to no good. So that is one option, or one could say "Bush was bored and attacked Iraq." Which is a more reasonable conclusion? Moosetracker: what reason would Bush have to attack Iraq? Really now. Oil? Attacking Oil rich countries merely increases

I won't make a decision till I see them debate, and if I'm not semi satisfied with one of them, I'll vote for Johnson, since I know he can't win.

Packsaddle, like Bush or not, he could speak in complete sentences. You must give him that much credit. Whether you disagree with someone over politics doesn't make the other person unintelligent. I personally disagreed with several major Bush policies, but at least Bush had strength to his convictions. Romney and Obama pander for votes. Romney flip flops, and Obama "evolves" and promises the world for your vote.

G W Bush also had one of the highest approval ratings after 9/11. So one could say briefly, he was one of the most popular Presidents.

I concur with Basement dweller and eagerly look forward to back to back camping trips my troop will do in October.

Beavah, but wouldn't medicare/medicaid/SS be government owned insurance? It's certainly a redistribution of wealth (whether or not that is unfair is up to debate) Moosetracker: I am a Independent Catholic voter from Ohio, (I live in Speaker Boehners district). I do try to vote in accordance with Catholic teachings. So.... the Democrats have left me behind in their glorification of baby killing, I mean choice. While the Republican party is advocating everyone for themselves economics, and has no care for life after it's been born ( social welfare, death penalty). Leaving me in the awkward

Socialism in Western government is a debate that is over. The question now is "How much socialism are we going to have?" SS, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, Government sponsered College Loans, all are socialistic aspects of government, and most Americans would agree these mentioned programs are good. The Tea Party has hurt the Republican party's ability to moderate. They've stolen the Parties ability to compromise and pass legislation. They will cost Romney the White House, and the Republicans will not capture the Senate, and may even lose the House. Statistically, self described "

Merlyn: Just because you are insulted, doesn't make you right.

We've had all three from time to time. I personally was a Mini SM when I was an SPL.... Most often we have the "Pl of PLs" as you described. I this has mostly to do with Troop Culture. Our (A)SM's work hard to help guide our (A)Spls' through the leadership process.

"From my unit? I'd tell the CC that I would drop the merit badges immediately, even in the middle of counseling scouts, if the CC even thinks about attempting to force me to water down the requirements, and doesn't back me up 100%. " I second that, only I would still finish with any Scouts I was still counseling.

I'm just saying Eagle, in this interview, he doesn't come off as a crazyman intent on nuking people. I was surprised by how..... normal... he acted.