If we have separation of church and state

[Delta4Embassy]

couldn't we have separation of politics and the military? Seems to me the reason the US military can't defeat 10th cnetury nations like Iraq and Afganistan is due to Washington caring more about politics and media impressions than achieving military victories. We won World War 2 in a dozend ifferent countries is under 4 years. But with the best technology on Earth we now can't defeat goat herders in 10? There's no reason we couldn't have won both Iraq and Afanistan in about a week if not being hamstrung by Washington.

Washington's role in military operations should begin with "Sic em!" and end with "Good job." But nothing from them in the middle. Let Generals and Admirals make military decisions, not bureaucrats.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Hate to even reference this but the background plot of "Starship Troopers" is looking better and better...

 

[mudwhistle]

How bout "Mission Accomplished"

 

[Mad Scientist]

How about "Separation of Banking and State"? or "Separation of Corporations and State"?

 

[Derideo_Te]

Separation of Corporations and State sounds like the way to go.

Individuals can petition government but not corporations. No corporate funding allowed in elections either. No issue ads, nothing. Any politician that proposes a law that financially benefits a corporation should be imprisoned for life.

 

[longknife]

Nowhere in the Constitution does it refer to "separation of church and state"! That is strictly a leftist bugaboo to gain control over a powerful segment of society.

Read the first amendment sometime. It simply prohibits the establishment of a State Religion such as they have in Great Britain.

As for the military, like it or not, the very purpose of having an individual elected to the position is to give the people control of the military establishment. In the past, the American people were wise enough to elect those who had served their country in uniform. We can certainly see the mistake when voters ignore that.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Nowhere in the Constitution does it refer to "separation of church and state"! That is strictly a leftist bugaboo to gain control over a powerful segment of society.

Read the first amendment sometime. It simply prohibits the establishment of a State Religion such as they have in Great Britain.

As for the military, like it or not, the very purpose of having an individual elected to the position is to give the people control of the military establishment. In the past, the American people were wise enough to elect those who had served their country in uniform. We can certainly see the mistake when voters ignore that.

Read the first amendment sometime. It simply prohibits the establishment of a State Religion such as they have in Great Britain.

Ironic how a literal reading must be applied to the 1st Amendment but it is sacrilege to apply the same standard to the 2nd Amendment.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Nowhere in the Constitution does it refer to "separation of church and state"! That is strictly a leftist bugaboo to gain control over a powerful segment of society.

Read the first amendment sometime. It simply prohibits the establishment of a State Religion such as they have in Great Britain.

As for the military, like it or not, the very purpose of having an individual elected to the position is to give the people control of the military establishment. In the past, the American people were wise enough to elect those who had served their country in uniform. We can certainly see the mistake when voters ignore that.

Read the first amendment sometime. It simply prohibits the establishment of a State Religion such as they have in Great Britain.

Ironic how a literal reading must be applied to the 1st Amendment but it is sacrilege to apply the same standard to the 2nd Amendment.

great point....liberals always apply their own ideological 'interpretations'......

 

[jillian]

couldn't we have separation of politics and the military? Seems to me the reason the US military can't defeat 10th cnetury nations like Iraq and Afganistan is due to Washington caring more about politics and media impressions than achieving military victories. We won World War 2 in a dozend ifferent countries is under 4 years. But with the best technology on Earth we now can't defeat goat herders in 10? There's no reason we couldn't have won both Iraq and Afanistan in about a week if not being hamstrung by Washington.

Washington's role in military operations should begin with "Sic em!" and end with "Good job." But nothing from them in the middle. Let Generals and Admirals make military decisions, not bureaucrats.

in other words, if it weren't for those pesky Geneva conventions, we'd kick the butts of people who blow themselves up to kill others?

the problem is that terrorism isn't necessarily a military issue... it can be, in part, in cases like, say, hamas sending rockets in to Israel. but dealing with terrorism requires police work, intelligence and criminal prosecution (you know, like the blind sheikh going to jail).

thinking you should blow up civilians, send their countries into turmoil to stop a "tactic" is silly.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

couldn't we have separation of politics and the military? Seems to me the reason the US military can't defeat 10th cnetury nations like Iraq and Afganistan is due to Washington caring more about politics and media impressions than achieving military victories. We won World War 2 in a dozend ifferent countries is under 4 years. But with the best technology on Earth we now can't defeat goat herders in 10? There's no reason we couldn't have won both Iraq and Afanistan in about a week if not being hamstrung by Washington.

Washington's role in military operations should begin with "Sic em!" and end with "Good job." But nothing from them in the middle. Let Generals and Admirals make military decisions, not bureaucrats.

in other words, if it weren't for those pesky Geneva conventions, we'd kick the butts of people who blow themselves up to kill others?

the problem is that terrorism isn't necessarily a military issue... it can be, in part, in cases like, say, hamas sending rockets in to Israel. but dealing with terrorism requires police work, intelligence and criminal prosecution (you know, like the blind sheikh going to jail).

thinking you should blow up civilians, send their countries into turmoil to stop a "tactic" is silly.

how many terrorists blew up U.S. civilians after we went to Afghanistan....?
how many hamas terrorists blew up Israeli civilians right after Israel blew up Gaza....?
what's 'silly' about hitting back at countries that condone terrorists...?
let them provide the 'police work, intelligence, and criminal prosecution' in their own countries if they don't support those terrorists.....

 

[jillian]

couldn't we have separation of politics and the military? Seems to me the reason the US military can't defeat 10th cnetury nations like Iraq and Afganistan is due to Washington caring more about politics and media impressions than achieving military victories. We won World War 2 in a dozend ifferent countries is under 4 years. But with the best technology on Earth we now can't defeat goat herders in 10? There's no reason we couldn't have won both Iraq and Afanistan in about a week if not being hamstrung by Washington.

Washington's role in military operations should begin with "Sic em!" and end with "Good job." But nothing from them in the middle. Let Generals and Admirals make military decisions, not bureaucrats.

in other words, if it weren't for those pesky Geneva conventions, we'd kick the butts of people who blow themselves up to kill others?

the problem is that terrorism isn't necessarily a military issue... it can be, in part, in cases like, say, hamas sending rockets in to Israel. but dealing with terrorism requires police work, intelligence and criminal prosecution (you know, like the blind sheikh going to jail).

thinking you should blow up civilians, send their countries into turmoil to stop a "tactic" is silly.

how many terrorists blew up U.S. civilians after we went to Afghanistan....?
how many hamas terrorists blew up Israeli civilians right after Israel blew up Gaza....?
what's 'silly' about hitting back at countries that condone terrorists...?
let them provide the 'police work, intelligence, and criminal prosecution' in their own countries if they don't support those terrorists.....

seriously?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

couldn't we have separation of politics and the military? Seems to me the reason the US military can't defeat 10th cnetury nations like Iraq and Afganistan is due to Washington caring more about politics and media impressions than achieving military victories. We won World War 2 in a dozend ifferent countries is under 4 years. But with the best technology on Earth we now can't defeat goat herders in 10? There's no reason we couldn't have won both Iraq and Afanistan in about a week if not being hamstrung by Washington.

Washington's role in military operations should begin with "Sic em!" and end with "Good job." But nothing from them in the middle. Let Generals and Admirals make military decisions, not bureaucrats.

in other words, if it weren't for those pesky Geneva conventions, we'd kick the butts of people who blow themselves up to kill others?

the problem is that terrorism isn't necessarily a military issue... it can be, in part, in cases like, say, hamas sending rockets in to Israel. but dealing with terrorism requires police work, intelligence and criminal prosecution (you know, like the blind sheikh going to jail).

thinking you should blow up civilians, send their countries into turmoil to stop a "tactic" is silly.

how many terrorists blew up U.S. civilians after we went to Afghanistan....?
how many hamas terrorists blew up Israeli civilians right after Israel blew up Gaza....?
what's 'silly' about hitting back at countries that condone terrorists...?
let them provide the 'police work, intelligence, and criminal prosecution' in their own countries if they don't support those terrorists.....

seriously?

does that jar your liberal sensibilities....?