riddler 0 #1 September 13, 2009 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090913/ap_on_re_as/as_afghan_violence QuoteIn Kabul, the capital, an American service member and an Afghan police officer got into an argument because the American was drinking water in front of the Afghan police, who are not eating or drinking during the day because of the Muslim fasting month of Ramadan, said the district chief, Abdul Baqi Zemari. The police officer shot the American and seriously wounded him, while other American troops responded and seriously wounded the police officer, Zemari said. Lt. Robert Carr, a U.S. military spokesman, confirmed an incident between Afghan police officers and a U.S. police mentoring team. He could not provide information on the conditions of the two men.Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhaig 0 #2 September 13, 2009 Quote http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090913/ap_on_re_as/as_afghan_violence QuoteIn Kabul, the capital, an American service member and an Afghan police officer got into an argument because the American was drinking water in front of the Afghan police, who are not eating or drinking during the day because of the Muslim fasting month of Ramadan, said the district chief, Abdul Baqi Zemari. The police officer shot the American and seriously wounded him, while other American troops responded and seriously wounded the police officer, Zemari said. Lt. Robert Carr, a U.S. military spokesman, confirmed an incident between Afghan police officers and a U.S. police mentoring team. He could not provide information on the conditions of the two men. wow... the cop shot a soldier for drinking water. Cop's lucky he's alive. I wonder how the american troops responded. There are many ways to "seriously wound" other than shooting.-- Rob Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #3 September 13, 2009 They should have slotted the cop in full view of all persons. There would be a strong message sent from that action. Take your religion and shove it up your ass if you think harming another for drinking water is enough to make you shoot someone, especially a US or Coalition Soldier. The cop should hang for this. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lefty 0 #4 September 13, 2009 There must me more to this. The Afghans I'm working with don't take offense at all when I eat and drink during the day. I don't rub it in and they understand I'm not Muslim.Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 25 #5 September 13, 2009 Yes We Can! Occupy Afghanistan!-- Tom Aiello [email protected] SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhaig 0 #6 September 13, 2009 I suspect there is much we'll never know about this event. But I think it's safe to say that the cop should have exercised more control.-- Rob Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #7 September 13, 2009 QuoteThey should have slotted the cop in full view of all persons. There would be a strong message sent from that action. Indeed: that we're there to win the hearts and minds of the people. It's an ageless lesson that's worked before. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RIGGER160 0 #8 September 13, 2009 QuoteThere must me more to this. The Afghans I'm working with don't take offense at all when I eat and drink during the day. I don't rub it in and they understand I'm not Muslim. I doubt it. You forget that before we entered the country in 2001, I.E. eight years ago that the regime in control was destroying ancient religous monuments and killing women for being out in public without a man from their family. Religous extremism is very unrational. It wouldnt suprise me if that afghan cop was a Taliban sympethizer. The national police force and army have many of those. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #9 September 13, 2009 I would never serve along side someone who would not kill to protect one of our troops. That being said I guess that is why you never served, your ideals would make you do nothing in this instance, or at best want to effect an arrest. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
christelsabine 1 #10 September 13, 2009 Quote I would never serve along side someone who would not kill to protect one of our troops. .... Bwahahahaha .... Who are you to chuse, Robin Hood for the poor or what? Man, did you ever listen to yourself? dudeist skydiver # 3105 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
funjumper101 15 #11 September 13, 2009 Quote http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090913/ap_on_re_as/as_afghan_violence QuoteIn Kabul, the capital, an American service member and an Afghan police officer got into an argument because the American was drinking water in front of the Afghan police, who are not eating or drinking during the day because of the Muslim fasting month of Ramadan, said the district chief, Abdul Baqi Zemari. The police officer shot the American and seriously wounded him, while other American troops responded and seriously wounded the police officer, Zemari said. Lt. Robert Carr, a U.S. military spokesman, confirmed an incident between Afghan police officers and a U.S. police mentoring team. He could not provide information on the conditions of the two men. Religious Fundamentalism, a threat abroad, a threat at home. I put that Afghan cop on the same plane as the anti-abortion zealots that insist that no government funds be used to pay for abortions. The AAA (anti abortion activists) don't want their tax dollars spent on things that are morally offensive to them. The politicains caved on this and the AAA got what they wanted. For some reason, the same arguement regarding MY tax dollars being spent on a pre-meditated war of aggresion is not considered valid. My moral and spiritual objections to this are intense. Why can't I get the same special consideration shown to the AAA minority group? Why doesn't every special interest group have the ability to prevent their tax dollars from being spent on stuff thay don't like? If it is good enought for one group, isn't it good enough for all? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cliffwhite 0 #12 September 13, 2009 QuoteQuote Why doesn't every special interest group have the ability to prevent their tax dollars from being spent on stuff thay don't like? They do have that ability but not the guts. Simply don't pay the tax . Blues, Cliff2muchTruth Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites riddler 0 #13 September 13, 2009 Quotethe same arguement regarding MY tax dollars being spent on a pre-meditated war of aggresion is not considered valid. Just out of curiosity, which war are you referring to?Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites funjumper101 15 #14 September 13, 2009 QuoteQuotethe same arguement regarding MY tax dollars being spent on a pre-meditated war of aggresion is not considered valid. Just out of curiosity, which war are you referring to? The one where the USA made a decision to invade and occupy a country that never attacked the USA and did not pose any credible threat to our interests. The one where intelligence reports were cherry picked for data that supported the decision already made, while discarding any reports that did not support the decision. The one where the USA did something that hadn't been done since the very beginning of WWII. That would be attacking and occupying a country that did NOT attack us first. The one where the President lied to Congress during a State of the Union address. Is that enough clues for you? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites riddler 0 #15 September 13, 2009 Gotcha - confused because the thread started with the subject of Afghanistan. Some people feel that Afghanistan war was also premeditated, because several media outlets have reported that the US government already had plans to invade Afghanistan prior to 9/11/2001. I was wondering if you were talking about Afghanistan, and not Iraq. QuoteU.S. plans to remove the Taliban prior to September 11, 2001 NBC News reported in May 2002 that a formal National Security Presidential Directive submitted two days before September 11, 2001 had outlined essentially the same war plan that the White House, the CIA and the Pentagon put into action after the Sept. 11 attacks. The plan dealt with all aspects of a war against al-Qaida, ranging from diplomatic initiatives to military operations in Afghanistan, including outlines to persuade Afghanistan’s Taliban government to turn al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden over to the United States, with provisions to use military force if it refused. According to a 2004 report by the bipartisan commission of inquiry into 9/11, on the very next day, one day before the September 11, 2001 attacks, the Bush administration agreed on a plan to oust the Taliban regime in Afghanistan by force if it refused to hand over Osama bin Laden. At that September 10 meeting of the Bush administration's top national security officials it was agreed that the Taliban would be presented with a final ultimatum to hand over Bin Laden. Failing that, covert military aid would be channelled by the U.S. to anti-Taliban groups. And, if both those options failed, "the deputies agreed that the United States would seek to overthrow the Taliban regime through more direct action." However, an article published in March 2001 by Jane's, a media outlet serving the military and intelligence communities, suggests that the United States had already been planning and taking just such action against the Taliban six months before September 11, 2001. According to Jane's, Washington was giving the Northern Alliance information and logistics support as part of concerted action with India, Iran, and Russia against Afghanistan's Taliban regime, with Tajikistan and Uzbekistan being used as bases. The BBC News reported that, according to a Pakistani diplomat, Niaz Naik, a former Pakistani Foreign Secretary, had been told by senior American officials in mid-July 2001 that military action against Afghanistan would proceed by the middle of October at the latest. The message was conveyed during a meeting on Afghanistan between senior U.S., Russian, Iranian, and Pakistani diplomats. The meeting was the third in a series of meetings on Afghanistan, with the previous meeting having been held in March 2001. During the July 2001 meeting, Mr. Naik was told that Washington would launch its military operation from bases in Tajikistan - where American advisers were already in place - and that the wider objective was to topple the Taliban regime and install another government in place. An article in The Guardian on September 26, 2001, also adds evidence that there were already signs in the first half of 2001 that Washington was moving to threaten Afghanistan militarily from the north, via Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. A U.S. Department of Defense official, Dr. Jeffrey Starr, visited Tajikistan in January 2001 and U.S. General Tommy Franks visited the country in May 2001, conveying a message from the Bush administration that the US considered Tajikistan "a strategically significant country". U.S. Army Rangers were training special troops inside Kyrgyzstan, and there were unconfirmed reports that Tajik and Uzbek special troops were training in Alaska and Montana. Reliable western military sources say a U.S. contingency plan existed on paper by the end of the summer to attack Afghanistan from the north, with U.S. military advisors already in place in Tajikistan and Uzbekistan.Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rhys 0 #16 September 13, 2009 QuoteI suspect there is much we'll never know about this event. But I think it's safe to say that the cop should have exercised more control. I am not taking sides on this one, the cops response was excessive, but the soldiers should have shown more respect. i'm sure he was well aware that it was ramadan, this is a sacred time for islamics and if someone came through you church service cahnting 'allah is great' you would probably be pissed off too. To be disrespecting in an country you are supposed to be working with is pretty darn stupid, not repecting ramadan in afghanistan is stupid, so the soldier was stupid. He deserved to be punished but being shot is a bit excessive."When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites christelsabine 1 #17 September 13, 2009 QuoteQuoteI suspect there is much we'll never know about this event. But I think it's safe to say that the cop should have exercised more control. I am not taking sides on this one, the cops response was excessive, but the soldiers should have shown more respect. i'm sure he was well aware that it was ramadan, this is a sacred time for islamics and if someone came through you church service cahnting 'allah is great' you would probably be pissed off too. To be disrespecting in an country you are supposed to be working with is pretty darn stupid, not repecting ramadan in afghanistan is stupid, so the soldier was stupid. He deserved to be punished but being shot is a bit excessive. Nonsense. Punshed because of what??? Last week, I've had a meeting with a customer (I'm a banker), a good client from Turkey. We sat there for about 3 hrs, debating about some significant amounts to be invested. Suddenly, the senior jumped up and left the room. He did not come back. Instead, his son took over his role, explaining that his father and himself did not *eat and drink* since 04.00 hrs in the morning. This day, we had about 31°C at 11.00 am. Only at about 08.00 pm, they'd be allowed to open a water bottle or eat. OK. That's not my religion, not my decision. They offered me water/coffee/tea. To shoot a stranger b/c of Ramadan is way over the top. Even in a that country. dudeist skydiver # 3105 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lefty 0 #18 September 13, 2009 QuoteQuoteThere must me more to this. The Afghans I'm working with don't take offense at all when I eat and drink during the day. I don't rub it in and they understand I'm not Muslim. I doubt it. You forget that before we entered the country in 2001, I.E. eight years ago that the regime in control was destroying ancient religous monuments and killing women for being out in public without a man from their family. Religous extremism is very unrational. It wouldnt suprise me if that afghan cop was a Taliban sympethizer. The national police force and army have many of those. Heh, that actually sounds like the hypothetical "more" I was talking about. I'm not sure the cop was a Taliban sympathizer, though. Ramadan has been going on for a while now and I'm positive this cop has seen soldiers drinking water before. Just wonder what made him snap.Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites n23x 0 #19 September 13, 2009 Quote Just wonder what made him snap. Thinking back to a prior employment, I can recall multiple occasions of 'friendly christian' Americans aggressively hassling a fellow employee while he was fasting. Now here's the fun part: Want to guess how many of those guys were vets? .jim"Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rhaig 0 #20 September 14, 2009 QuoteQuoteI suspect there is much we'll never know about this event. But I think it's safe to say that the cop should have exercised more control. I am not taking sides on this one, the cops response was excessive, but the soldiers should have shown more respect. i'm sure he was well aware that it was ramadan, this is a sacred time for islamics and if someone came through you church service cahnting 'allah is great' you would probably be pissed off too. To be disrespecting in an country you are supposed to be working with is pretty darn stupid, not repecting ramadan in afghanistan is stupid, so the soldier was stupid. He deserved to be punished but being shot is a bit excessive. note I said nothing about the US soldier's behavior. I believe it's understood he showed poor judgement, but he did nothing wrong but to be disrespectful. He may have deserved stern words from the liaison officer, or his CO, but no punishment. And I still say that the fact that the cop is alive shows there was remarkable control (either personal restraint, or shot placement) on the part of the other soldiers backing this guy up.-- Rob Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites TomAiello 25 #21 September 14, 2009 QuoteThe AAA (anti abortion activists) don't want their tax dollars spent on things that are morally offensive to them. The politicains caved on this and the AAA got what they wanted. For some reason, the same arguement regarding MY tax dollars being spent on a pre-meditated war of aggresion is not considered valid. My moral and spiritual objections to this are intense. Why can't I get the same special consideration shown to the AAA minority group? I'm with you. I'd love to see any one person able to stop expenditures of all tax dollars on any program they object to. I think it would give us a much better government.-- Tom Aiello [email protected] SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites riddler 0 #22 September 14, 2009 QuoteI'd love to see any one person able to stop expenditures of all tax dollars on any program they object to. I agree as well - taxpayers should be able to allocate their tax expenditures, on a percentage basis to governmental segments that they feel appropriate. I'm not sure it would make for better government. I know I wouldn't allocate any money to national defense, considering what we already spend on it. Then, after the 9/11 attack, they would have to wait until April of 2002 before I would give them some money. In 2003, I'd probably reduce it again. That makes it hard for the government to function in emergencies. But overall, there would probably be less wars.Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites RIGGER160 0 #23 September 14, 2009 Dont mean to get off topic, but just because plans were there doesnt mean shit. The US has plans for a lot of things. It just means we are prepared Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jgoose71 0 #24 September 14, 2009 Quote He deserved to be punished but being shot is a bit excessive. A bit excessive, nothing. It was wrong. That you are not straight up condemning this is a testimate to how much leeway liberals give because of their "liberal guilt" and how much they hate themselves for being american. You might as well walk around with a sign that says "If you are going to shoot someone, shoot an American. We deserve it.""There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss." Life, the Universe, and Everything Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites TomAiello 25 #25 September 14, 2009 QuoteQuoteI'd love to see any one person able to stop expenditures of all tax dollars on any program they object to. I agree as well - taxpayers should be able to allocate their tax expenditures, on a percentage basis to governmental segments that they feel appropriate. Absolutely. And withhold the payment of parts they disagreed with. Or re-allocate their taxes. Next year, I want all my taxes to go to paying off the national debt.-- Tom Aiello [email protected] SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 Next Page 1 of 3 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
riddler 0 #13 September 13, 2009 Quotethe same arguement regarding MY tax dollars being spent on a pre-meditated war of aggresion is not considered valid. Just out of curiosity, which war are you referring to?Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
funjumper101 15 #14 September 13, 2009 QuoteQuotethe same arguement regarding MY tax dollars being spent on a pre-meditated war of aggresion is not considered valid. Just out of curiosity, which war are you referring to? The one where the USA made a decision to invade and occupy a country that never attacked the USA and did not pose any credible threat to our interests. The one where intelligence reports were cherry picked for data that supported the decision already made, while discarding any reports that did not support the decision. The one where the USA did something that hadn't been done since the very beginning of WWII. That would be attacking and occupying a country that did NOT attack us first. The one where the President lied to Congress during a State of the Union address. Is that enough clues for you? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riddler 0 #15 September 13, 2009 Gotcha - confused because the thread started with the subject of Afghanistan. Some people feel that Afghanistan war was also premeditated, because several media outlets have reported that the US government already had plans to invade Afghanistan prior to 9/11/2001. I was wondering if you were talking about Afghanistan, and not Iraq. QuoteU.S. plans to remove the Taliban prior to September 11, 2001 NBC News reported in May 2002 that a formal National Security Presidential Directive submitted two days before September 11, 2001 had outlined essentially the same war plan that the White House, the CIA and the Pentagon put into action after the Sept. 11 attacks. The plan dealt with all aspects of a war against al-Qaida, ranging from diplomatic initiatives to military operations in Afghanistan, including outlines to persuade Afghanistan’s Taliban government to turn al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden over to the United States, with provisions to use military force if it refused. According to a 2004 report by the bipartisan commission of inquiry into 9/11, on the very next day, one day before the September 11, 2001 attacks, the Bush administration agreed on a plan to oust the Taliban regime in Afghanistan by force if it refused to hand over Osama bin Laden. At that September 10 meeting of the Bush administration's top national security officials it was agreed that the Taliban would be presented with a final ultimatum to hand over Bin Laden. Failing that, covert military aid would be channelled by the U.S. to anti-Taliban groups. And, if both those options failed, "the deputies agreed that the United States would seek to overthrow the Taliban regime through more direct action." However, an article published in March 2001 by Jane's, a media outlet serving the military and intelligence communities, suggests that the United States had already been planning and taking just such action against the Taliban six months before September 11, 2001. According to Jane's, Washington was giving the Northern Alliance information and logistics support as part of concerted action with India, Iran, and Russia against Afghanistan's Taliban regime, with Tajikistan and Uzbekistan being used as bases. The BBC News reported that, according to a Pakistani diplomat, Niaz Naik, a former Pakistani Foreign Secretary, had been told by senior American officials in mid-July 2001 that military action against Afghanistan would proceed by the middle of October at the latest. The message was conveyed during a meeting on Afghanistan between senior U.S., Russian, Iranian, and Pakistani diplomats. The meeting was the third in a series of meetings on Afghanistan, with the previous meeting having been held in March 2001. During the July 2001 meeting, Mr. Naik was told that Washington would launch its military operation from bases in Tajikistan - where American advisers were already in place - and that the wider objective was to topple the Taliban regime and install another government in place. An article in The Guardian on September 26, 2001, also adds evidence that there were already signs in the first half of 2001 that Washington was moving to threaten Afghanistan militarily from the north, via Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. A U.S. Department of Defense official, Dr. Jeffrey Starr, visited Tajikistan in January 2001 and U.S. General Tommy Franks visited the country in May 2001, conveying a message from the Bush administration that the US considered Tajikistan "a strategically significant country". U.S. Army Rangers were training special troops inside Kyrgyzstan, and there were unconfirmed reports that Tajik and Uzbek special troops were training in Alaska and Montana. Reliable western military sources say a U.S. contingency plan existed on paper by the end of the summer to attack Afghanistan from the north, with U.S. military advisors already in place in Tajikistan and Uzbekistan.Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhys 0 #16 September 13, 2009 QuoteI suspect there is much we'll never know about this event. But I think it's safe to say that the cop should have exercised more control. I am not taking sides on this one, the cops response was excessive, but the soldiers should have shown more respect. i'm sure he was well aware that it was ramadan, this is a sacred time for islamics and if someone came through you church service cahnting 'allah is great' you would probably be pissed off too. To be disrespecting in an country you are supposed to be working with is pretty darn stupid, not repecting ramadan in afghanistan is stupid, so the soldier was stupid. He deserved to be punished but being shot is a bit excessive."When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
christelsabine 1 #17 September 13, 2009 QuoteQuoteI suspect there is much we'll never know about this event. But I think it's safe to say that the cop should have exercised more control. I am not taking sides on this one, the cops response was excessive, but the soldiers should have shown more respect. i'm sure he was well aware that it was ramadan, this is a sacred time for islamics and if someone came through you church service cahnting 'allah is great' you would probably be pissed off too. To be disrespecting in an country you are supposed to be working with is pretty darn stupid, not repecting ramadan in afghanistan is stupid, so the soldier was stupid. He deserved to be punished but being shot is a bit excessive. Nonsense. Punshed because of what??? Last week, I've had a meeting with a customer (I'm a banker), a good client from Turkey. We sat there for about 3 hrs, debating about some significant amounts to be invested. Suddenly, the senior jumped up and left the room. He did not come back. Instead, his son took over his role, explaining that his father and himself did not *eat and drink* since 04.00 hrs in the morning. This day, we had about 31°C at 11.00 am. Only at about 08.00 pm, they'd be allowed to open a water bottle or eat. OK. That's not my religion, not my decision. They offered me water/coffee/tea. To shoot a stranger b/c of Ramadan is way over the top. Even in a that country. dudeist skydiver # 3105 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lefty 0 #18 September 13, 2009 QuoteQuoteThere must me more to this. The Afghans I'm working with don't take offense at all when I eat and drink during the day. I don't rub it in and they understand I'm not Muslim. I doubt it. You forget that before we entered the country in 2001, I.E. eight years ago that the regime in control was destroying ancient religous monuments and killing women for being out in public without a man from their family. Religous extremism is very unrational. It wouldnt suprise me if that afghan cop was a Taliban sympethizer. The national police force and army have many of those. Heh, that actually sounds like the hypothetical "more" I was talking about. I'm not sure the cop was a Taliban sympathizer, though. Ramadan has been going on for a while now and I'm positive this cop has seen soldiers drinking water before. Just wonder what made him snap.Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
n23x 0 #19 September 13, 2009 Quote Just wonder what made him snap. Thinking back to a prior employment, I can recall multiple occasions of 'friendly christian' Americans aggressively hassling a fellow employee while he was fasting. Now here's the fun part: Want to guess how many of those guys were vets? .jim"Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhaig 0 #20 September 14, 2009 QuoteQuoteI suspect there is much we'll never know about this event. But I think it's safe to say that the cop should have exercised more control. I am not taking sides on this one, the cops response was excessive, but the soldiers should have shown more respect. i'm sure he was well aware that it was ramadan, this is a sacred time for islamics and if someone came through you church service cahnting 'allah is great' you would probably be pissed off too. To be disrespecting in an country you are supposed to be working with is pretty darn stupid, not repecting ramadan in afghanistan is stupid, so the soldier was stupid. He deserved to be punished but being shot is a bit excessive. note I said nothing about the US soldier's behavior. I believe it's understood he showed poor judgement, but he did nothing wrong but to be disrespectful. He may have deserved stern words from the liaison officer, or his CO, but no punishment. And I still say that the fact that the cop is alive shows there was remarkable control (either personal restraint, or shot placement) on the part of the other soldiers backing this guy up.-- Rob Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 25 #21 September 14, 2009 QuoteThe AAA (anti abortion activists) don't want their tax dollars spent on things that are morally offensive to them. The politicains caved on this and the AAA got what they wanted. For some reason, the same arguement regarding MY tax dollars being spent on a pre-meditated war of aggresion is not considered valid. My moral and spiritual objections to this are intense. Why can't I get the same special consideration shown to the AAA minority group? I'm with you. I'd love to see any one person able to stop expenditures of all tax dollars on any program they object to. I think it would give us a much better government.-- Tom Aiello [email protected] SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riddler 0 #22 September 14, 2009 QuoteI'd love to see any one person able to stop expenditures of all tax dollars on any program they object to. I agree as well - taxpayers should be able to allocate their tax expenditures, on a percentage basis to governmental segments that they feel appropriate. I'm not sure it would make for better government. I know I wouldn't allocate any money to national defense, considering what we already spend on it. Then, after the 9/11 attack, they would have to wait until April of 2002 before I would give them some money. In 2003, I'd probably reduce it again. That makes it hard for the government to function in emergencies. But overall, there would probably be less wars.Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RIGGER160 0 #23 September 14, 2009 Dont mean to get off topic, but just because plans were there doesnt mean shit. The US has plans for a lot of things. It just means we are prepared Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jgoose71 0 #24 September 14, 2009 Quote He deserved to be punished but being shot is a bit excessive. A bit excessive, nothing. It was wrong. That you are not straight up condemning this is a testimate to how much leeway liberals give because of their "liberal guilt" and how much they hate themselves for being american. You might as well walk around with a sign that says "If you are going to shoot someone, shoot an American. We deserve it.""There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss." Life, the Universe, and Everything Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 25 #25 September 14, 2009 QuoteQuoteI'd love to see any one person able to stop expenditures of all tax dollars on any program they object to. I agree as well - taxpayers should be able to allocate their tax expenditures, on a percentage basis to governmental segments that they feel appropriate. Absolutely. And withhold the payment of parts they disagreed with. Or re-allocate their taxes. Next year, I want all my taxes to go to paying off the national debt.-- Tom Aiello [email protected] SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
