Veterans Day, 2008

with an excerpt from an Adam Kokesh interview. the full interview with Adam Kokesh (Iraq Veterans against the War) will be posted Wednesday

Question: when was the last war that U.S. military men and women died in and killed for where the national security of the United states was threatened?

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• veterans
• day
• adam
• kokesh
• iraq
• against
• the
• war
• IVAW
• davis
• fleetwood
• hermit

[redmistpete]

@promontorium....."America"

[redmistpete]

@dina30141 - quite true but YOU don't know which "coward cocksuckers" plowed into the towers do you? You were told who THEY suspected - we don't really KNOW who did it. Before I get flamed for this, I did my part in the Iraq conflict BUT if it was AL QUEDA, as they say, then why did so many of our British troops die trying to topple Iraq instead?

[dina30141]

Fuck(Eugene V. Debs) . When the coward cocksuckers plowed in to the towers you better bet you sorry ass war was declared! Declared by the brave goddamn Black, white, brown, red, and every other shit kicking American that knows freedom ain't free and it ain't over.

[dina30141]

We got your yellow asses covered. Bite the hand of freedom? Don't bitch when its your time to put up or shut up..hard like you like it. WE have a duty, a goddamned duty to question the goddamn Commander in chief. Take that pussy EU, the pussy UN and stick it.

[sugarpuddin88]

Veterans Disarmament Act is now Law

Congress knows that bloodshed is inevitable in America given the outstanding debt & rapid collapse of the US Dollar. They also know Veterans will likely be the first to stand up against Gov tyranny through guerrilla Warfare.

Basically, Veterans names are now being put into the Brady Instant Check Data Base to block Veterans from being allowed to own or carry guns of any type

Moreover, Obama he wont bring soldiers home; diminishes vet benefits

[Ninja5aif]

may the American bastards die and burn in hell and the british come home alive

[Snarkbutt]

What is the right to "succeed?" I do not recall any states not trying to "succeed" in anything. Success is always good, otherwise goals are pointless. As to secession, the seceding states' main reasons were TARIFFS (#1), slavery-based commerce, the North reneging on a contract (however unjust the original contract was, they did agree to it), and many others. Slavery was only one of the main issues, and not the single most important one. I believe slavery is unjust, but it was not the only cause.

[mymojorisin]

The Civil War was about the slavery issue not the right to succeed. The succession of the slave states was in response to the congress wanting to abolish slavery in the United States. There were other concerns but the other reasons would have never started a civil war. The Civil War was fought over slavery which is and was a constitutional issue. Freedom is what the constitution is all about.

[Snarkbutt]

The Civil War had nothing to do with the Constitution. That was about whether or not states had the right to secede, a right ambiguous in the Constitution; though the ideals of state sovereignty supported secession, 'twas never explicitly granted. The idea that states answer to themselves as the highest power would have logically allowed secession for any or no reason, but that is irrelevant. The potential seceders threatened nothing in the Constitution, only the Declaration of Independance.

[mymojorisin]

Well the American Empire gained territory during WWII and established the US as the most powerful nation in the world. The Philippines are an American colony not an independent state. Germany and Japan never had the money, resources or technology to pose any real threat to the US. They were fights worth fighting but they did not pose a short term threat, maybe a long term but only if Europe and Asia could not contain them, which they could have.