Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Mr.Conley, Mar 30, 2007.
Mr Conley, I agree with the gist of time will tell article. I do wonder though, will Jasen & Co. try to slime you for 'cut & paste'? I won't, as I can read. I'll even 'bold' what I think worthy of consideration:
to say that the "surge" is a "different strategy" is to misunderstand the meaning of the word "strategy". The surge amounts to nothing more than a minor adjustment in TACTICS with an increased number of Americans in harm's way. America sure as hell did not vote in November for something so close to the existing "strategy" as that.
Again, I know when to defer. But I must say that I thought the surge was strategy, in the sense of concentrating troop strength in the troubled spots. The overall tactics I thought addressed, by the making clear that while serious malfeasance would not be acceptable, those 'questionable' by such things as Koran tossing, etc., would not be the stuff of court martials.
I know your heart is in the right place, kathianne.... we can differ on semantics....
We do, ever so often.
Is there some sort of rule prohibiting posting of articles for general consumption? If so, I was not aware of it. Until now I have been more interested in the response to the article, not my comments upon it, hence the lack thereof. However, if need be, I will gladly bold particular items and/or include my own POV.
I thought not, but seems some posters thought different. Seems Jasen has thrown me in to 'cut and paste', no matter how I highlight or comments I add. Now you come from a slightly different perspective, wonder if the standards still hold?
Ironically the surge included members of the National Guard and the Constitution does not give the President the authority to call up the National Guard, or to extend their service. The Constitution states that Congress shall "provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions" and "provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;" The President doesn't get to decide that he wants to send more Guardsmen to Iraq or to deploy them outside of the United States and one of the major reasons for this is that it could allow a future President to cease control of Washington, D.C. and the United States and establish a military dictatorship even before the National Guards in the various states could do anything to prevent it.
To send 20,000 additional troops to Iraq without the consent of Congress is beyond imagination as these are American citizens and they deserve to have a voice in where they will be deployed. They may not have an individual say in whether they go to Iraq or Afghanistan, Germany or any other location but they should have a say through their elected representatives to determine their deployment as units. Anything less than this is tyranny and it allows the arbitrary decision of one man to determine the lives of American servicemen and women.
The President has the authority to federalize and call up reserve and National Guard troops as he sees fit. Been doing it at least since the Civil War.
Obviously you are incorrect.
Separate names with a comma.