Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
properly fighting a war means to break the enemies will !!! not just their military but their populace as a whole ... we have not accomplished this since WW2 !!! the reason is very simple .....the political left !!! name an instance that the left has rallied around our troops and our country in a time of war in the past 50 yrs !!! they protest ,march,boycott,and rally in sympathy on behalf of our enemies example [Jane Fonda ] .... with the political clout the leftist carry our leaders are afraid to do what needs to be done against our enemies !!! and now with the UN [whom the lefties love ] dictating what we can and cannot do in a time of war we are fighting with one hand tied behind our backs !!! if we would have been allowed to wage the 2 wars we are currently involved in like we did in WW2 our troops would have come home yrs ago !!
Is America at war, has Congress declared war? The answer is no. We are involved in a military engagement or call it what you like but America has probably been in hundreds or so of these military engagements with no declared war. Our engagements against the American Indians was largely by military engagement, our escapades in Nicarauga and other Central American nations were military engagements. Korea, Kosovo and all the rest were military engagements, we are not in a declared war. This is not WWII, but more of a sort of pointless, who knows why were there, thing. I would also remind you that WWII was fought under a Democratic administration, and probably the majority of the enlisted men fighting that war were Democratic.
Anyone remember the post-war occupations of those countries we bombed flat?
Any one notice how we get along with them now? How about Viet Nam?
We didn't beat Viet Nam, we turned and ran. , We settled for a draw in Korea and now the North hates us and the South stands with us. The first time we went to the Gulf, we didn't get the job done and 10 years later, we were right back where we started.
I'm not a fan of war and hope we avoid it at all costs, but when it becomes necessary, we must win decisively.
In "A World Transformed," coauthored by former President George H. W. Bush and his national security adviser, Brent Scowcroft, and published by Alfred A. Knopf in 1998, the basis for the U.S. policy not to invade and occupy Iraq after the Iraqi army retreated from Kuwait is explained in detail. Bush and Scowcroft wrote that had the decision been made to pursue the retreating Iraqi army to Baghdad, the United States "would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq." This, they point out, would have collapsed the coalition and caused the Arab members to desert the coalition in "anger." The author's impression was that under those circumstances, "there was no viable 'exit strategy'... violating another of our principles."
We are at war. That is a fact. Our idiotic government simply does not want to acknowledge the fact and put their names on it. That does not give them the right to make up new ways of defining what we are doing in order to avoid calling it a war.
That is another argument though - congress should be required to actually do their job.
who are we at war against?
what is our objective?
what will be different if we stay for another ten years?
A couple of excellent questions.
Technically of course there has been no declaration of war. This does not mean this is not a war, simply that it is not a legal textbook traditional war (there actually are very few of those).
The US, and the West, but also moderate muslims, is engaged in a conflict or war with what I refer to as the jihadi's: aggressive and determined muslim radicals (by no means a unified force) who have as their objective to wage holy war against both moderate muslims and all non-muslims who are not willing to accept muslim rule. This conflict is not new. I would date its beginning tot 1978-79 with the Iranian Revolution and other - unrelated but similar - movements in Afghanistan and elsewhere. For many years the US and the West tried to ignore this conflict or treat it as a simple political and security issue, but this was no longer possible after the Al Qaeda attacks on the US homeland. Since then, the US has been waging a sustained campaign, on many fronts throughout the world and with many different allies, to combat the various manifestations of the Jihadi war.
The objective of the US campaign has been to neutralize as much as possible the jihadi threat by destroying its bases, fighting the regimes and authorities that support it, seize its finances, establish counter-forces in the muslim world, etc. On the whole this campaign has been very costly in terms of costs and lives but also quite succesful. It will, however take many more years of sustained effort to defeat the jihadi threat.
Having said al that I come to the last question, which I take to be a question abouit the use of a sustained engagement on the ground in Afghanistan. I think it is debatable if the objectives we pursue there require a continued presence in force on the ground. Unfortunately, the Karzai regime is very weak and riddled with corruption. The fear (well grounded) is that after the departure of Western troops it will collapse and the Taliban will again seize power. But maybe this is inevitable. in that case it all comes down to the question wheher a new Taliban regime in Afghanistan can be contained so it doesn't pose a threat to the rest of the world. That is a difficult question to answer.
We are at war. That is a fact. Our idiotic government simply does not want to acknowledge the fact and put their names on it. That does not give them the right to make up new ways of defining what we are doing in order to avoid calling it a war.
That is another argument though - congress should be required to actually do their job.
who are we at war against?
what is our objective?
what will be different if we stay for another ten years?
who are we at war against?
what is our objective?
what will be different if we stay for another ten years?
A couple of excellent questions.
Technically of course there has been no declaration of war. This does not mean this is not a war, simply that it is not a legal textbook traditional war (there actually are very few of those).
The US, and the West, but also moderate muslims, is engaged in a conflict or war with what I refer to as the jihadi's: aggressive and determined muslim radicals (by no means a unified force) who have as their objective to wage holy war against both moderate muslims and all non-muslims who are not willing to accept muslim rule. This conflict is not new. I would date its beginning tot 1978-79 with the Iranian Revolution and other - unrelated but similar - movements in Afghanistan and elsewhere. For many years the US and the West tried to ignore this conflict or treat it as a simple political and security issue, but this was no longer possible after the Al Qaeda attacks on the US homeland. Since then, the US has been waging a sustained campaign, on many fronts throughout the world and with many different allies, to combat the various manifestations of the Jihadi war.
The objective of the US campaign has been to neutralize as much as possible the jihadi threat by destroying its bases, fighting the regimes and authorities that support it, seize its finances, establish counter-forces in the muslim world, etc. On the whole this campaign has been very costly in terms of costs and lives but also quite succesful. It will, however take many more years of sustained effort to defeat the jihadi threat.
Having said al that I come to the last question, which I take to be a question abouit the use of a sustained engagement on the ground in Afghanistan. I think it is debatable if the objectives we pursue there require a continued presence in force on the ground. Unfortunately, the Karzai regime is very weak and riddled with corruption. The fear (well grounded) is that after the departure of Western troops it will collapse and the Taliban will again seize power. But maybe this is inevitable. in that case it all comes down to the question wheher a new Taliban regime in Afghanistan can be contained so it doesn't pose a threat to the rest of the world. That is a difficult question to answer.
It is and I think it boils down to one basic thing and that is resources. Iraq was and is winnable because Iraq has the resources to be economically stable. There is clear debate as to whether or not a 'win' is worth the cost or should have ever been sought after but that is beside the point - you can stabilize the area. I am not so sure about Afghanistan where there really is very little in the way of economic power to sustain the place as a nation if we are not present and doing such a thing for them.Having said al that I come to the last question, which I take to be a question abouit the use of a sustained engagement on the ground in Afghanistan. I think it is debatable if the objectives we pursue there require a continued presence in force on the ground. Unfortunately, the Karzai regime is very weak and riddled with corruption. The fear (well grounded) is that after the departure of Western troops it will collapse and the Taliban will again seize power. But maybe this is inevitable. in that case it all comes down to the question wheher a new Taliban regime in Afghanistan can be contained so it doesn't pose a threat to the rest of the world. That is a difficult question to answer.
thank you for your response.
if a new taliban regime were to pose a thread, or at least a threat larger than any other regime that funds and shelters terrorists, do we really need full scale ground war with a 100,000 boots on the ground? probably not.
also, if we acknowledge that when we leave, the taliban will reconstitute, which it will, then doesn't that mean we can never leave since they will always re-take power?
the other thing i question is: how do you wage a war against a tactic? in "fighting jihadis", aren't we really waging a war on terror... defining what we're doing with those words basically makes it an endless endeavor.
Personally I think a new Taliban regime would certainly pose a threat in that it could again become a haven for terrorists planning attacks on the US or other countries. It might also further destabilize Pakistan and certain Central Asian countries. There seem to be basically three different possible responses to this:
1. To continue to try to build up a moderate and sustainable regime in Afghanistan. This will undoubtedly require foreign military presence for a long time to come. It seems dubious to me, however, that such an effort can be succesful in Afghanistan in the long run. Therefore we probably better withdraw. We have to realize, however, that this means we give up the idea of helping development in Afghanistan. All aid organizations will have to leave or suffer the consequences themselves. This will mean the end of schools for girls, etc. It means we abandon Afghanistan to the dark ages.
2. We can choose to try containment of a new Taliban regime. This means we simply threaten to exact very severe reprisals if they harbour terrorists that attack us. Such a threat will be tested and will have to be backed up. Basically this means being prepared for countless bombing missions against Afghanistan in the years to come and the killing of tens of thousands of Afghani civilians. Ultimately of course, this means being prepared to exact the ultimate reprisal against Afghanistan should it become the base for an attack with WMD's. Such a scenario is certainly possible, but not really very appealing.
3. A third strategy would be to withdraw all combat troops from Afghanistan after a final an devastating offensive against the Taliban, including hitting them very hard in their Pakistani sanctuaries, coupled with massive support through arms, training and money for ant-Taliban forces in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Basically this means we continue the war by proxy, leaving Afghanistan to the Taliban but destabilizing it and plunging it into all-out civil war.
As you can see, all very appealing options. But that's the real world.
Would the right include all the chickenhawks draft dodgers such as Bush Jr, Cheney, Limbaugh, et al? If so then I guess war is for others to fight and not the right? If you are so gungho enlist, or join the contracted police in the so called war zones.
War requires a enemy and the left if you want to label the Obama administration the left, has accomplished that by going after the real enemy, al-Qaeda. This 'left' did a better job than that last 'right' guy. You guys on the right are so simple minded two words define the limits of your knowledge. Two words help you bird brain computer word warriors categorize the world. You'd piss your pants the first time they shot at you.
And consider if the Afghans occupied America and decided to make us a real democracy or something, then they'd have to kill all Americans or if that thought is too deep for your empty heads, war is fought between soldiers and soldiers have a duty to fight, so in the end we'd all be dead, that may not be a bad thing, then the Indians can return to the promised land of America, free of militant nutcases of the right.
And 92 percent of Afghans in 2010 didn't know of the 911 attack. So we kill them why?
"Preventive war was an invention of Hitler. Frankly, I would not even listen to anyone seriously that came and talked about such a thing." Dwight D. Eisenhower
I have never been optimistic about winning a war on terror, crime, or drugs because no one ever defines victory and therefore you never win. I can understand a war against a nation, but a war against an ideology does not make much sense. Such a war is better fought by law enforcement, possibly with military assistance, but not as a military campaign.who are we at war against?
what is our objective?
what will be different if we stay for another ten years?
A couple of excellent questions.
Technically of course there has been no declaration of war. This does not mean this is not a war, simply that it is not a legal textbook traditional war (there actually are very few of those).
The US, and the West, but also moderate muslims, is engaged in a conflict or war with what I refer to as the jihadi's: aggressive and determined muslim radicals (by no means a unified force) who have as their objective to wage holy war against both moderate muslims and all non-muslims who are not willing to accept muslim rule. This conflict is not new. I would date its beginning tot 1978-79 with the Iranian Revolution and other - unrelated but similar - movements in Afghanistan and elsewhere. For many years the US and the West tried to ignore this conflict or treat it as a simple political and security issue, but this was no longer possible after the Al Qaeda attacks on the US homeland. Since then, the US has been waging a sustained campaign, on many fronts throughout the world and with many different allies, to combat the various manifestations of the Jihadi war.
The objective of the US campaign has been to neutralize as much as possible the jihadi threat by destroying its bases, fighting the regimes and authorities that support it, seize its finances, establish counter-forces in the muslim world, etc. On the whole this campaign has been very costly in terms of costs and lives but also quite succesful. It will, however take many more years of sustained effort to defeat the jihadi threat.
Having said al that I come to the last question, which I take to be a question abouit the use of a sustained engagement on the ground in Afghanistan. I think it is debatable if the objectives we pursue there require a continued presence in force on the ground. Unfortunately, the Karzai regime is very weak and riddled with corruption. The fear (well grounded) is that after the departure of Western troops it will collapse and the Taliban will again seize power. But maybe this is inevitable. in that case it all comes down to the question wheher a new Taliban regime in Afghanistan can be contained so it doesn't pose a threat to the rest of the world. That is a difficult question to answer.
thank you for your response.
if a new taliban regime were to pose a thread, or at least a threat larger than any other regime that funds and shelters terrorists, do we really need full scale ground war with a 100,000 boots on the ground? probably not.
also, if we acknowledge that when we leave, the taliban will reconstitute, which it will, then doesn't that mean we can never leave since they will always re-take power?
the other thing i question is: how do you wage a war against a tactic? in "fighting jihadis", aren't we really waging a war on terror... defining what we're doing with those words basically makes it an endless endeavor.
yes !!properly fighting a war means to break the enemies will !!! Not just their military but their populace as a whole ... We have not accomplished this since ww2 !!! The reason is very simple .....the political left !!! Name an instance that the left has rallied around our troops and our country in a time of war in the past 50 yrs !!! They protest ,march,boycott,and rally in sympathy on behalf of our enemies example [jane fonda ] .... With the political clout the leftist carry our leaders are afraid to do what needs to be done against our enemies !!! And now with the un [whom the lefties love ] dictating what we can and cannot do in a time of war we are fighting with one hand tied behind our backs !!! If we would have been allowed to wage the 2 wars we are currently involved in like we did in ww2 our troops would have come home yrs ago !!
difference between now and wwii? We have not declared war. Would you like that? With all it entails?
we are at war with Islam!! and millions of muslims support the terrorists and the destruction of the west ...and in a nuclear age we have to be even more aggressive against radicals that want the bomb !! welcome to WW 3 libb !!The wars of the 20th century were or at least were perceived to be a fight for survival of the nation. We fought nations not bands of terrorist and insurgences. In WWII, the enemy was clearly defined. In today's war, the enemy is mixed into the general population. The Taliban is estimated to have only a few thousand actual fighters in a country of 40 million. Attacking the civil population would turn the thing into a Vietnam.properly fighting a war means to break the enemies will !!! not just their military but their populace as a whole ... we have not accomplished this since WW2 !!! the reason is very simple .....the political left !!! name an instance that the left has rallied around our troops and our country in a time of war in the past 50 yrs !!! they protest ,march,boycott,and rally in sympathy on behalf of our enemies example [Jane Fonda ] .... with the political clout the leftist carry our leaders are afraid to do what needs to be done against our enemies !!! and now with the UN [whom the lefties love ] dictating what we can and cannot do in a time of war we are fighting with one hand tied behind our backs !!! if we would have been allowed to wage the 2 wars we are currently involved in like we did in WW2 our troops would have come home yrs ago !!
It's a different kind of war and one we should not be in.
The left does not allow us to fight properly!!
and theirs nothing like flag burning,abortion,anti American propaganda,treason and gay pride parades to get your dick hard libbfag !!I've made the same argument many times. 67 years ago, we beat 2 enemies into submission. We killed thousands of troops, but hundreds of thousands of civilians. They were completely demoralized, both militarily and domestically. Now we wage war casually, without conviction or fortitude. We avoid "collateral damage" like the plague.
All killing Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters does is breed more fighters.
If you're going to start a war, be ready to finish it. Completely destroy cities, kill thousands of people. Destroy their infrastructure and if necessary, turn deserts to glass.
Yes it's cruel, cold, horrible even. War is SUPPOSED to be horrible! The mere thought of going to war should terrify us, but it should terrify those that would attack us, even more.
Mmmm mmm, nothing like hundreds of thousands of dead civilians to get your patriotic dick ROCK HARD.
Bullshit. Advice and consent was given. Only the words 'Declared War' are missing. Where in the Constitution does it state what words must be present during consent of the Congress?properly fighting a war means to break the enemies will !!! not just their military but their populace as a whole ... we have not accomplished this since WW2 !!! the reason is very simple .....the political left !!! name an instance that the left has rallied around our troops and our country in a time of war in the past 50 yrs !!! they protest ,march,boycott,and rally in sympathy on behalf of our enemies example [Jane Fonda ] .... with the political clout the leftist carry our leaders are afraid to do what needs to be done against our enemies !!! and now with the UN [whom the lefties love ] dictating what we can and cannot do in a time of war we are fighting with one hand tied behind our backs !!! if we would have been allowed to wage the 2 wars we are currently involved in like we did in WW2 our troops would have come home yrs ago !!
Difference between now and WWII? We have not declared war. Would you like that? with all it entails?
simple ...the enemy is muslims !!Specifically who is this "enemy" you speak of? How do we recognize them? What uniform do they wear? What language do they speak? What government do they represent? Most important, why are we fighting them?That is precisely why the mere threat of war would keep the peace. No one wanted to go there. Now countries benefit because we are such wussies and play games and our own government speaks out against our troops. Sad when you can tell the far left is against the US and sympathetic towards the enemy.
[...]
I'm not being smart-ass. These are serious questions which I would like you to answer.
simple ...the enemy is muslims !!Specifically who is this "enemy" you speak of? How do we recognize them? What uniform do they wear? What language do they speak? What government do they represent? Most important, why are we fighting them?That is precisely why the mere threat of war would keep the peace. No one wanted to go there. Now countries benefit because we are such wussies and play games and our own government speaks out against our troops. Sad when you can tell the far left is against the US and sympathetic towards the enemy.
[...]
I'm not being smart-ass. These are serious questions which I would like you to answer.
yes !!simple ...the enemy is muslims !!specifically who is this "enemy" you speak of? How do we recognize them? What uniform do they wear? What language do they speak? What government do they represent? Most important, why are we fighting them?
I'm not being smart-ass. These are serious questions which i would like you to answer.
does that include us citizens who are muslim? And muslims who serve in the us military?
yes !!simple ...the enemy is muslims !!
does that include us citizens who are muslim? And muslims who serve in the us military?
. 
