Are We In A Perpetual State Of War?

[tjvh]

I am still only 28, so I can obviously say no. And based on our most recent and current politicians we have to choose from I don't see that ending anytime soon. One thing Republicans and Democrats can always come together on is sending young men into harms way for their special interests.

So you'd rather do nothing when others attack us. Got it.

 

[Sallow]

Peace only exists during preparations for war.

Yes because the Swedes will be invading the rest of Europe anytime now.

 

[konradv]

Can anyone on this Board right now, remember a time when our Nation wasn't involved in some sort of military action? Curious to see what you all think. Thanks.

Pretty much since the birth of the nation and before. It's nothing new or peculiarly American. It's the human condition.

 

[Foxfyre]

So again. Would any of us agree to a constitutional amendment that our military could not be deployed on foreign soil for any peace keeping or military action without a congressional declaration of war?

See? Even the staunchest, most hawkish members won't touch this question. Won't even acknowledge it. Why? Because it is the crux of the debate and the most important component in it. It is easy to point fingers and accuse and complain and blame and wring our hands, etc. etc. etc. so long as we aren't in the position of making a decision.

If you were FDR, would you have declared war on Japan knowing that we would also have to fight Germany and its allies?

If you were Truman, would you have sent troops to Korea?

If you were JFK, would you have gotten us into the war in Vietnam? Would you have risked war with Russia to back down those Cuban bound missiles?

If you were Reagan, would you have sent troops to Grenada? To Panama? Sent the bombers to Lybia in retaliation to terrorist attack?

If you were George H.W. Bush, would you have gone to Kuwait and Saudi Arabia's rescue?

If you were Bill Clinton, would you have joined the effort to stop the genocide in Kosovo? Would you have used military force to enforce sanctions on Saddam Hussein? Retaliated to terrorist attack?

If you were George W. Bush would you have retaliated against the 9/11 attack? Given in to significant congressional pressures to defang Saddam Hussein?

If you were Barack Obama, would you continue to support military efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq, committed the military to get Qadaffi. Would you ignore the genocide going on in Syria?

Would you restrict military action to Congressional declarations of war?

These are not easy questions. They are really uncomfortable questions. They get to us deep down where our deepest convictions and sense of right and wrong are held and bother us. But we don't want to have to decide.

And yet we have a Constitution that allows the President of the United States to order the military to do anything and could easily order it to start WWIII. Is that a good thing? Or not?

 

[paulitician]

Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace is a very sad Catch 22 for our Nation.

 

[paulitician]

Wow, this Poll shows most do feel we are in perpetual state of War. But can this be changed? How can we change it?

 

[007]

Wow, this Poll shows most do feel we are in perpetual state of War. But can this be changed? How can we change it?

Stop being the world police and mind our own business.

If you were really a PAULitician you'd know that.

 

[Foxfyre]

Wow, this Poll shows most do feel we are in perpetual state of War. But can this be changed? How can we change it?

How about addressing my question of whether we should have a declaration of war to commit the military for any peace keeping or military action on foreign soil? I thought of all people, you would be willing to risk an opinion on that.

That would be one way to change what we are doing.

Currently the President has the power to deploy troops anywhere and however he wants. The only recourse Congress has is to withhold funding for such deployment after it occurs, and so far it has been unwilling to do that.

 

[Mr Natural]

We haven't been in a real war since WWII.

Or to put it a different way, since white people stopped making war on other white people.

 

[paulitician]

Wow, this Poll shows most do feel we are in perpetual state of War. But can this be changed? How can we change it?

How about addressing my question of whether we should have a declaration of war to commit the military for any peace keeping or military action on foreign soil? I thought of all people, you would be willing to risk an opinion on that.

That would be one way to change what we are doing.

Currently the President has the power to deploy troops anywhere he wants. The only recourse Congress has is to withhold funding for such deployment after it occurs, and so far it has been unwilling to do that.

Yeah, i've stated that many times on this Board. Following the Constitution would be a great start.

 

[Foxfyre]

In the movie "With Honors" (Joe Pesci) there is one scene that is absolutely compelling. Or at least it was to me.

The professor was lecturing and asked the class if the President has the power to start a war. One student offered that he must have a reason. The Professor replied, But he has a reason. He wants more parking spaces. There was even a more broad lesson than that in the scene, but it does drive home the point that we give our President full power to enter us into war, or at least put us in the position that war is inevitable.

Is this a good thing? Or not?

The clip from the movie. Really good flick:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=anJpmFKfHvE]Servant of the people- "With Honors" - YouTube[/ame]

 

[jasonnfree]

We used to have clear objectives when we used military force, and only responded in self-defense, or to protect our own interests. Now, we have presidents like Clinton and Obama who use military force selectively to serve their political agendas.

So Vietnam was self defense? So they had long range bombers and a naval fleet to plan a land invasion of the west coast? I can't remember anytime USA used the military force for anything but serving corporate interests and imperialistic goals. The term "protect our interests" always means using our military to make a certain area of the world safe for large corporations to conduct business in.

 

[konradv]

Wow, this Poll shows most do feel we are in perpetual state of War. But can this be changed? How can we change it?

How do you change human nature? IMO, that's the problem with Libertarianism, one which they share with Marxism, i.e. they think they can.

 

[Foxfyre]

Wow, this Poll shows most do feel we are in perpetual state of War. But can this be changed? How can we change it?

How about addressing my question of whether we should have a declaration of war to commit the military for any peace keeping or military action on foreign soil? I thought of all people, you would be willing to risk an opinion on that.

That would be one way to change what we are doing.

Currently the President has the power to deploy troops anywhere he wants. The only recourse Congress has is to withhold funding for such deployment after it occurs, and so far it has been unwilling to do that.

Yeah, i've stated that many times on this Board. Following the Constitution would be a great start.

But the Constitution designates the President as the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. He has full authority to deploy troops wherever he wishes for any reason he can improvise.

The only Constitutionally legal action that the Congress can take in ending the use of the military is through their authority of provision. They do have the Constitutional authority do de-fund military action which would force the Commander in Chief to end military action since he could no longer supply the Soldiers, Seaman, Marines and air Force with the necessary means to fulfill their duty in defense of The United States.

Any other action by the Congress to attempt to control any aspect of the military other then funding is in direct violation of the Constitution and therefor under United States law illegal.
The Constitution Series: THE CONSTITUTION PART XII - MILITARY APPROPRIATIONS

Congress has sole power to allocate funding for the military and to declare war, but there is no designation in the Constitution specifying what form that must take. So if Congress allows and funds foreign military operations whether aggressive or peace keeping, is that a de facto declaration of war?

And once more the really sticky wicket question: Does anybody want to remove the power from the President to deploy troops without explicit consent of Congress? Does anybody here have the courage of their convictions to speak to that?

 

[aaronleland]

I am still only 28, so I can obviously say no. And based on our most recent and current politicians we have to choose from I don't see that ending anytime soon. One thing Republicans and Democrats can always come together on is sending young men into harms way for their special interests.

So you'd rather do nothing when others attack us. Got it.

Since you chose to go after me, instead of the 16 others who agree with me, I'll respond. The Iraqis did nothing to me. The Afghans did nothing to me. The Somalians did nothing to me. The Vietnamese did nothing to me. The Iranians did nothing to me. Name one time that these people attacked us first.

 

[Crackerjaxon]

The USA has not been in a declared war since WWII that ended in 1945. Probably the longest period of 'official' peace was from the end of the Civil War 1865 to the beginning the Spanish American war 1898 and then to WWI that we entered in 1914.

But the concept itself is tough because the definition of peace is not ncessarily the absence of war. Some would say Bill Clinton presided over a period of peace but that is only if you don't count the Kosovo/Serbian conflict or bombing Iraq at intervals during the sanctions period or targeting Yemen and other places due to terrorist activities or attacks on the USA at the World Trade Center, the U.S. Cole, et al.

And even if we were not in conflict with another foreign power, there have been border skirmishes at times and with various American Indian groups.

The Bible speaks of there always being wars and rumors of wars and that may in fact be prophetic.

I go around and around on some of Ron Paul's proposals but he is right about one thing. If we don't want to be at perpetual war, we need a Constitutional amendment that we cannot commit our military to any conflict or peace keeping mission on foreign soil without a declaration of war by Congress.

Would any of us agree to that?

That is already in the Constitution. We need to elect people who will follow it.

 

[S.J.]

We used to have clear objectives when we used military force, and only responded in self-defense, or to protect our own interests. Now, we have presidents like Clinton and Obama who use military force selectively to serve their political agendas.

So Vietnam was self defense? So they had long range bombers and a naval fleet to plan a land invasion of the west coast? I can't remember anytime USA used the military force for anything but serving corporate interests and imperialistic goals. The term "protect our interests" always means using our military to make a certain area of the world safe for large corporations to conduct business in.

I never said Vietnam was self defense.

 

[Crackerjaxon]

We haven't been in a real war since WWII.

Or to put it a different way, since white people stopped making war on other white people.

So we avoid war by calling it something else.

Good thinking.

 

[Foxfyre]

The USA has not been in a declared war since WWII that ended in 1945. Probably the longest period of 'official' peace was from the end of the Civil War 1865 to the beginning the Spanish American war 1898 and then to WWI that we entered in 1914.

But the concept itself is tough because the definition of peace is not ncessarily the absence of war. Some would say Bill Clinton presided over a period of peace but that is only if you don't count the Kosovo/Serbian conflict or bombing Iraq at intervals during the sanctions period or targeting Yemen and other places due to terrorist activities or attacks on the USA at the World Trade Center, the U.S. Cole, et al.

And even if we were not in conflict with another foreign power, there have been border skirmishes at times and with various American Indian groups.

The Bible speaks of there always being wars and rumors of wars and that may in fact be prophetic.

I go around and around on some of Ron Paul's proposals but he is right about one thing. If we don't want to be at perpetual war, we need a Constitutional amendment that we cannot commit our military to any conflict or peace keeping mission on foreign soil without a declaration of war by Congress.

Would any of us agree to that?

That is already in the Constitution. We need to elect people who will follow it.

I don't believe it is. Perhaps you could point to the constitutonal clause that prevents the President from deploying the military whenever or wherever he chooses?

 

[deltex1]

Can anyone on this Board right now, remember a time when our Nation wasn't involved in some sort of military action? Curious to see what you all think. Thanks.

Check the history books.....duh.