Are We In A Perpetual State Of War?

[georgephillip]

In his 2003 book, Wesley Clark reveals a conversation he had in the Pentagon in November of 2001 with a senior staff officer who claimed the US was "still on track" for invading Iraq and that was part of a much larger plan to topple the governments of seven Muslim states within in following five years. (Libya, Syria, Lebanon, Iran, Sudan, and Somalia)

I'm wondering how much support there would have been in Congress for that plan?
What percentage of US voters would have endorsed that level of killing?

Probably less than 30%.

As I recall, by the time March 2003 had rolled around most of the Americans I spoke to were in favor of our invasion of Iraq; however, I don't think even the most devote hawks at that time would have supported OIL in November of 2001, when Wesley had his conversation in the Pentagon.

I'm virtually positive 93% of all Americans would have rejected the toppling of governments in Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya, Lebanon, Sudan, and Somalia in any poll taken two months after 911.

The fact that Wesley and others who swore an oath to defend the Constitution of the US chose to remain silent in late November of 2001 instead of speaking out tells me their loyalties lie more with Wall Street than with Main Street.

 

[Foxfyre]

The "War on Terror" was started by Bush and so was the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq. There was no "clear self defense objective" when Iraq was illegally invaded. Furthermore it turned into such a debacle that it required a "do-over". The mismanagement of Afghanistan ended up requiring a "do-over" too. If there had been "clear objectives" those would not have been necessary. Your revisionism flies in the face of the facts.

The "War on Terror" was absolutely not started by George W. Bush. Consider the attack and taking hostage of 52 Americans at our Iranian embassy--those hostages were held for 444 consecutive days. That was Jimmy Carter.

The next President, Reagan, presided over a Muslim attack on our Marine barracks in Lebanon - 299 American and French personnel were killed. And there were other incidents during those eight years too. George H.W. Bush had to deal with a militant Saddam Hussein requiring deployment of troops in Desert Storm in addition to other incidents. Bill Clinton had to deal with Arafat (yet again), Kosovo, the first bombing of the World Trade Center and the attack on the USS Cole killing 17 naval personnel and wounding 39 others and maintaining the interminable sanctions on Iraq that in themselves most likely killed more than 50,000 civilians.

George W. Bush, in the aftermath of 9/11 for which he was completely innocent, simply gave a name to the terrorist phenomenon that had been going on for decades and he was determined to tolerate no further. Afghanistan had full sanction of the U.S. Congress and the United Nations. Iraq had full sanction of the U.S. Congress and no objection from the U.N. that had been unable or unwilling to enforce its own sanctions against Iraq.

So you can please just stuff your righteous indignation that only one of those people is the evil one and all the others were wonderful saints or whatever it is you are trying to say there.

My point is, however, would we have engaged in ANY of those military operations if Congress was required to declare war before troops could be deployed?

Would you care to address that?

With all due respect you are conflating war with CRIMES of terrorism. War is waged between NATIONS. Terrorism is a criminal act carried out for religious and/or political purposes. The huge mistake that Bush made was to PROMOTE terrorism from being a criminal act to the level of war. His second mistake was to promote terrorists to the status of "enemy combatants". We are still living with the dire consequences of those mistakes.

So your litany of "acts of terrorism" up to and including 9/11 were all just crimes. The NATO invasion of Iraq had the stated purpose of eliminating Al Queda (which was initially funded by Reagan and who praised them). Having failed to achieve that goal the smart move was to withdraw.

The invasion of Iraq was illegal for a number of reasons. Firstly the administration lied to both Congress and the American people in order to obtain their "consent". (They lied to the UN too as subsequently confirmed by Secretary Powell.) Secondly it was done under the umbrella of the "War on Terror" which named 3 nations as the "Axis of Evil". This was all bogus propaganda and done for the express purpose of misleading the people into supporting this illegal warmongering. The actual cost of the war was grossly underestimated as was the length. There was no consideration given to the aftermath or the plan to withdraw. (Probably because there was no intention of ever doing so.)

So with all of the above context what are the lessons learned? Firstly the criminal acts of terrorism perpetrated prior to the Bush administration were handled in accordance to the rule of law. Subsequently they were promoted to "enemy combatants" and have been denied due process rights in violation of the rulings by the Supreme Court. The waging of war against entire nations in order to root out terrorism costs trillions of taxpayer dollars and the lives and limbs of our finest troops while failing to reach the intended goals. Targeted drone strikes and the use of Seal Team 6 have done more to decimate terrorism at a fraction of the cost than the decade of the failed "War on Terror".

Finally to answer your question, no, we would not have done so had the Bush administration been honest as to the true nature of the threat of terrorism.

Just shaking my head and reminding myself again that haters are gonna hate and will reject any argument that questions their justification for the hate and will refuse to focus on the real issue that is something different than their hate. And while I generally enjoy and respect your posts, I won't engage you further on this lest you turn this thread into just one more "I hate Bush" thread.

 

[Anitabeme]

As long as we have assholes like Lieberman alive, we'll ALWAYS be in some kind of conflict.

Disturbed that economic problems at home, coupled with growing weariness on the part of Americans with costly and foolish no-win wars abroad —wars which Lieberman and Kyl continue to maintain were the right thing at the right time—are causing Americans to question U.S. meddling overseas, the two former senators are concerned that many Americans are demanding what they call a “retreat from the world.” Scorning this as advocacy for what they seek to smear as “neo-isolationist” policies, Lieberman and Kyl claim that “a diminished U.S. role in the world” would bring “long-term costs for our country.”

Pushing for what they refer to as a “robust internationalism” on the part of the U.S.—meaning a full-force military presence all over the planet—the duo speak of “the continuing importance of American internationalism.” The two urge “bipartisan” consensus on the support for U.S. meddling across the planet.

Top Warmonger Calls for ?Robust Internationalism? | American Free Press

 

[paulitician]

The 'War on Terror' is designed to be a permanent War. Unless the People stand up and demand an end, it will drag on forever.

 

[Foxfyre]

In his 2003 book, Wesley Clark reveals a conversation he had in the Pentagon in November of 2001 with a senior staff officer who claimed the US was "still on track" for invading Iraq and that was part of a much larger plan to topple the governments of seven Muslim states within in following five years. (Libya, Syria, Lebanon, Iran, Sudan, and Somalia)

I'm wondering how much support there would have been in Congress for that plan?
What percentage of US voters would have endorsed that level of killing?

Probably less than 30%.

As I recall, by the time March 2003 had rolled around most of the Americans I spoke to were in favor of our invasion of Iraq; however, I don't think even the most devote hawks at that time would have supported OIL in November of 2001, when Wesley had his conversation in the Pentagon.

I'm virtually positive 93% of all Americans would have rejected the toppling of governments in Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya, Lebanon, Sudan, and Somalia in any poll taken two months after 911.

The fact that Wesley and others who swore an oath to defend the Constitution of the US chose to remain silent in late November of 2001 instead of speaking out tells me their loyalties lie more with Wall Street than with Main Street.

Yes, in 1992 most polls showed 60% of Americans supported sending troops to remove Saddam Hussein from power and a much larger percentage believed Saddam was a ruthless and dangerous leader. George H.W. Bush was still being criticized for pulling our punches and not taking out Saddam in Desert Storm which was hugely popular.

Leaders in both parties were urging it. Derideo-Te's open hatred of George Bush and desire to blame him for all of it is rather amazing since the same people who hate Bush also label him the most clueless and stupid of U.S. Presidents but nevertheless give him 100% credit for deceiving the U.N., all of Congress, all national leaders and almost all heads of state, including the Arabs and almost all U.N. inspectors, who believed Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and would use them when opportunity presented itself. How does America's most stupid president have the intelligence and skill to confuse and mislead all those people? And why were there all those U.N. resolutions and sanctions for those twelve long years that took such a terrible toll on the Iraqi people while enriching Saddam Hussein?

And that isn't even the point.

The point is, would there have been a Korea? A Bay of Pigs? The stand down in the Cuban missile crisis? Vietnam? Grenada? Panama? The attack in Lebanon? A Desert Storm? A Kosovo? Twelve years of policing of Iraqi sanctions plus other military retaliation during the Clinton years? Afghanistan? Iraq? Getting Osama? Lybia?. . . .would there have been ANY of these military deployments if a declaration of war had been necessary to deploy the troops?

Should the president have the power to deploy troops without consent of Congress? Without a declaration of war?

And yes, the USA has been in an unbroken perpetual state of war since 100 Senators and all but 10 Representatives and the U.N. gave full approval to retaliate against the attack on 9/11. But there was no declaration of war.

That is what none of my friends here seem to wish to address.

How much power do you wish to give the President to order military action whether via ship, air, or ground troops or drones, without consent of Congress? And do you want Congress to have to declare war in order to deploy our troops on foreign soil?

 

[Billo_Really]

I dunno. Mebbe. Although we didn't go into there (Afghanistan) until provoked beyond bearing. But, if there's any merit to that, it's still just the latest in a long line of symptoms (occasions for war-making or one kind or another).

We were not attacked by Afghanistan. We weren't even attacked by the Taliban until we invaded their country. You only go to war because you have to. Because you have no other choice. War should be used as a last resort, not as foreign policy.

 

[paulitician]

Unfortunately, the NWO/MIC will always create a new Boogeyman to be hated & feared. More Americans just need to become aware of what's going on. Awareness will lead to change.

 

[Foxfyre]

I dunno. Mebbe. Although we didn't go into there (Afghanistan) until provoked beyond bearing. But, if there's any merit to that, it's still just the latest in a long line of symptoms (occasions for war-making or one kind or another).

We were not attacked by Afghanistan. We weren't even attacked by the Taliban until we invaded their country. You only go to war because you have to. Because you have no other choice. War should be used as a last resort, not as foreign policy.

You do realize that the U.N. had sanctions in place on the Taliban since 1999 unless they turned over Osama bin Laden who was accused of terrorist activities? And are you suggesting that we invaded the Taliban's country prior to 9/11? When did we do that?

And what would you consider to be the 'last resort' in the wake of 9/11?

But for all of U.S. history, we Americans have never made war on a people. Whether the war is declared or not, we make war on the governments of nations and the military of those governments. Our history is long and humane that after the war is over, we tend to the wounds of the people there.

The Taliban was the government of Afghanistan. In my opinion the U.S. Congress should have declared war before deploying our troops there. Ditto in Iraq. Would they have done so if there was no other option for deploying the troops?

If Congress had been required to declare war before troops were deployed anywhere, would we be in a perpetual state of war now?

 

[Clementine]

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?

Absolutely!!!!!

 

[Foxfyre]

Unfortunately, the NWO/MIC will always create a new Boogeyman to be hated & feared. More Americans just need to become aware of what's going on. Awareness will lead to change.

Since no Americans alive today can recall a time when we have not been at war or there were rumors of war or threats of war or our military was engaged in implementing or preventing hostilities somewhere, if they aren't aware by now, I despair they will ever be aware.

I have been beating the drum for a very long time now hoping to wake the people up to the dangers of an all authoritarian government that is given license to do to us any damn thing it wants to do. And I seem to be talking to a blank wall. More and more people are willing to close their eyes to what the government does lest they have to make some kind of personal sacrifice or incur some personal inconvenience or are expected to take some responsibility on themselves.

I can't even get you, of all people, to address head on whether you want us to take away the president's power to deploy our military on foreign soil without the express consent of Congress and/or a formal declaration of war by Congress. And if YOU won't face that question head on, I don't have much hope that our more indecisive friends here will ever find the courage to deal with that question.

 

[georgephillip]

Probably less than 30%.

As I recall, by the time March 2003 had rolled around most of the Americans I spoke to were in favor of our invasion of Iraq; however, I don't think even the most devote hawks at that time would have supported OIL in November of 2001, when Wesley had his conversation in the Pentagon.

I'm virtually positive 93% of all Americans would have rejected the toppling of governments in Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya, Lebanon, Sudan, and Somalia in any poll taken two months after 911.

The fact that Wesley and others who swore an oath to defend the Constitution of the US chose to remain silent in late November of 2001 instead of speaking out tells me their loyalties lie more with Wall Street than with Main Street.

Yes, in 1992 most polls showed 60% of Americans supported sending troops to remove Saddam Hussein from power and a much larger percentage believed Saddam was a ruthless and dangerous leader. George H.W. Bush was still being criticized for pulling our punches and not taking out Saddam in Desert Storm which was hugely popular.

Leaders in both parties were urging it. Derideo-Te's open hatred of George Bush and desire to blame him for all of it is rather amazing since the same people who hate Bush also label him the most clueless and stupid of U.S. Presidents but nevertheless give him 100% credit for deceiving the U.N., all of Congress, all national leaders and almost all heads of state, including the Arabs and almost all U.N. inspectors, who believed Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and would use them when opportunity presented itself. How does America's most stupid president have the intelligence and skill to confuse and mislead all those people? And why were there all those U.N. resolutions and sanctions for those twelve long years that took such a terrible toll on the Iraqi people while enriching Saddam Hussein?

And that isn't even the point.

The point is, would there have been a Korea? A Bay of Pigs? The stand down in the Cuban missile crisis? Vietnam? Grenada? Panama? The attack in Lebanon? A Desert Storm? A Kosovo? Twelve years of policing of Iraqi sanctions plus other military retaliation during the Clinton years? Afghanistan? Iraq? Getting Osama? Lybia?. . . .would there have been ANY of these military deployments if a declaration of war had been necessary to deploy the troops?

Should the president have the power to deploy troops without consent of Congress? Without a declaration of war?

And yes, the USA has been in an unbroken perpetual state of war since 100 Senators and all but 10 Representatives and the U.N. gave full approval to retaliate against the attack on 9/11. But there was no declaration of war.

That is what none of my friends here seem to wish to address.

How much power do you wish to give the President to order military action whether via ship, air, or ground troops or drones, without consent of Congress? And do you want Congress to have to declare war in order to deploy our troops on foreign soil?

Should our starting point be Korea?

Another undeclared war that killed one in three Koreans living north of the 38th parallel, according to some accounts, and set America on the path to a permanent war-time economy?

I would argue the point involved lies more with the immorality of such mass murder and not which handmaiden of the military/industrial/congressional complex declares the war.

We are not likely to agree on the credibility of my sources; however, here's where mine begin on "the forgotten war"

"Lyuh Woon-hyung (May 25, 1886 – July 19, 1947) was a Korean politician who argued that Korean independence was essential to world peace, and a reunification activist who struggled for the independent reunification of Korea since its national division in 1945.

"His pen-name was Mongyang (몽양; 夢&#38525, the Hanja for 'dream' and 'light.'

"He is rare among politicians in modern Korean history in that he is revered in both South and North Korea."

It is highly likely Lyuh would have unified Korea before the US military first landed at Inchon:

"In August 1945 defeated Japanese forces formally turned over authority in Korea to the broad-based Committee for the Preparation of Korean Independence, led by Lyuh Woon-hyung, which in September proclaimed the Korean People’s Republic (KPR). When U.S. forces under Gen. Reed Hodge arrived in Inchon to accept the Japanese surrender, they

a. ordered all Japanese officials to remain in their posts, refused to recognize Lyuh as national leader, and soon banned all public reference to the KPR

b. recognized Lyuh as the legitimate head of state

c. negotiated with Lyuh to facilitate swift attainment of independence of a united Korea

The point isn't about who or what declares wars of aggression; it is about who profits from those wars.

 

[Flopper]

How do define war today? It use to be easy. If Congress declared war we were at war but today any military action no matter how small will be define as war by many, particularly those involved. We have had about 50 military campaigns with lost of American lives. We have had hundreds of military actions that were not part of a declared war. So you can say we are in a perpetually state of war or peace.

 

[Billo_Really]

You do realize that the U.N. had sanctions in place on the Taliban since 1999 unless they turned over Osama bin Laden who was accused of terrorist activities?

Sanctions are not justification for an invasion. Article 51 of the UN Charter states the only 2 ways a country can legally attack another country:

1. if you are attacked by a significant force
2. if you receive UNSC authorization

BTW, the Taliban offered to turn over UBL and Bush refused.

And are you suggesting that we invaded the Taliban's country prior to 9/11? When did we do that?

I'm suggesting we don't invade at all!

And what would you consider to be the 'last resort' in the wake of 9/11?

If a large army landed on our shores, we would have no choice but to defend ourselves.

If one of our ally's was invaded and we had to come to their aid.

As part of a UN peacekeeping force.

Other than that, nothing.

But for all of U.S. history, we Americans have never made war on a people.

Tell that to the wedding party we blew to bits from a drone strike in Afghanistan; tell that to the residents of Fallujah; tell that to the neighbors in Haditha; over 1 million Iraqis died as a result of our invasion, what do you mean "never made war on a people"?

If we "never made war on a people", how do you explain this?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qc9n_ElONcE]Collateral Murder best parts - YouTube[/ame]

Whether the war is declared or not, we make war on the governments of nations and the military of those governments. Our history is long and humane that after the war is over, we tend to the wounds of the people there.

You apparently don't talk to the people we invaded.

Here's what one Iraqi woman had to say about our "humanity"...

“It is not...about lack of water and electricity. You have destroyed everything. You have destroyed our country. You have destroyed what is inside of us! You have destroyed our ancient civilization. You have taken our smiles from us. You have taken our dreams!”

Here's what another Iraqi had to say...

“Iraqis cannot forget what Americans have done here. You don’t destroy everything and then say ‘We’re sorry.’ “You don’t commit crimes and then say ‘Sorry.’”

We are as inhumane as the nazis were.

The Taliban was the government of Afghanistan. In my opinion the U.S. Congress should have declared war before deploying our troops there. Ditto in Iraq. Would they have done so if there was no other option for deploying the troops?

Wars of choice are wars of aggression, the highest crime a nation can commit.

If Congress had been required to declare war before troops were deployed anywhere, would we be in a perpetual state of war now?

Probably. Because Congress and the President are not calling the shots. The corporate oligarchy and their campaign donations are.

 

[Contumacious]

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.

Fascistic nations tend to be militaristic.

John T Flynn
.

 

[NoNukes]

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.

An you do not include Bush in this? You have no credibility.

 

[Foxfyre]

As I recall, by the time March 2003 had rolled around most of the Americans I spoke to were in favor of our invasion of Iraq; however, I don't think even the most devote hawks at that time would have supported OIL in November of 2001, when Wesley had his conversation in the Pentagon.

I'm virtually positive 93% of all Americans would have rejected the toppling of governments in Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya, Lebanon, Sudan, and Somalia in any poll taken two months after 911.

The fact that Wesley and others who swore an oath to defend the Constitution of the US chose to remain silent in late November of 2001 instead of speaking out tells me their loyalties lie more with Wall Street than with Main Street.

Yes, in 1992 most polls showed 60% of Americans supported sending troops to remove Saddam Hussein from power and a much larger percentage believed Saddam was a ruthless and dangerous leader. George H.W. Bush was still being criticized for pulling our punches and not taking out Saddam in Desert Storm which was hugely popular.

Leaders in both parties were urging it. Derideo-Te's open hatred of George Bush and desire to blame him for all of it is rather amazing since the same people who hate Bush also label him the most clueless and stupid of U.S. Presidents but nevertheless give him 100% credit for deceiving the U.N., all of Congress, all national leaders and almost all heads of state, including the Arabs and almost all U.N. inspectors, who believed Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and would use them when opportunity presented itself. How does America's most stupid president have the intelligence and skill to confuse and mislead all those people? And why were there all those U.N. resolutions and sanctions for those twelve long years that took such a terrible toll on the Iraqi people while enriching Saddam Hussein?

And that isn't even the point.

The point is, would there have been a Korea? A Bay of Pigs? The stand down in the Cuban missile crisis? Vietnam? Grenada? Panama? The attack in Lebanon? A Desert Storm? A Kosovo? Twelve years of policing of Iraqi sanctions plus other military retaliation during the Clinton years? Afghanistan? Iraq? Getting Osama? Lybia?. . . .would there have been ANY of these military deployments if a declaration of war had been necessary to deploy the troops?

Should the president have the power to deploy troops without consent of Congress? Without a declaration of war?

And yes, the USA has been in an unbroken perpetual state of war since 100 Senators and all but 10 Representatives and the U.N. gave full approval to retaliate against the attack on 9/11. But there was no declaration of war.

That is what none of my friends here seem to wish to address.

How much power do you wish to give the President to order military action whether via ship, air, or ground troops or drones, without consent of Congress? And do you want Congress to have to declare war in order to deploy our troops on foreign soil?

Should our starting point be Korea?

Another undeclared war that killed one in three Koreans living north of the 38th parallel, according to some accounts, and set America on the path to a permanent war-time economy?

I would argue the point involved lies more with the immorality of such mass murder and not which handmaiden of the military/industrial/congressional complex declares the war.

We are not likely to agree on the credibility of my sources; however, here's where mine begin on "the forgotten war"

"Lyuh Woon-hyung (May 25, 1886 – July 19, 1947) was a Korean politician who argued that Korean independence was essential to world peace, and a reunification activist who struggled for the independent reunification of Korea since its national division in 1945.

"His pen-name was Mongyang (몽양; 夢&#38525, the Hanja for 'dream' and 'light.'

"He is rare among politicians in modern Korean history in that he is revered in both South and North Korea."

It is highly likely Lyuh would have unified Korea before the US military first landed at Inchon:

"In August 1945 defeated Japanese forces formally turned over authority in Korea to the broad-based Committee for the Preparation of Korean Independence, led by Lyuh Woon-hyung, which in September proclaimed the Korean People’s Republic (KPR). When U.S. forces under Gen. Reed Hodge arrived in Inchon to accept the Japanese surrender, they

a. ordered all Japanese officials to remain in their posts, refused to recognize Lyuh as national leader, and soon banned all public reference to the KPR

b. recognized Lyuh as the legitimate head of state

c. negotiated with Lyuh to facilitate swift attainment of independence of a united Korea

The point isn't about who or what declares wars of aggression; it is about who profits from those wars.

There has always been and will always be profit made from wars, whether intentionally or by default. And both honorable and self serving motives for war have always existed and will continue to exist whatever our national policies may be.

So who profits is not the point. The point is the PROCESS by which ANYBODY can put our American citizens in harms way and/or do violence to others for whatever motive.

Whether ethical or not, whether self serving or not, regardless of his motives or competency, the President currently has the sole authority to order our troops to initiate hostile action or combat or even engage in completely peaceful activities. No bureaucrat or military general, however high level, has legal authority to do that. No member of Congress nor a unanimous vote of Congress has legal authority to do that. The President alone is given that responsibility.

Shall that policy continue? Everybody seems to want to accuse or blame or criticize others involved or affected by the process. But nobody seems to want to make the call on that Presidential power.

 

[NoNukes]

The war on terrorism will never end as long as liberal (kiss their ass) Democrats have political power.

And in your next post you will be saying that Obama has killed too many people.

 

[Flopper]

Unfortunately, the NWO/MIC will always create a new Boogeyman to be hated & feared. More Americans just need to become aware of what's going on. Awareness will lead to change.

Since no Americans alive today can recall a time when we have not been at war or there were rumors of war or threats of war or our military was engaged in implementing or preventing hostilities somewhere, if they aren't aware by now, I despair they will ever be aware.

I have been beating the drum for a very long time now hoping to wake the people up to the dangers of an all authoritarian government that is given license to do to us any damn thing it wants to do. And I seem to be talking to a blank wall. More and more people are willing to close their eyes to what the government does lest they have to make some kind of personal sacrifice or incur some personal inconvenience or are expected to take some responsibility on themselves.

I can't even get you, of all people, to address head on whether you want us to take away the president's power to deploy our military on foreign soil without the express consent of Congress and/or a formal declaration of war by Congress. And if YOU won't face that question head on, I don't have much hope that our more indecisive friends here will ever find the courage to deal with that question.

The War Powers Act is probably as close as we will ever get to controlling presidential use of armed forces on foreign soil. Although Congress ultimately does have control, by the time Congress acts, either fighting is over or we are so deeply involved Congress has no choice.

Events unfold so fast today, I don't see how it's possible for Congress to do anything other than decide on appropriations.

 

[Foxfyre]

Unfortunately, the NWO/MIC will always create a new Boogeyman to be hated & feared. More Americans just need to become aware of what's going on. Awareness will lead to change.

Since no Americans alive today can recall a time when we have not been at war or there were rumors of war or threats of war or our military was engaged in implementing or preventing hostilities somewhere, if they aren't aware by now, I despair they will ever be aware.

I have been beating the drum for a very long time now hoping to wake the people up to the dangers of an all authoritarian government that is given license to do to us any damn thing it wants to do. And I seem to be talking to a blank wall. More and more people are willing to close their eyes to what the government does lest they have to make some kind of personal sacrifice or incur some personal inconvenience or are expected to take some responsibility on themselves.

I can't even get you, of all people, to address head on whether you want us to take away the president's power to deploy our military on foreign soil without the express consent of Congress and/or a formal declaration of war by Congress. And if YOU won't face that question head on, I don't have much hope that our more indecisive friends here will ever find the courage to deal with that question.

The War Powers Act is probably as close as we will ever get to controlling presidential use of armed forces on foreign soil. Although Congress ultimately does have control, by the time Congress acts, either fighting is over or we are so deeply involved Congress has no choice.

Events unfold so fast today, I don't see how it's possible for Congress to do anything other than decide on appropriations.

Under current law, you are absolutely correct. That, and replacing the President, are the ONLY powers that Congress has re deployment of military troops.

What I'm asking though is whether there is anybody with the courage to say whether the President should have the power to deploy our troops onto foreign soil without the consent of Congress? Should the law as it currently reads be changed?

 

[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.

An you do not include Bush in this? You have no credibility.

Bush responded to an attack that rivaled Pearl Harbor. After several decades of Islamic terrorist attacks against us and our interests, it was time to see it for what it was - war. The objective was to target sponsors of terrorism as well as the terrorists themselves, and Bush did the right thing. You can argue over the way he carried it out, but to say he "started wars" is not accurate. We were attacked, and before you start complaining about Iraq, Saddam was paying $25,000 to families who offered their children for training as suicide bombers, so Saddam was a legitimate target. We can criticize him for his choices of who to go after, and in what order, but Iraq was an active participant in terrorism against the west.