imported post
unreconstructed1 wrote:
Gordie wrote:
This is a statement made by people who know nothing about the American fighting man. It is nothing more than a politically correct, yet anti-military, feel good statement. Most of the people engaged in the current wars, believe that they are doing the right thing. If you are against their actions, then you are against them. I have yet to see any definitive proof that the wars are unconstitutional. Since none of the anti-war crowd in Washington have taken it to court and won, I'm guessing that it must be legal.
I want to address this first, as it pissed me off more than anything.
first, you don't know anything about me, let alone enough to simply brush off anything I say as "feel good PC BS"
yes, I DO respect the American fighting man. I respect his decision to put his life on the line in order top safeguard America, iof you don't believe that I could give a rat's ass.
Have you ever served in the US Armed Forces? As a veteran of the gulf wars, I can tell you what that statement means to most people who serve in the gulf today. If the truth of it disturbs your warm fuzzy feelings, too bad. It is what it is.
If you claim to support the fighting man, then you must also support what they stand for. The two can not be separated.
Article 1 section 8 (congressional powers)
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years
notice that they were given power to RAISE an army and to support it, but those appropriations were to be for no more than a 2 year period.
So if a war lasts longer than two years, does that mean that we have to disband the army and start it up again?
The
appropriation of money is covered here, not the establishment of the army. This is why the defense budget gets voted on every year.
notice that there is no mention of "raising" the navy? why not? because the founders had always intended for there to be a large navy, in order to protect American waters and Americans ships.
So our founders acknowledged a danger on the high seas, but not on our land boarders?
but yes, I believe that you should wait till the enemy is on AMerican soil to do something about it.
So you would rather fight a war on our own soil than on the enemies territory. This is one of the dumbest things that I have ever seen written. Any person who has seen a war would know better than to wish to fight on their own ground. When the fighting is on your doorstep, and your wife and kids are caught in the crossfire, I bet then you would wishthe fightingwas going on somewhere else, far, far away.
a few years ago, a gentleman and I had a disagreement, which became rather heated. during the course of the arguing, he stated in no small terms that he was going to kill me. now, should I have shot him then and claimed self defense? same principle.
Did this person have a history of attacking you, or others? I can't judge, because I don't know all of the facts, but if it went like you say, he was guilty of assault. If you had chosen to defend yourself, you would have been justified, unless you knew the man to not be a threat.
you are absolutely right. during WW2, hitlers forces engaged in wars across Europehe attacked several of his neighbors including Poland to the west and France to the Southeast. Switzerland, which shares a border as well, could have used your philosophy and attacked, but it didn't. despite being bordered by Italy ( another Axis power) to the South, at the wars end, Hitler had never made an aggresive move towards Switzerland, because they had an identical militia setup to that which the founders had intended, which created a much larger military force than any standing army could, and one that could be called up locally, nearly instantly.
or was that not the point that you were trying to make?
The point that I was making is, that by letting a tyrant run free until he poses a direct threat will allow him to take down weaker foes until he can become strong enough to take on the stronger foes. By the time we got involved with WWII, Hitler had taken almost all of Europe, half of the Soviet Union, and Northern Africa. If he had been fought from the beginning, he would have been stoppedbefore he crossedPoland.
Another reason the Swiss were left alone can be summed up in three words, FOLLOW THE MONEY. Hitler used the Swiss to handle the money to finance the war. The Swiss played both sides, much to their profit.
Money is also a major reason that we invaded France to get to Germany when we already had Italy. We could have overrun the Swiss with fewer losses than we took going across France and Belgium.
first, the Marine corps is a part of the navy, as a military man, shouldn't you know that?
Alright, you got me, the Marines are officiallyunder the Navy. Most people talk about them as though they are separate though. Marines, especially, downplay that connection.
second, there was an attack upon U.S, soil, since every ship flying an American flag on the high seas is considered American soil. The barabary "States" were really nothing more than pirates dens in the first place. the pirates ran the State, and that is who was attacked in retaliation for the pirate actions.
So whenpirates who control a countrythreaten shipping, they are open to retaliation?But, when Saddam threatened US ships in the Persian Gulf, he should be given a pass? I fail to follow your logic.
notice that when Jefferson responded, he attacked those who were responsible, left their neighbors alone, and then left. he didn't attack them, hang around fpor another decade while attacking their neighbors, while hanging around there.... etc.
another thing to consider is the parallel that existed between the barbary wars and the "war on terror"
That's because when he left office, the politicians in Washington pulled back from the fight and started paying the tribute again to the pirates. This caused another war to be fought later, to finish what Jefferson had started.
You're right, it is a lot like the current war on terror. The job gets started, then before it can be finished, we pull back. Then the bad guys rebuild, then we have to go in again to finishthe job later.
If Jefferson had fought that war like the powers in Washington are fighting this one, we'd still be in the area on "police actions"
You're right, back then they weresupposedto win, eventually. Today, many in Washington avoid victory at any cost.
Clinton launched a missile attack against the Iraqi agency supposedly ( remember no hard evidence is found linking the Iraqi government to the attack) responsible for the attack in June of 93. if any further military action was necessary, why had it not been done before nearly a decade and a half had passed?
Good question. I can only guess it was for the same reason that Clinton let Bin Laden skate free when the Sudan handed him up for the taking.
1.their neighbors aren't American citizens, they were Kuwaiti citizens...
Once again I use the example of WWII. How far do you let a tyrant go before you stop him? The Kuwait people were our allies, they asked for our help.
2."they supported terrorism" and you want to blame me for PC feel good BS. Every Country, ourselves included, have supported some kind of terrorism in one way or another
We didn't give thousands of dollars to the familiesof suicide bombers. What terrorism have we supported?
where's your proof that an Iraqi agent, working under order of the Iraqi government, successfully completed a terrorist attack that killed AMerican citizens?
Suicide bombers in Israel, financed by Iraq, killed US citizens while in Israel. The records of the payments to the families of the suicide bombers are well known.
and don't even bother trying to use 9/11. 15 of the 19 Hijackers were Saudi, and none of the others were Iraqi... so why haven't we "liberated" the hell out of Saudi Arabia?
hmmm
Who said anything about Iraq being involved with 9/11? I only used 9/11 as an example of what a few motivated people could do.
I often have wondered why the Saudis were never held to task for their involvement with terrorism, could it be answered by "FOLLOW THE MONEY"?
3. cheaply made Chinese goods threaten our Economic security as well, you wanna bomb Beijing?
No, but allowing China to have such a strong economic hold on us is troubling none the less. The difference is, China gained their position with our full cooperation, Iraq threatened to take it by force.
China is smarter in how they went about it.
