PDA

View Full Version : What what is the proper role of the military, post 9-11?


Taco John
08-02-2007, 10:19 PM
Vote!

Logical
08-03-2007, 12:12 AM
Where is the

Act as a conduit to give Haliburton unlimited access to non-competetive contracts.

ClevelandBronco
08-03-2007, 12:14 AM
Both and other.

Taco John
08-03-2007, 01:18 AM
Both and other.



That suprises me. Just how liberal is your view of the military? I'd be interested in how expansive their role is in your eyes.

ClevelandBronco
08-03-2007, 01:34 AM
That suprises me. Just how liberal is your view of the military? I'd be interested in how expansive their role is in your eyes.

For one thing, I'd like them to be guarding our borders and coastlines. That task didn't show up in your poll.

Taco John
08-03-2007, 01:51 AM
For one thing, I'd like them to be guarding our borders and coastlines. That task didn't show up in your poll.



I personally make the distinction between a militia (National Guard, Coast Guard) and the military (Army, Navy, Airforce, Marines), that distinction being one is geared toward homeland protection, and the other toward international action.

Amnorix
08-03-2007, 05:07 AM
Sorry, but this is a pretty silly poll.

The role of the military is to protect the nation against threats.

We could get into long-winded debates about a million topics off this, including the two most important ones (that I can think of ATM):

1. does that include internal threats?

2. what is a "threat" exactly

chagrin
08-03-2007, 05:13 AM
Sorry, but this is a pretty silly poll.

The role of the military is to protect the nation against threats.

We could get into long-winded debates about a million topics off this, including the two most important ones (that I can think of ATM):

1. does that include internal threats?

2. what is a "threat" exactly

Thank you

I think a non-fringe lunatic should start a new thread with legitimate questions

a1na2
08-03-2007, 05:21 AM
The Army’s mission is to fight and win our Nation’s wars by providing prompt, sustained land dominance across the full range of military operations and spectrum of conflict in support of combatant commanders. We do this by:

• Executing Title 10 and Title 32 United States Code directives, to include organizing, equipping, and training forces for the conduct of prompt and sustained combat operations on land.

• Accomplishing missions assigned by the President, Secretary of Defense and combatant commanders, and Transforming for the future.

During peacetime each state National Guard answers to the leadership in the 50 states, three territories and the District of Columbia. During national emergencies, however, the President reserves the right to mobilize the National Guard, putting them in federal duty status. While federalized, the units answer to the Combatant Commander of the theatre in which they are operating and, ultimately, to the President.

Even when not federalized, the Army National Guard has a federal obligation (or mission.) That mission is to maintain properly trained and equipped units, available for prompt mobilization for war, national emergency, or as otherwise needed.

The Army National Guard is a partner with the Active Army and the Army Reserves in fulfilling the country's military needs.

he Army National Guard exists in all 50 states, three territories and the District of Columbia. The state, territory or district leadership are the Commanders in Chief for each Guard. Their Adjutants General are answerable to them for the training and readiness of the units. At the state level, the governors reserve the ability, under the Constitution of the United States, to call up members of the National Guard in time of domestic emergencies or need.

The Army National Guard's state mission is perhaps the most visible and well known. Nearly everyone has seen or heard of Guard units responding to battle fires or helping communities deal with floods, tornadoes, hurricanes, snowstorms or other emergency situations. In times of civil unrest, the citizens of a state can rest assured that the Guard will be ready to respond, if needed.

The mission of the United States Air Force is to deliver sovereign options for the defense of the United States of America and its global interests -- to fly and fight in Air, Space, and Cyberspace.


MISSION OF THE NAVY The mission of the U.S. Navy is set forth in Title 10 of the U.S. Code. It states that the U.S. Navy must be prepared to conduct prompt and sustained combat operations in support of the national interest. This means the Navy must assure continued maritime superiority for the United States. The U.S. Navy must be able to totally defeat any threats to the continued free use of the high seas by the United States. The Navy assures continued maritime superiority through the destruction of hostile aircraft, surface ships, and submarines that threaten seaborne forces of the United States and our allies. This mission is carried out within the framework of the national strategy, in joint coordination with the other services, and in combined planning with U.S. allies.

Amnorix
08-03-2007, 06:10 AM
The mission of the United States Air Force is to deliver sovereign options for the defense of the United States of America and its global interests -- to fly and fight in Air, Space, and Cyberspace.



What kind of PR marketing BS is that?

"sovereign options"? What are "sovereign" options?!?

So the Air Force is co-opting cyberspace as part of its military function? WTF?!

That's just a bunch of PR fluffy nonsense.

Cochise
08-03-2007, 07:22 AM
I'd say A begets B. But B should also be one of the greater aims of all foreign policy.

BucEyedPea
08-03-2007, 07:59 AM
Wow! This poll really clarifies who the real neo-cons are: building democracies? Guess the right is really Wilsonian left afterall. :(

Other: To defend our sovereign borders from outside threats.
Rarely to go after rogue nations that are threats, because these are often exaggerated by special interests who use the term "national interests." So A and B are blasphemy!

Options 1 and 2 create more international conflict. It will eventually destroy America.

So I say BS!

Fishpicker
08-03-2007, 09:46 AM
What kind of PR marketing BS is that?

"sovereign options"? What are "sovereign" options?!?

So the Air Force is co-opting cyberspace as part of its military function? WTF?!

That's just a bunch of PR fluffy nonsense.

the Air force is pretty serious about dominating cyberspce. While I was studying computer networking, we would often be visited by AF recruiters at school. The air force has the ability to shut down nearly any internet site or service they deem inappropriate.

Deberg_1990
08-03-2007, 09:46 AM
America...
America...
America, **** YEAH!
Coming again, to save the mother ****ing day yeah,
America, **** YEAH!
Freedom is the only way yeah,
Terrorist your game is through cause now you have to answer too,
America, **** YEAH!
So lick my butt, and suck on my balls,
America, **** YEAH!
What you going to do when we come for you now,
it’s the dream that we all share; it’s the hope for tomorrow

Adept Havelock
08-03-2007, 09:50 AM
A- It depends on the threat.
B- NFW. Sounds far too much like implementing a Pax Americana to me, and I know what inevitably happens to empires that try that nonsense.

For me, I'll go with the response given by Amnorix. The question is what constitutes a "threat".

a1na2
08-03-2007, 06:18 PM
What kind of PR marketing BS is that?

"sovereign options"? What are "sovereign" options?!?

So the Air Force is co-opting cyberspace as part of its military function? WTF?!

That's just a bunch of PR fluffy nonsense.

I don't know. Ask the Air Force guys, or try to find a better Air Force Mission Statement.

CHIEF4EVER
08-03-2007, 06:27 PM
A bit off topic but......REP to whomever FIRST can name the author of this famous (and true) quote:

"No one starts a war—or rather, no one in his senses ought to do so—without first being clear in his mind what he intends to achieve by that war and how he intends to conduct it."

Kinda describes why Dubya screwed the pooch on this one.....he failed to recall his history.

CHIEF4EVER
08-03-2007, 06:30 PM
I personally make the distinction between a militia (National Guard, Coast Guard) and the military (Army, Navy, Airforce, Marines), that distinction being one is geared toward homeland protection, and the other toward international action.

Just to clarify, the National Guard and the Coast Guard are NOT a militia.

a1na2
08-03-2007, 06:46 PM
A bit off topic but......REP to whomever FIRST can name the author of this famous (and true) quote:

"No one starts a war—or rather, no one in his senses ought to do so—without first being clear in his mind what he intends to achieve by that war and how he intends to conduct it."

Kinda describes why Dubya screwed the pooch on this one.....he failed to recall his history.


CARL VON CLAUSEWITZ

CHIEF4EVER
08-03-2007, 06:49 PM
CARL VON CLAUSEWITZ

Correct.

Logical
08-03-2007, 06:57 PM
What exactly does neither mean, that seems like it is the same as other.

CHIEF4EVER
08-03-2007, 07:03 PM
What exactly does neither mean, that seems like it is the same as other.
You lost me Jim. :shrug:

Fishpicker
08-03-2007, 07:08 PM
neither of the first 2 options are appropriate uses of the military.

Nightwish
08-03-2007, 07:12 PM
Going down the list:

Destroy rogue nations that pose a real threat to the US: no, at least not in every instance. It depends on the nature of the threat, how immediate the threat is, and on what other approaches might be successfully taken to alleviate the threat.

Spread democracy and effectively reorganize the social structure of the world: absolutely not, under no circumstances is that the job of our military (though some in the Bush camp appear to believe it is). On a related note, freeing people in other countries from oppressive and brutal dictators, a noble goal to be sure, is also not the job of our military.

Both: well, if one is only acceptable in some instances, and the other is not acceptable in any instance, then this choice would be an obvious no.

Neither: this one gets my vote.

Other: if this were a multiple-choice poll, I'd have also chosen this one, as our military does have a clear mission, and it is not any of the choices listed above.

Nightwish
08-03-2007, 07:14 PM
You lost me Jim. :shrug:
He's asking what the difference is in the poll between choosing "Neither" and choosing "Other."

CHIEF4EVER
08-03-2007, 07:18 PM
I actually agree with Nightwish on this one. We don't have a blank check to destroy countries we view as 'rogue' nations at will. We would have to have SUBSTANTIAL cause to do so. We aren't an Imperial power so social engineering is out. That leaves Defense of our country against all enemies foreign and domestic - with the key word being Defense (as in defend). THis implies nonaggression unless substantially provoked. My vote on this poll is likewise NEITHER.

Logical
08-03-2007, 07:18 PM
He's asking what the difference is in the poll between choosing "Neither" and choosing "Other."Correct, can anyone explain the difference. I see your point but you could have selected either of those options.

CHIEF4EVER
08-03-2007, 07:20 PM
He's asking what the difference is in the poll between choosing "Neither" and choosing "Other."

OIC. Been a long day. :banghead:

Logical
08-03-2007, 07:20 PM
I actually agree with Nightwish on this one. We don't have a blank check to destroy countries we view as 'rogue' nations at will. We would have to have SUBSTANTIAL cause to do so. We aren't an Imperial power so social engineering is out. That leaves Defense of our country against all enemies foreign and domestic - with the key word being Defense (as in defend). THis implies nonaggression unless substantially provoked. My vote on this poll is likewise NEITHER.It does not say just rogue nations, it says rogue nations who pose a real threat to the US. In my opinion that is all the difference in the world.

Nightwish
08-03-2007, 07:24 PM
Correct, can anyone explain the difference. I see your point but you could have selected either of those options.
Yeah, I think the poll could have done without the "Other" option. More concise that way, keeps the discussion limited to just those two roles that seem to have come to prominence in recent years, as opposed to having the discussion go all over the board pondering the myriad roles which are appropriate for our military.

PunkinDrublic
08-03-2007, 07:24 PM
To provide photo-ops for Bush whenever anybody ever questions whether or not his policies truly support the troops.

Nightwish
08-03-2007, 07:26 PM
It does not say just rogue nations, it says rogue nations who pose a real threat to the US. In my opinion that is all the difference in the world.
I agree. Different threats can be dealt with in different ways, which is why it would be important to know not only the nature of the threat, but also how immediate it is, and whether the threatening parties can be contained with less extreme measures than war or military action.

CHIEF4EVER
08-03-2007, 07:35 PM
It does not say just rogue nations, it says rogue nations who pose a real threat to the US. In my opinion that is all the difference in the world.

Rogue nations who pose a real threat to the US in WHOSE OPINION? This is what I meant by needing a SUBSTANTIAL cause for military action. I would say we would need, as a minimum, a consesus of the Joint Chiefs, the Executive and the respective House and Senate Defense and Intelligence committees.

Taco John
08-03-2007, 07:37 PM
• Executing Title 10 and Title 32 United States Code directives, to include organizing, equipping, and training forces for the conduct of prompt and sustained combat operations on land.



I can't even find anything remotely close to that in my searches of Title 10 and Title 32.

CHIEF4EVER
08-03-2007, 07:46 PM
I can't even find anything remotely close to that in my searches of Title 10 and Title 32.

Me either......

http://uscode.house.gov/download/title_10.shtml

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode32/usc_sup_01_32.html

a1na2
08-03-2007, 08:38 PM
I can't even find anything remotely close to that in my searches of Title 10 and Title 32.

You can't find it because you don't know how to use Google.

A 15 second search turns up:

http://uscode.house.gov/download/title_10.shtml

http://www.access.gpo.gov/uscode/title32/title32.html

a1na2
08-03-2007, 08:39 PM
Me either......

http://uscode.house.gov/download/title_10.shtml

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode32/usc_sup_01_32.html


You beat me to it, but I have a different link for Title 32.

Here's another.

http://law.justia.com/us/codes/title32/title32.html

Taco John
08-03-2007, 08:58 PM
You can't find it because you don't know how to use Google.

A 15 second search turns up:

http://uscode.house.gov/download/title_10.shtml

http://www.access.gpo.gov/uscode/title32/title32.html



Finding the code you cited wasn't a problem. As you said, Google put this stuff at anybody's fingertips. Finding what you said was in the code is the problem. I spent about a half hour looking though it and couldn't find anything remotely close to what you cited.

a1na2
08-03-2007, 09:09 PM
Finding the code you cited wasn't a problem. As you said, Google put this stuff at anybody's fingertips. Finding what you said was in the code is the problem. I spent about a half hour looking though it and couldn't find anything remotely close to what you cited.

Once again your ignorance is showing. I didn't cite the U.S. Code. The mission statements of the military services referred to the U.S. Code. Take your issue up with them.

Try Googling the Mission Statements from each of the services.

Taco John
08-03-2007, 09:13 PM
My ignorance is showing? Haven't you sworn your life to this code?

a1na2
08-03-2007, 09:31 PM
My ignorance is showing? Haven't you sworn your life to this code?

Yes, your ignorance is showing. You are trying to tell everyone here that you read the entire US Code Title 10 document. An almost 18 MB file?

Just because you don't understand enough about mission of the military doesn't mean that the rest of us don't realize that the following is defined through out the section of the code that relates to the U.S. Navy?

MISSION OF THE NAVY The mission of the U.S. Navy is set forth in Title 10 of the U.S. Code. It states that the U.S. Navy must be prepared to conduct prompt and sustained combat operations in support of the national interest. This means the Navy must assure continued maritime superiority for the United States. The U.S. Navy must be able to totally defeat any threats to the continued free use of the high seas by the United States. The Navy assures continued maritime superiority through the destruction of hostile aircraft, surface ships, and submarines that threaten seaborne forces of the United States and our allies. This mission is carried out within the framework of the national strategy, in joint coordination with the other services, and in combined planning with U.S. allies.

Try downloading the zip file and then printing the document.

http://uscode.house.gov/download/title_10.shtml

Here is the link again just in case you don't have the capability to search for it and locate the website.

If you would care to look further you might find that the other services are covered in Title 10 as well.



Title 32 of the United States Code outlines the role of the United States National Guard in the United States Code.

http://uscode.house.gov/download/title_32.shtml

If you go to the site for Title 32 you can also download the zip file and have the complete section relating to the National Guard.

Why don't you make an attempt to be credible rather than to attack someone due to your own ignorance?

Nightwish
08-03-2007, 09:51 PM
Tom, I'm not seeing how the mission statements you've posted from the various military branches relate to the two scenarios in Teej's post (namely, destruction of rogue states that pose a real threat to the US, or spreading democracy/worldwide social restructuring), unless you were clarifying an "Other" vote (except I see you voted the "rogue nations" option). Could you explain?

I would fully agree that our armed forces have the implicit and explicit duty of carrying out attacks for the defense and preservation of the US, its ships and people, and so forth, but that is a far different thing than claiming that their job is necessarily the destruction of rogue countries who pose a real threat to the US.

Taco John
08-03-2007, 10:02 PM
Yes, your ignorance is showing. You are trying to tell everyone here that you read the entire US Code Title 10 document. An almost 18 MB file?


I never said that once. I asked you if you could tell me where it's located. I have no problem accepting ignorance on the matter. Tonight is the first time I, along with just about everybody here, have been face to face with the code.

I had figured that since you have sworn your life to the code, and went through the trouble of posting it, you might have some idea where the specific section you were citing might be found.

Apparently, I was wrong.

a1na2
08-03-2007, 10:05 PM
Tom, I'm not seeing how the mission statements you've posted from the various military branches relate to the two scenarios in Teej's post (namely, destruction of rogue states that pose a real threat to the US, or spreading democracy/worldwide social restructuring), unless you were clarifying an "Other" vote. Could you explain?

What is the proper role of the military, post 9/11.

The mission of the Military did not change due to 9/11. The poll is flawed because the mission remains the same.

I didn't vote because the choices have nothing to do with the mission of the U.S. Military. I did a google search and came up with 3 of the mission statements for the military. He claimed that the U.S. Code Title 10 had nothing to do with the mission statement. My point is that the mission statement may not be written as such in Title 10 but it is defined by chapter after chapter. Each of the services are defined in Title 10. Title 32 covers the National Guard.

The soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen take the following oath upon enlistment:

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).

For officers:

"I, _____ , having been appointed an officer in the (Army-Navy-Air Force-Marines-Coast Guard) of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God."

Basically as an overall commentary, the military does not determine when and where they go, they are under the direction of the President of the U.S. via the Joint Chiefs of Staff and those others appointed over them according to the UCMJ.

I don't argue points well, so this is as good as it gets.

Nightwish
08-03-2007, 10:15 PM
What is the proper role of the military, post 9/11.

The mission of the Military did not change due to 9/11. The poll is flawed because the mission remains the same.

- snip -

Basically as an overall commentary, the military does not determine when and where they go, they are under the direction of the President of the U.S. via the Joint Chiefs of Staff and those others appointed over them according to the UCMJ.I tend to agree. But in recent years, it does seem that the military has been bent by the President (not just Bush, necessarily) to serving out roles that are, at best, non-traditional, and at worst, ideological. True, the job of the military is to fight America's wars, but where does the President's free reign to send our men and women into war begin and end, and at what point do you think it becomes inappropriate to do so, where is the line that should not be crossed wrt enemy, rogue or unfriendly nations?

Btw, the part of your post I snipped was because that is between you and TJ.

a1na2
08-03-2007, 10:24 PM
I tend to agree. But in recent years, it does seem that the military has been bent by the President (not just Bush, necessarily) to serving out roles that are, at best, non-traditional, and at worst, ideological. True, the job of the military is to fight America's wars, but where does the President's free reign to send our men and women into war begin and end, and at what point do you think it becomes inappropriate to do so, where is the line that should not be crossed wrt enemy, rogue or unfriendly nations?

Btw, the part of your post I snipped was because that is between you and TJ.

The President's authority is defined in the constitution. As far as I can see there have been no violations concerning the use of the Military. I may have a biased view but I think everyone is biased in one way or another.

Before I retired I was required to follow all lawful orders. Those that I thought were unlawful had to be egregious enough that I would be able to support my position without question in an Article 32 hearing (preliminary hearing to determine if a court martial was warranted).

If it wasn't late, and I wasn't so lazy, I would do some research and find the areas of the Constitution that defined what authority the President of the U.S. has regarding the military.

BucEyedPea
08-04-2007, 11:26 AM
It does not say just rogue nations, it says rogue nations who pose a real threat to the US. In my opinion that is all the difference in the world.

Depends on how one defines a threat?
In terms of price of oil? In terms of belligerent or unfriendly rhetoric?
In terms of a military threat against our mainland?
This is the problem with the word "threats". This is where politicians lie on behalf of who put them in power. ( PACS vested interests...whatever.)
Or are these so called "rogues" or "threats" po'd at us for something going in in their area or country by us? Or do they just have conflicts with an ally of ours in their area?

Once a legit threat has been determined, then the next thing to look at is how feasible is it to destroy a so called "rogue nation?" Let's take the Soviet Union as an example. Direct military action, as in a full scale war, just was not feasible and would have harmed many more of us than it would have benefited, saved. Just not worth it. Containment, use of proxy's, foreign aid to allies against them was a more viable solution. A nation of slaves won't last anyways.

BucEyedPea
08-04-2007, 11:31 AM
The President's authority is defined in the constitution. As far as I can see there have been no violations concerning the use of the Military. I may have a biased view but I think everyone is biased in one way or another.
I have to disagree with this.
Biased? How about biased to what the Constitution says. Like Congress declares war not the President for one. Only reason we haven't is due to our membership in the UN. All these military actions: Korea, Vietnam, Serbia/Kosovo/Bosnia, PGWI were all UN police actions. Only time the president has authority to act without Congress is to deal with a sudden unexpected aggressive act in order to act quickly to save lives. But not for a full scale invasion, intervention or war. The UN uses our military because we have the firepower more than anyone else. Or it uses coalitions.

Very unAmerican imo...and not at all what our Founders had in mind.

As a conservative,I consider these all to be violations concerning use of our military.

a1na2
08-04-2007, 05:01 PM
I have to disagree with this.
Biased? How about biased to what the Constitution says. Like Congress declares war not the President for one. Only reason we haven't is due to our membership in the UN. All these military actions: Korea, Vietnam, Serbia/Kosovo/Bosnia, PGWI were all UN police actions. Only time the president has authority to act without Congress is to deal with a sudden unexpected aggressive act in order to act quickly to save lives. But not for a full scale invasion, intervention or war. The UN uses our military because we have the firepower more than anyone else. Or it uses coalitions.

Very unAmerican imo...and not at all what our Founders had in mind.

As a conservative,I consider these all to be violations concerning use of our military.


Quote chapter and verse. If you are going to throw that out I need some kind of backing to argue against or for. It's been a while since I have had any political science classes.

BucEyedPea
08-04-2007, 05:54 PM
Quote chapter and verse. If you are going to throw that out I need some kind of backing to argue against or for. It's been a while since I have had any political science classes.
You don't need a poli-sci class. Just read the correct source.

Powers of the Constitution are "specific and enumerated," (10thAmendment) with Congress’ powers enumerated in Section Eight; Article One.

Article One: Legislative Department
Section 8—Powers Delegated to Congress
#1-17 Enumerated Powers…..
#11. To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;...


Transferring authority to wage war, calling it permission to use force to fight for peace in order to satisfy the UN Charter, which replaces the Article I, Section 8 war power provision, is about as close to 1984 "newspeak" that we will ever get in the real world.

Violating the Constitution With an Illegal War by Rep Ron Paul (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul57.html)

The UN Participation Act ( http://www.answers.com/topic/united-nations-participation-act)(Public Law 79-264) was signed after we became a member of the UN. You may want to google The Federalist Society. There are some good articles on how this act has replaced Congress declaring war. I linked it in some other threads. So maybe you can use the search functions here with my screen name and clicking "posts" instead of "threads."

I might add that both NATO and SEATO are/were under the UN. Please note, that when the people's house declares war, the objectives are clearer, the enemy is defined and we win. The ones under the UN are usually no win wars.

What are we really fighting for?

a1na2
08-04-2007, 06:14 PM
You don't need a poli-sci class. Just read the correct source.

Powers of the Constitution are "specific and enumerated," (10thAmendment) with Congress’ powers enumerated in Section Eight; Article One.

Article One: Legislative Department
Section 8—Powers Delegated to Congress
#1-17 Enumerated Powers…..
#11. To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;...




Violating the Constitution With an Illegal War by Rep Ron Paul (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul57.html)

The http://www.answers.com/topic/united-nations-participation-act]UN ( [url) Participation Act [/url](Public Law 79-264) was signed after we became a member of the UN. You may want to google The Federalist Society. There are some good articles on how this act has replaced Congress declaring war. I linked it in some other threads. So maybe you can use the search functions here with my screen name and clicking "posts" instead of "threads."

I might add that both NATO and SEATO are/were under the UN. Please note, that when the people's house declares war, the objectives are clearer, the enemy is defined and we win. The ones under the UN are usually no win wars.

What are we really fighting for?

If I remember correctly, and I do, the President had authority to go to Iraq when we went in.

What I see here is opinions based on their view of the situation.

I have no love for the UN, I feel it has outlived it's usefulness, if it every was useful. We need to give them 3 months to clear out and find a new home. We need to stop supporting them financially and we need to call our own shots when it comes to giving aid to other countries.

banyon
08-04-2007, 06:57 PM
If I remember correctly, and I do, the President had authority to go to Iraq when we went in.

What I see here is opinions based on their view of the situation.

I have no love for the UN, I feel it has outlived it's usefulness, if it every was useful. We need to give them 3 months to clear out and find a new home. We need to stop supporting them financially and we need to call our own shots when it comes to giving aid to other countries.

Actually, you don't recall correctly, which suprises no one but you I'm sure.

The Iraq War Authorization was made contingent on the fact that it was to be used as a last resort. At the time of invasion, however, there were plenty of alternatives to war.

BucEyedPea
08-04-2007, 07:01 PM
If I remember correctly, and I do, the President had authority to go to Iraq when we went in.
Not under our Constitution, no!
I argued this with pateeu when I first came here. It's not true under our law.

It's true under UN Participation Act perhaps...but there's argument there by originalists like me, as well a strict constructionists. The Federalist Society is not left wing but leans conservative.

One argument is that Bush need not even go to Congress for a resolution
( which was what was passed and which cited UN Resolutions throughout and no mention of "war".) Under that act, he would have authority but you'd have to hold that as more valid than our Constitution which you're doing here.

What I see here is opinions based on their view of the situation.
Maybe part of the Paul quote could be called that, but NOT Article I: Section 8 of the US Constitution is not an opinion. That was taken word for word from our Consitution. It says what it says.

I have no love for the UN, I feel it has outlived it's usefulness, if it every was useful. We need to give them 3 months to clear out and find a new home. We need to stop supporting them financially and we need to call our own shots when it comes to giving aid to other countries.
Yet, you honor it's resolutions regarding the PGWI ceasefire and meaningless unecessary resolutions to use "military force" as opposed to declaring that we are in a state of war against a specific country instead?

You may not love the UN, but you should love the document that is a restraint against power and was intended to keep you free. You inadvertently are strengthening the UN and give it more credence that your own Constitution.

a1na2
08-04-2007, 07:59 PM
Actually, you don't recall correctly, which suprises no one but you I'm sure.

The Iraq War Authorization was made contingent on the fact that it was to be used as a last resort. At the time of invasion, however, there were plenty of alternatives to war.

I don't expect you to agree here, but in the eyes of those in control at the time that was the last resort.

The war was authorized and fully backed by congress.

Just for argument there will always be a bleeding heart that will object to war, I would guess that you are one of those.

banyon
08-04-2007, 08:11 PM
I don't expect you to agree here, but in the eyes of those in control at the time that was the last resort. The war was authorized and fully backed by congress.

I agree that it's what Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, et. al claim, the problem is that much like yourself, they have exposed themselves as wholly uncredible in these matters. Any reasonable review of the process shows that they pressured individuals in the military and intel communities to make it appear as if it were a last resort.

PL 107-243

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION.—The President is authorized to use the
Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary
and appropriate in order to—
(1) defend the national security of the United States against
the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq.
(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION.—In connection with the
exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force
the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter
as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising
such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of
Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his
determination that—
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic
or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately
protect the national security of the United States against the
continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead
to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq; and
(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent
with the United States and other countries continuing to take
the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist
organizations, including those nations, organizations, or
persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist
attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
(c) WAR POWERS RESOLUTION REQUIREMENTS.—
(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION.—Consistent with
section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress
declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory
authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the
War Powers Resolution.
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS.—Nothing in
this joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War
Powers Resolution.

Just for argument there will always be a bleeding heart that will object to war, I would guess that you are one of those.

Nice try jacka**, but I fully support and have always supported our ops in Afghanistan as the majority of Americans still do. Go play your cowardly baiting games somewhere else.

CHIEF4EVER
08-04-2007, 08:11 PM
I don't expect you to agree here, but in the eyes of those in control at the time that was the last resort.

The war was authorized and fully backed by congress.

Just for argument there will always be a bleeding heart that will object to war, I would guess that you are one of those.
I am not a bleeding heart and I object to it. I was previously FOR the war but have since (as one of the last) turned against it. The Iraqi government has had 4+ years to get their collective feces consolidated and have failed miserably to do so. Then, in spite of all the work that needs to be done, they decide to go on vacation and expect OUR young men and women to 'hold the fort' for them while they are sitting in their living rooms wanking and drinking Pina Coladas. Screw that. If they hold their freedom in such low esteem, let them sort it out. Without us.

a1na2
08-04-2007, 08:52 PM
I agree that it's what Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, et. al claim, the problem is that much like yourself, they have exposed themselves as wholly uncredible in these matters. Any reasonable review of the process shows that they pressured individuals in the military and intel communities to make it appear as if it were a last resort.

PL 107-243





Nice try jacka**, but I fully support and have always supported our ops in Afghanistan as the majority of Americans still do. Go play your cowardly baiting games somewhere else.

What I find funny is that you don't have a credible argument other than to call names.

It's become boring.

a1na2
08-04-2007, 08:52 PM
I am not a bleeding heart and I object to it. I was previously FOR the war but have since (as one of the last) turned against it. The Iraqi government has had 4+ years to get their collective feces consolidated and have failed miserably to do so. Then, in spite of all the work that needs to be done, they decide to go on vacation and expect OUR young men and women to 'hold the fort' for them while they are sitting in their living rooms wanking and drinking Pina Coladas. Screw that. If they hold their freedom in such low esteem, let them sort it out. Without us.

I'm not for sustaining the war, but I'm also not for screwing up a place then walking away from our obligation to make it right.

CHIEF4EVER
08-04-2007, 08:55 PM
I'm not for sustaining the war, but I'm also not for screwing up a place then walking away from our obligation to make it right.

You don't get it dude. We have given them OVER FOUR YEARS to get it right. We have exercised due diligence. Time to let them decide their own destiny.

Logical
08-04-2007, 10:11 PM
You don't get it dude. We have given them OVER FOUR YEARS to get it right. We have exercised due diligence. Time to let them decide their own destiny.

Amen...:clap:

Nightwish
08-04-2007, 11:51 PM
The war was authorized and fully backed by congress.
That's not entirely true. What Congress gave the President authorization for was to employ "necessary force." "Necessary," is, of course, a very subjective term, and Congress did not make the determination at the time of the invasion that a full-scale invasion was the minimal necessary force, nor did they give the President a blank check to make that determination on his own. That's why several of those who had voted to authorize "necessary force" raised such a stink when the President abused that authority by going to extremes that Congress had not deemed "necessary."

It was similar in the UN, as well, where they uanimously passed a resolution authorizing the use of force, but stopped short of passing a similar resolution that would authorize the use of "war," when some of the member states who had voted in favor of force indicated that they would vote against a war resolution. This proves beyond any reasonable doubt that, contrary to what some of the supporters of the war have claimed, they did differentiate between "force" (or "necessary force") and "war."

a1na2
08-05-2007, 06:44 AM
You don't get it dude. We have given them OVER FOUR YEARS to get it right. We have exercised due diligence. Time to let them decide their own destiny.

There ya go, we all have our own opinion.