Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
As a Liberal I am very disappointed that we have not left these countries or closed down that horror show in GITMO. I am pleased that we have not, as would have been very likely under the Republicans, invaded Iran, Syria, Egypt and Yemen as well as North Korea. That is a positive for the Obama administration. Oh, and not having 40% unemployment counts as well.
but 20%+ unemployment is ok? oh dont forget obamas misadventures into Libya too.
You should ask yourself WHAT you risked your life for. Oil? No country attacked us. Our lives are more at risk now. There were more attacks on our troops following 9/11 than before. How are we safer?
How is the deaths of 600,000 people in the Middle east worth what we have now, which is less security.
The main reason Americans are at a greater risk is because we are over there. Read the CIA report from Michael Scheuer, the former head of the CIA’s “Bin Laden Unit”. "Our enemies started the war but they were motivated by our foreign policy."
If we had listened to Ron Paul there would have been no 9/11 and you would have everyone of those New Yorkers still in your life. Become informed.
Couldn't agree more.
Why politicians think waging more wars that INCITE terrorism is the SOLUTION to terrorism (when terrorists became terrorists BECAUSE OF of our militarism), is insane. Of course, they don't actually think that. They are ENSURING that there will always be more conflict by flooding the world with arms and funding for wars. We ARMED Afghanistan so the rebels could fight Russia. Now we've been 10 years fighting them, with no end in sight.
The Military-Industrial Complex bankrupt our nation--but they won't even stop now.
Washington will let us starve in the streets after a lifetime of working 80 hour weeks, just so they can invade yet another foreign nation no American has even heard of. It's time we had a President who served the NATION and its citizens--NOT just Washington corruption and the Military-Industrial Death machine.
And Ron Paul is the ONLY presidential candidate who wants to stop the idiotic war-mongering that has destroyed us. Don't let the corrupt political machine pick your next president, and don't fall for the slander and childish name-calling as the System tries desperately to stop Ron Paul from saving the nation.
Why politicians think waging more wars that INCITE terrorism is the SOLUTION to terrorism (when terrorists became terrorists BECAUSE OF of our militarism), is insane. Of course, they don't actually think that. They are ENSURING that there will always be more conflict by flooding the world with arms and funding for wars. We ARMED Afghanistan so the rebels could fight Russia. Now we've been 10 years fighting them, with no end in sight.
The Military-Industrial Complex bankrupt our nation--but they won't even stop now.
Washington will let us starve in the streets after a lifetime of working 80 hour weeks, just so they can invade yet another foreign nation no American has even heard of. It's time we had a President who served the NATION and its citizens--NOT just Washington corruption and the Military-Industrial Death machine.
And Ron Paul is the ONLY presidential candidate who wants to stop the idiotic war-mongering that has destroyed us. Don't let the corrupt political machine pick your next president, and don't fall for the slander and childish name-calling as the System tries desperately to stop Ron Paul from saving the nation.
Not sure I or anyone can make the claim they became terrorists because of our militarism. I think it may have contributed but to say it is the root cause???? NO
Lack of education, to much faith in extremist religous leaders, and like all religous fanatics a very biased slant on the meaning of the words.
I will agree they they focus on the USA because we tend to put our noses in everyone elses affairs.
It's not your call. The Constitution says otherwise. It is your duty to uphold that document.
Does it? Which Article, Section, and Clause within the US Constitution would that be? The last time I checked the US Constitution grants Congress the power to declare war under Article I, Section 8, Clause 11. Nowhere does the document specify that wars are to be fought exclusively for the defense of the nation.
In fact, the very first war, started by the very same Founding Fathers that constructed the US Constitution, was the Quasi-War with France, quickly followed by the first of the Barbary Pirate Wars off the coast of Tripoli.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loveshiscountry
The only reason to attack, is to defend our country.
Only according to your uninformed opinion, not according to the US Constitution.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loveshiscountry
uhm you didn't risk your life, so I didn't have to. That's poser mentality.
You should ask yourself WHAT you risked your life for. Oil? No country attacked us. Our lives are more at risk now. There were more attacks on our troops following 9/11 than before. How are we safer?
How is the deaths of 600,000 people in the Middle east worth what we have now, which is less security.
The main reason Americans are at a greater risk is because we are over there. Read the CIA report from Michael Scheuer, the former head of the CIA’s “Bin Laden Unit”. "Our enemies started the war but they were motivated by our foreign policy."
I risked my life in service to my country. The "who", "what", "where", and "why" never entered the picture. It is not the place of any soldier to question policy, only to do their duty and serve with honor. If you have a problem with policy, take it up with your elected representatives.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loveshiscountry
If we had listened to Ron Paul there would have been no 9/11 and you would have everyone of those New Yorkers still in your life. Become informed.
Another lie. Ron Paul voted FOR war, then refused to fund and equip those HE sent to war.
People in all countries tend to not be supportive of aggressive wars if there isn't a clear cut victory or if strategic objectives aren't met. Italy during WWI is the best example of this. Italy launched an aggressive war on the Central Powers (mainly Austria-Hungary) and was part of the winning team in WWI but didn't really gain much (measly little territories like South Tyrol and the city of Trieste) from the war for the price they paid (high casualties and high debt). The government eventually lost legitimacy and paved the way for Fascism and Mussolini.
In the case of Iraq and Afghanistan, has America accomplished its objectives? The answer to that would be no. Iraq is an unstable country that is falling into the Iranian sphere of influence rather than the American sphere of influence. Afghanistan is still the same, an anarchic hellhole with a massive Taliban insurgency. The cost for these wars are in the trillions and with the exception of Afghanistan, the war was waged without a strong casus belli. The recession also makes it much worse since people are not supportive of seeing American tax revenues go to foreign countries that are extremely hostile.
If Iraq and Afghanistan became stable democracies and reliable allies of the United States, the poll results would have been different. Unfortunately that isn't the case so most vets view these wars as a waste.
Does it? Which Article, Section, and Clause within the US Constitution would that be? The last time I checked the US Constitution grants Congress the power to declare war under Article I, Section 8, Clause 11. Nowhere does the document specify that wars are to be fought exclusively for the defense of the nation.
Tell me the reasons the 5 declared wars were declared. Couldn't be we were attacked? Is there an argument the attacks were "allowed" or "slightly setup"? sure
defense- repel sudden attacks
"In August, 1787, when the Convention was working on the final text of the proposed Constitution, Charles Pinckney pointed out that Congress might not be in session when the nation was attacked. The term “make war” was changed to “declare war” to allow the President to repel sudden attacks, and Congress was allowed to permit the President to call out the Militia to execute federal laws and suppress insurrections."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glitch
In fact, the very first war, started by the very same Founding Fathers that constructed the US Constitution, was the Quasi-War with France, quickly followed by the first of the Barbary Pirate Wars off the coast of Tripoli.
sigh those were not declared wars
The 5 declared wars
1812
Mexican- American
Spanish- American
WW1
WW2
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glitch
Only according to your uninformed opinion, not according to the US Constitution.
see above
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glitch
I risked my life in service to my country. The "who", "what", "where", and "why" never entered the picture. It is not the place of any soldier to question policy, only to do their duty and serve with honor. If you have a problem with policy, take it up with your elected representatives.
This statement has nothing to do with what I posted. How silly of you to think a soldier would shoot someone just because it was an order. It is a soldiers duty to disobey an illegal order. Why don't you know that? Did you really serve? But keep deflecting, it just proves my point.
btw in every conflict since WW2, military personnel didn't risk their lives in service for their country, unfortunately they risked their lives for the politicians. That should never happen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glitch
Another lie. Ron Paul voted FOR war, then refused to fund and equip those HE sent to war.
the only lies are coming from your made up statements. Ron Paul voted to go after the people responsible period. Of course you would never factor in "at what cost" since that would take something more than scratching the surface. Do some research on his reasons then get back to me.
Last edited by Loveshiscountry; 10-06-2011 at 02:07 AM..
Tell me the reasons the 5 declared wars were declared. Couldn't be we were attacked? Is there an argument the attacks were "allowed" or "slightly setup"? sure
defense- repel sudden attacks
"In August, 1787, when the Convention was working on the final text of the proposed Constitution, Charles Pinckney pointed out that Congress might not be in session when the nation was attacked. The term “make war” was changed to “declare war” to allow the President to repel sudden attacks, and Congress was allowed to permit the President to call out the Militia to execute federal laws and suppress insurrections."
sigh those were not declared wars
The 5 declared wars
1812
Mexican- American
Spanish- American
WW1
WW2
see above
This statement has nothing to do with what I posted. How silly of you to think a soldier would shoot someone just because it was an order. It is a soldiers duty to "disobey an illegal order. Why don't you know that? Did you really serve? But keep deflecting, it just proves my point.
btw in every conflict since WW2, military personnel didn't risk their lives in service for their country, unfortunately they risked their lives for the politicians. That should never happen.
the only lies are coming from your made up statements. Ron Paul voted to go after the people responsible period. Of course you would never factor in "at what cost" since that would take something more than scratching the surface. Do some research on his reasons then get back to me.
Are you deliberately trolling or were you born this stupid? Every time Congress authorizes the use of military force against another nation they are, in fact, declaring war upon that nation.
"5 declared wars!" ROFLMAO!
Obviously Ron Paul fanatics are just as crazy and removed from reality as that anti-military isolationist prick.
The 5 declared wars
1812
Mexican- American
Spanish- American
WW1
WW2
man are you way off
The Iraq Resolution or the Iraq War Resolution (formally the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-243, 116 Stat. 1498, enacted October 16, 2002, H.J.Res. 114) is a joint resolution passed by the United States Congress in October 2002 as Public Law No: 107-243, authorizing military action against Iraq...........a DECLARATION OF WAR
The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists (Pub. L. No. 107-40, 115 Stat. 224, enacted September 18, 2001), was a joint resolution passed by the United States Congress on September 14, 2001, authorizing the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the attacks on September 11, 2001. The authorization granted the President the authority to use all "necessary and appropriate force" against those whom he determined "planned, authorized, committed or aided" the September 11th attacks, or who harbored said persons or groups. The AUMF was signed on September 18, 2001.......a declaration of war
The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (short title) (Pub. L. No. 102-1) or Joint Resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (official title), was the United States Congress's January 14, 1991 authorization of the use of U.S. military force in the Gulf War.........a declaration of war
Are you deliberately trolling or were you born this stupid? Every time Congress authorizes the use of military force against another nation they are, in fact, declaring war upon that nation.
"5 declared wars!" ROFLMAO!
Obviously Ron Paul fanatics are just as crazy and removed from reality as that anti-military isolationist prick.
A declaration of war is a formal declaration issued by a national government indicating that a state of war exists between that nation and another.
The United States has formally declared war against foreign nations five separate times, each upon prior request by the President of the United States.
The Iraq Resolution or the Iraq War Resolution (formally the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-243, 116 Stat. 1498, enacted October 16, 2002, H.J.Res. 114) is a joint resolution passed by the United States Congress in October 2002 as Public Law No: 107-243, authorizing military action against Iraq...........a DECLARATION OF WAR
The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists (Pub. L. No. 107-40, 115 Stat. 224, enacted September 18, 2001), was a joint resolution passed by the United States Congress on September 14, 2001, authorizing the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the attacks on September 11, 2001. The authorization granted the President the authority to use all "necessary and appropriate force" against those whom he determined "planned, authorized, committed or aided" the September 11th attacks, or who harbored said persons or groups. The AUMF was signed on September 18, 2001.......a declaration of war
The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (short title) (Pub. L. No. 102-1) or Joint Resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (official title), was the United States Congress's January 14, 1991 authorization of the use of U.S. military force in the Gulf War.........a declaration of war
man you are way off. It's not up to YOU to define it. But thanks for playing
A declaration of war is a formal declaration issued by a national government indicating that a state of war exists between that nation and another.
The United States has formally declared war against foreign nations five separate times, each upon prior request by the President of the United States.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
