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.
I suppose we could just send up a white flag and isolate ourselves until some country steps up to rule over us by force. Listening to democrats tells us America has never been that great anyway there's nothing really worth protecting, I suppose !!! Democrats open border stance to replace citizens that won't vote for them is consistent with reasons not to defend ourselves or anyone else who is threated with violence.
Yes, I suppose we can just give up and throw the last 200 plus years on the trash heap and admit the experiment was a failure. I suppose...….. or we could fight for our way of life against those who would defeat and enslave us !!! Now there is a novel concept !!!
Most of our history involved us minding our own business.
Whether Iraq had anything or nothing at all is immaterial.
The government is not obligated by the Constitution or any public law to tell you the true motives for the actions it takes.
You can't seem to wrap your brain around the reality that real power is vested in the Bureaucracy. Your elected officials are just window-dressing.
Contrary to your grossly mistaken beliefs, knowledge is not imputed.
When a President puts his hand on the bible and swears to defend the Constitution, he is not instantly imbued with every secret in the US government.
Presidents are told only what they need to know, when they actually need to know it, in order to do their job, and nothing more.
In January 1985, Reagan gave a press conference at which he was asked if there were "back-pack nukes" in Germany. Reagan said no. There were actually 226 of them. Did Reagan lie? No, because he had no knowledge of their existence. I knew. I knew because it was my job and I had a need to know. Reagan never knew until 22 months later in October 1986 when he signed an order authorizing their withdraw from Germany.
There were tons of nerve agent at Clausen, too. I knew, but Reagan never did. Bush might have, but that's because he was in the CIA hierarchy for years, including CIA Director, so there's a good possibility he did know.
Chancellor Kohl didn't even know. I knew, but he didn't.
Whatever Bush knew about Iraq he knew because Bureaucrats told him. If the Bureaucrats lied, then that's just the way it is.
In case you don't get it, you don't vote for Bureaucrats.
You can yell at Bush all you want, but it's not his fault if Bureaucrats exaggerated or out-right lied.
You have a Geo-Political Strategy whether you like it or not, whether you want it or not and whether you agree with it or not.
The Bureaucrats are going to carry this Geo-Political Strategy to its bitter end, and there ain't a damn thing you or anyone else can ever do about it.
Either you are not following along in this thread or you're not following the news, but the issue is not really waiting until war is actually declared but addressing the developments that increase the chances of either that or some other form of armed conflict. Developments beginning at least as far back as our unilateral [Trump] withdrawal from the nuclear agreement with Iran and our other signatories.
To wait until the "pot boils over" is not how most experienced and intelligent maître d's manage the kitchen...
From your post #1:
Quote:
When do we stop accepting this sort of executive lead toward war rather than perhaps requiring at least some better level of scrutiny and strategy? Perhaps better suited for Congress at least?
Just Trump now instead?
I mean aside from all other innocents who are likely to die as a result of these sorts of conflicts, American soldiers are both liberal and conservative and deserving of better reasons to put their lives on the line...
US gears up for war with Iran
You imply that Trump is on the brink of leading us into war, when that is in fact not the case. Trump has tons of issues that need to be addressed. There is no need to make up issues that don't (yet) exist, and likely never will.
Trump's instincts are clearly non-interventionist. He wanted a complete pull-out from Syria, and had to be talked out of it by people like Mattis, Lindsey Graham, and his daughter Ivanka who besieged him with photos of suffering Syrian children. Either you are not following along with Trump-era foreign policy news, or you are suffering from a case of TDS.
Whether Iraq had anything or nothing at all is immaterial.
The government is not obligated by the Constitution or any public law to tell you the true motives for the actions it takes.
You can't seem to wrap your brain around the reality that real power is vested in the Bureaucracy. Your elected officials are just window-dressing.
Contrary to your grossly mistaken beliefs, knowledge is not imputed.
When a President puts his hand on the bible and swears to defend the Constitution, he is not instantly imbued with every secret in the US government.
Presidents are told only what they need to know, when they actually need to know it, in order to do their job, and nothing more.
In January 1985, Reagan gave a press conference at which he was asked if there were "back-pack nukes" in Germany. Reagan said no. There were actually 226 of them. Did Reagan lie? No, because he had no knowledge of their existence. I knew. I knew because it was my job and I had a need to know. Reagan never knew until 22 months later in October 1986 when he signed an order authorizing their withdraw from Germany.
There were tons of nerve agent at Clausen, too. I knew, but Reagan never did. Bush might have, but that's because he was in the CIA hierarchy for years, including CIA Director, so there's a good possibility he did know.
Chancellor Kohl didn't even know. I knew, but he didn't.
Whatever Bush knew about Iraq he knew because Bureaucrats told him. If the Bureaucrats lied, then that's just the way it is.
In case you don't get it, you don't vote for Bureaucrats.
You can yell at Bush all you want, but it's not his fault if Bureaucrats exaggerated or out-right lied.
You have a Geo-Political Strategy whether you like it or not, whether you want it or not and whether you agree with it or not.
The Bureaucrats are going to carry this Geo-Political Strategy to its bitter end, and there ain't a damn thing you or anyone else can ever do about it.
So, embrace the suck.
Beginning with comment #55, I took some time to address your previous comments to no real end, so forgive me for stopping there, but you can stop with the "Geo-Political Strategy" already. We all know the general public is not privy to all known by our elected representatives and/or the bureaucrats, and also true our elected representatives don't always know all there is to know. They lie sometimes too you say? No kidding...
Though much you go on about is not all that hard to "get" all considered, I think you have a huge blind spot with regard to all else going on around us now as compared to much of the past, including the fact that all our elected officials are more than just "window dressing."
Every one of our military engagements has been scrutinized to death, some still being debated today. All the "good, bad and ugly," and the facts have for the most part been revealed over time, for all concerned to consider as they will. Back-pack nukes no exception for example. Not everyone has their head buried in the "deep state" or necessarily accepting of it's existence. Whether it be an inescapable influence and/or our future, though of course we all know lots of conspiracy theories and the likes will live on forever...
Whatever Bush knew about Iraq he knew because Bureaucrats told him. If the Bureaucrats lied, then that's just the way it is.
Quite frankly, if you think about it...
Would be easier to simply do what we've done with the blueprint described by the DOD strategy than all this whacky "window dressing" used to lead us into war, like with the invasion of Iraq for example. Difficult questions remain with respect to how bureaucrats are going about our "geo-political" strategy according to you. We had just about the whole world supporting us with Desert Storm, for example, and what better time to go ahead and invade Iraq if that was the plan established by the bureaucrats?
Not at all clear who is the puppet and/or who is manipulating the strings contrary to all you claim to know...
You imply that Trump is on the brink of leading us into war, when that is in fact not the case. Trump has tons of issues that need to be addressed. There is no need to make up issues that don't (yet) exist, and likely never will.
Trump's instincts are clearly non-interventionist. He wanted a complete pull-out from Syria, and had to be talked out of it by people like Mattis, Lindsey Graham, and his daughter Ivanka who besieged him with photos of suffering Syrian children. Either you are not following along with Trump-era foreign policy news, or you are suffering from a case of TDS.
I don't need to imply anything...
What Trump has done is clear for all of us to know and consider; 1) unilaterally withdrawing the United States from the Iran Nuclear deal AKA reneging on our commitment, 2) "rubbing salt in the wound" by imposing additional sanctions that further aggravate the tensions and 3) increasing military presence in the region that furthers the tensions even more, greatly increasing the chances of a mistake by either side that leads to war.
Among the "tons of [Trump] issues that need to be addressed" are Trump's lack of intelligence, judgement and leadership abilities. Also the people in Trump's circle more than anxious for Iran to make that "mistake," whatever excuse to attack Iran, and Trump's way of alienating even our allies with his "my way or the high way" of doing things.
Most Americans anyway, don't feel at all comfortable with a POTUS who acts like he is King, especially when it comes to this nitwit of a POTUS in these circumstances, playing Commander-in-Chief as he moves our troops into the line of fire. At a minimum, no one can say it "is in fact not the case Trump is on the brink of leading us into war," until no war ultimately occurs. Until then, at the very least we can say that Trump is recklessly and unnecessarily increasing the chances of war.
You imply that Trump is on the brink of leading us into war, when that is in fact not the case. Trump has tons of issues that need to be addressed. There is no need to make up issues that don't (yet) exist, and likely never will.
Trump's instincts are clearly non-interventionist. He wanted a complete pull-out from Syria, and had to be talked out of it by people like Mattis, Lindsey Graham, and his daughter Ivanka who besieged him with photos of suffering Syrian children. Either you are not following along with Trump-era foreign policy news, or you are suffering from a case of TDS.
Just three days later...
What was that you were saying again? About Trump, the brink of war and what in fact is not the case?
What Trump has done is clear for all of us to know and consider; 1) unilaterally withdrawing the United States from the Iran Nuclear deal AKA reneging on our commitment, 2) "rubbing salt in the wound" by imposing additional sanctions that further aggravate the tensions and 3) increasing military presence in the region that furthers the tensions even more, greatly increasing the chances of a mistake by either side that leads to war.
The Iran deal was not 'our commitment,' it was the commitment of President Obama. The Israelis opposed it, which was a telltale indicator that it was a bad deal. It was never approved by the Congress.
Quote:
Among the "tons of [Trump] issues that need to be addressed" are Trump's lack of intelligence, judgement and leadership abilities. Also the people in Trump's circle more than anxious for Iran to make that "mistake," whatever excuse to attack Iran, and Trump's way of alienating even our allies with his "my way or the high way" of doing things.
These are nebulous, murky, amorphous complaints. Remember that the previous 2 admins saw two major wars, and people forget that President Obama was a strong supporter of going to Afghanistan as US Senator. Trump has 2.5 years under his belt and thus far zero wars, not even a minor one.
Quote:
Most Americans anyway, don't feel at all comfortable with a POTUS who acts like he is King, especially when it comes to this nitwit of a POTUS in these circumstances, playing Commander-in-Chief as he moves our troops into the line of fire. At a minimum, no one can say it "is in fact not the case Trump is on the brink of leading us into war," until no war ultimately occurs. Until then, at the very least we can say that Trump is recklessly and unnecessarily increasing the chances of war.
We've had an imperial presidency since at least 2008 (and before IMO). Remember President Obama's line "I've got a pen, and I've got a phone"? Most Americans seem resigned to it. Congress has become almost a nullity; the POTUS and SCOTUS run the country. The Iran deal ironically is a prime example. What indication do you see that [m]ost Americans" are not "at all comfortable" with this?
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.
