Are We In A Perpetual State Of War?

[Foxfyre]

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.

BUT. . . .still trying to maintain focus here. . . .we have had U.S. military in harms way for a very long time now going back many decades before 9/11. Our more leftist doves and some of our more staunch libertarians sometimes accuse us of perpetuating a condition of perpetual war because we have deployed that military presence all over the world and thus created resentment that we are there.

We have active duty U.S. military deployed--working from memory here--I believe in 148 different countries and we maintain 662 bases around the world--if we count military presence in ours plus other people's bases, that number rises to something like 900. Some of these detachments are as few as maybe 10 people, but they are there as U.S. military personnel.

And is the result resentment of our presence? Does that outweigh our ability to have eyes and ears on the ground observing what is happening around the world?

So I still keep coming back to the original question. Do we want the President to continue have the authority to deploy people all over the world, anywhere he wants, however he wishes?

Do you want the President to have to get the consent of Congress BEFORE deploying the military onto foreign soil? Do you want the Congress to make a formal declaration of war before the U.S. military intentionally engages in combat conditions?

 

[Contumacious]

Bush responded to an attack that rivaled Pearl Harbor.

And the Muslims RETALIATED after the Judeo-British-Ameican axis of evil have been murdering , stealing and causing major havoc in the middle east.

After several decades of Islamic terrorist attacks against us and our interests, it was time to see it for what it was - war.

Israel is not US soil.

Saddam was paying $25,000 to families who offered their children for training as suicide bombers, so Saddam was a legitimate target. .

Well, I don't ever remember Saddam sending children to the Houston area as suicide bombers. I don't remember seeing any evidence that Saddam sent children anywhere for that matter.

I understand that Israel was affected but they have no right to be in Palestine, the arabs had a right to retaliate for the terrorist acts perpetrated by the Zionist paramilitary groups -- but that is not a US concern.

.

 

[Foxfyre]

Bush responded to an attack that rivaled Pearl Harbor.

And the Muslims RETALIATED after the Judeo-British-Ameican axis of evil have been murdering , stealing and causing major havoc in the middle east.

After several decades of Islamic terrorist attacks against us and our interests, it was time to see it for what it was - war.

Israel is not US soil.

Saddam was paying $25,000 to families who offered their children for training as suicide bombers, so Saddam was a legitimate target. .

Well, I don't ever remember Saddam sending children to the Houston area as suicide bombers. I don't remember seeing any evidence that Saddam sent children anywhere for that matter.

I understand that Israel was affected but they have no right to be in Palestine, the arabs had a right to retaliate for the terrorist acts perpetrated by the Zionist paramilitary groups -- but that is not a US concern.

.

So let's pretend you have the power to call the shots.

Will you continue to give the President the ability to deploy troops whenever, wherever, and however he chooses?

or. . . .

Will you require that the President get the consent of Congress before troops are deployed on foreign soil?

or. . . .

Will you require that Congress pass a declaration of war before our troops are sent into active or probably combat conditions anywhere on foreign soil?

 

[Contumacious]

Bush responded to an attack that rivaled Pearl Harbor.

And the Muslims RETALIATED after the Judeo-British-Ameican axis of evil have been murdering , stealing and causing major havoc in the middle east.



Israel is not US soil.

Saddam was paying $25,000 to families who offered their children for training as suicide bombers, so Saddam was a legitimate target. .

Well, I don't ever remember Saddam sending children to the Houston area as suicide bombers. I don't remember seeing any evidence that Saddam sent children anywhere for that matter.

I understand that Israel was affected but they have no right to be in Palestine, the arabs had a right to retaliate for the terrorist acts perpetrated by the Zionist paramilitary groups -- but that is not a US concern.

.

So let's pretend you have the power to call the shots.

Will you continue to give the President the ability to deploy troops whenever, wherever, and however he chooses?

or. . . .

Will you require that the President get the consent of Congress before troops are deployed on foreign soil?

or. . . .

Will you require that Congress pass a declaration of war before our troops are sent into active or probably combat conditions anywhere on foreign soil?

Violating the Constitution With an Illegal War

by Rep. Ron Paul, MD

Ron Paul in the US House of Representatives, October 3, 2002

The last time Congress declared war was on December 11, 1941, against Germany in response to its formal declaration of war against the United States. This was accomplished with wording that took less than one-third of a page, without any nitpicking arguments over precise language, yet it was a clear declaration of who the enemy was and what had to be done. And in three-and-a-half years, this was accomplished. A similar resolve came from the declaration of war against Japan three days earlier. Likewise, a clear-cut victory was achieved against Japan.

Many Americans have been forced into war since that time on numerous occasions, with no congressional declaration of war and with essentially no victories. Today's world political condition is as chaotic as ever. We're still in Korea and we're still fighting the Persian Gulf War that started in 1990.

The process by which we've entered wars over the past 57 years, and the inconclusive results of each war since that time, are obviously related to Congress' abdication of its responsibility regarding war, given to it by Article I Section 8 of the Constitution.

.

Congress has either ignored its responsibility entirely over these years, or transferred the war power to the executive branch by a near majority vote of its Members, without consideration of it by the states as an amendment required by the Constitution."

.

 

[Foxfyre]

And the Muslims RETALIATED after the Judeo-British-Ameican axis of evil have been murdering , stealing and causing major havoc in the middle east.



Israel is not US soil.



Well, I don't ever remember Saddam sending children to the Houston area as suicide bombers. I don't remember seeing any evidence that Saddam sent children anywhere for that matter.

I understand that Israel was affected but they have no right to be in Palestine, the arabs had a right to retaliate for the terrorist acts perpetrated by the Zionist paramilitary groups -- but that is not a US concern.

.

So let's pretend you have the power to call the shots.

Will you continue to give the President the ability to deploy troops whenever, wherever, and however he chooses?

or. . . .

Will you require that the President get the consent of Congress before troops are deployed on foreign soil?

or. . . .

Will you require that Congress pass a declaration of war before our troops are sent into active or probably combat conditions anywhere on foreign soil?

Violating the Constitution With an Illegal War

by Rep. Ron Paul, MD

Ron Paul in the US House of Representatives, October 3, 2002

The last time Congress declared war was on December 11, 1941, against Germany in response to its formal declaration of war against the United States. This was accomplished with wording that took less than one-third of a page, without any nitpicking arguments over precise language, yet it was a clear declaration of who the enemy was and what had to be done. And in three-and-a-half years, this was accomplished. A similar resolve came from the declaration of war against Japan three days earlier. Likewise, a clear-cut victory was achieved against Japan.

Many Americans have been forced into war since that time on numerous occasions, with no congressional declaration of war and with essentially no victories. Today's world political condition is as chaotic as ever. We're still in Korea and we're still fighting the Persian Gulf War that started in 1990.

The process by which we've entered wars over the past 57 years, and the inconclusive results of each war since that time, are obviously related to Congress' abdication of its responsibility regarding war, given to it by Article I Section 8 of the Constitution.

Congress has either ignored its responsibility entirely over these years, or transferred the war power to the executive branch by a near majority vote of its Members, without consideration of it by the states as an amendment required by the Constitution."

.

So is that a yes? You would require Congress to pass a declaration of war before deploying troops into what are or could be combat conditions? I have known Ron Paul's position on that for a very long time now. I want to know what your position is.

 

[Darkwind]

So again. Would any of us agree to a constitutional amendment that our military could not be deployed on foreign soil for any peace keeping or military action without a congressional declaration of war?

See? Even the staunchest, most hawkish members won't touch this question. Won't even acknowledge it. Why? Because it is the crux of the debate and the most important component in it. It is easy to point fingers and accuse and complain and blame and wring our hands, etc. etc. etc. so long as we aren't in the position of making a decision.

If you were FDR, would you have declared war on Japan knowing that we would also have to fight Germany and its allies?

If you were Truman, would you have sent troops to Korea?

If you were JFK, would you have gotten us into the war in Vietnam? Would you have risked war with Russia to back down those Cuban bound missiles?

If you were Reagan, would you have sent troops to Grenada? To Panama? Sent the bombers to Lybia in retaliation to terrorist attack?

If you were George H.W. Bush, would you have gone to Kuwait and Saudi Arabia's rescue?

If you were Bill Clinton, would you have joined the effort to stop the genocide in Kosovo? Would you have used military force to enforce sanctions on Saddam Hussein? Retaliated to terrorist attack?

If you were George W. Bush would you have retaliated against the 9/11 attack? Given in to significant congressional pressures to defang Saddam Hussein?

If you were Barack Obama, would you continue to support military efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq, committed the military to get Qadaffi. Would you ignore the genocide going on in Syria?

Would you restrict military action to Congressional declarations of war?

These are not easy questions. They are really uncomfortable questions. They get to us deep down where our deepest convictions and sense of right and wrong are held and bother us. But we don't want to have to decide.

And yet we have a Constitution that allows the President of the United States to order the military to do anything and could easily order it to start WWIII. Is that a good thing? Or not?

Your entire premise presupposes we have no interests abroad, or a right to protect those interests. As worded, your amendment would effectively stop us from responding to immediate threat to our own best interest.

 

[S.J.]

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.

BUT. . . .still trying to maintain focus here. . . .we have had U.S. military in harms way for a very long time now going back many decades before 9/11. Our more leftist doves and some of our more staunch libertarians sometimes accuse us of perpetuating a condition of perpetual war because we have deployed that military presence all over the world and thus created resentment that we are there.

We have active duty U.S. military deployed--working from memory here--I believe in 148 different countries and we maintain 662 bases around the world--if we count military presence in ours plus other people's bases, that number rises to something like 900. Some of these detachments are as few as maybe 10 people, but they are there as U.S. military personnel.

And is the result resentment of our presence? Does that outweigh our ability to have eyes and ears on the ground observing what is happening around the world?

So I still keep coming back to the original question. Do we want the President to continue have the authority to deploy people all over the world, anywhere he wants, however he wishes?

Do you want the President to have to get the consent of Congress BEFORE deploying the military onto foreign soil? Do you want the Congress to make a formal declaration of war before the U.S. military intentionally engages in combat conditions?

The president should have the authority to deploy troops in response to attacks or other emergency situations, but major conflicts should require a declaration of war by Congress. The War Powers Act was passed to avoid future Vietnams, but most of the time it's ignored.
I don't think our founding fathers envisioned a time when our country would be as divided as it is now, or that politicians would choose political expedience over the safety of our troops, or the Constitution itself. I blame immigration.

 

[Foxfyre]

So again. Would any of us agree to a constitutional amendment that our military could not be deployed on foreign soil for any peace keeping or military action without a congressional declaration of war?

See? Even the staunchest, most hawkish members won't touch this question. Won't even acknowledge it. Why? Because it is the crux of the debate and the most important component in it. It is easy to point fingers and accuse and complain and blame and wring our hands, etc. etc. etc. so long as we aren't in the position of making a decision.

If you were FDR, would you have declared war on Japan knowing that we would also have to fight Germany and its allies?

If you were Truman, would you have sent troops to Korea?

If you were JFK, would you have gotten us into the war in Vietnam? Would you have risked war with Russia to back down those Cuban bound missiles?

If you were Reagan, would you have sent troops to Grenada? To Panama? Sent the bombers to Lybia in retaliation to terrorist attack?

If you were George H.W. Bush, would you have gone to Kuwait and Saudi Arabia's rescue?

If you were Bill Clinton, would you have joined the effort to stop the genocide in Kosovo? Would you have used military force to enforce sanctions on Saddam Hussein? Retaliated to terrorist attack?

If you were George W. Bush would you have retaliated against the 9/11 attack? Given in to significant congressional pressures to defang Saddam Hussein?

If you were Barack Obama, would you continue to support military efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq, committed the military to get Qadaffi. Would you ignore the genocide going on in Syria?

Would you restrict military action to Congressional declarations of war?

These are not easy questions. They are really uncomfortable questions. They get to us deep down where our deepest convictions and sense of right and wrong are held and bother us. But we don't want to have to decide.

And yet we have a Constitution that allows the President of the United States to order the military to do anything and could easily order it to start WWIII. Is that a good thing? Or not?

Your entire premise presupposes we have no interests abroad, or a right to protect those interests. As worded, your amendment would effectively stop us from responding to immediate threat to our own best interest.

So then, your opinion is that the President should have power to deploy the military however, whenever, wherever he chooses for any reason he wishes? That there should be no consent of Congress for immediate deployment of troops outside of the USA? That there should be no declaration of war if the deployment will involve engagement or risk of combat conditions?

Is that a fair assessment of what your position is?

 

[Dot Com]

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?

ummm..... thats why the war powers act was changed by The War Powers Resolution of 1973. To STRENGTHEN the President's executive authority. Are you now saying it should be weakened and are you aware of the contents of the Resolution? :

The War Powers Resolution requires the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30 day withdrawal period, without an authorization of the use of military force or a declaration of war.

 

[Darkwind]

See? Even the staunchest, most hawkish members won't touch this question. Won't even acknowledge it. Why? Because it is the crux of the debate and the most important component in it. It is easy to point fingers and accuse and complain and blame and wring our hands, etc. etc. etc. so long as we aren't in the position of making a decision.

If you were FDR, would you have declared war on Japan knowing that we would also have to fight Germany and its allies?

If you were Truman, would you have sent troops to Korea?

If you were JFK, would you have gotten us into the war in Vietnam? Would you have risked war with Russia to back down those Cuban bound missiles?

If you were Reagan, would you have sent troops to Grenada? To Panama? Sent the bombers to Lybia in retaliation to terrorist attack?

If you were George H.W. Bush, would you have gone to Kuwait and Saudi Arabia's rescue?

If you were Bill Clinton, would you have joined the effort to stop the genocide in Kosovo? Would you have used military force to enforce sanctions on Saddam Hussein? Retaliated to terrorist attack?

If you were George W. Bush would you have retaliated against the 9/11 attack? Given in to significant congressional pressures to defang Saddam Hussein?

If you were Barack Obama, would you continue to support military efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq, committed the military to get Qadaffi. Would you ignore the genocide going on in Syria?

Would you restrict military action to Congressional declarations of war?

These are not easy questions. They are really uncomfortable questions. They get to us deep down where our deepest convictions and sense of right and wrong are held and bother us. But we don't want to have to decide.

And yet we have a Constitution that allows the President of the United States to order the military to do anything and could easily order it to start WWIII. Is that a good thing? Or not?

Your entire premise presupposes we have no interests abroad, or a right to protect those interests. As worded, your amendment would effectively stop us from responding to immediate threat to our own best interest.

So then, your opinion is that the President should have power to deploy the military however, whenever, wherever he chooses for any reason he wishes? That there should be no consent of Congress for immediate deployment of troops outside of the USA? That there should be no declaration of war if the deployment will involve engagement or risk of combat conditions?

Is that a fair assessment of what your position is?

Within reason. There are already limitations on how long that deployment can last without approval from Congress. You make it sound as if the President can just occupy any country he wishes and then remain there forever. The power does not extend that far.

 

[Foxfyre]

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?

ummm..... thats why the war powers act was changed by The War Powers Resolution of 1973. To STRENGTHEN the President's executive authority. Are you now saying it should be weakened and are you aware of the contents of the Resolution? :

The War Powers Resolution requires the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30 day withdrawal period, without an authorization of the use of military force or a declaration of war.

Yup but the President has those 48 hours. Forty eight hours to act secretly or without counsel of any kind followed by 60 days to stir up enough shit to put us into a full blown shooting war or even trigger WWIII.

Do you want to continue to give him that kind of power?

 

[Foxfyre]

Your entire premise presupposes we have no interests abroad, or a right to protect those interests. As worded, your amendment would effectively stop us from responding to immediate threat to our own best interest.

So then, your opinion is that the President should have power to deploy the military however, whenever, wherever he chooses for any reason he wishes? That there should be no consent of Congress for immediate deployment of troops outside of the USA? That there should be no declaration of war if the deployment will involve engagement or risk of combat conditions?

Is that a fair assessment of what your position is?

Within reason. There are already limitations on how long that deployment can last without approval from Congress. You make it sound as if the President can just occupy any country he wishes and then remain there forever. The power does not extend that far.

It extends far enough to emesh us into conditions that we can't easily extract ourselves from. It extends far enough to allow the President to attack another country so that we will be at war whether we choose to be or not. But thank you for your response. I will put you down as one who has complete faith in the President to exercise such powers judiciously and without prejudice no matter who he is or what party he claims.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

BUT. . . .still trying to maintain focus here. . . .we have had U.S. military in harms way for a very long time now going back many decades before 9/11. Our more leftist doves and some of our more staunch libertarians sometimes accuse us of perpetuating a condition of perpetual war because we have deployed that military presence all over the world and thus created resentment that we are there.

We have active duty U.S. military deployed--working from memory here--I believe in 148 different countries and we maintain 662 bases around the world--if we count military presence in ours plus other people's bases, that number rises to something like 900. Some of these detachments are as few as maybe 10 people, but they are there as U.S. military personnel.

And is the result resentment of our presence? Does that outweigh our ability to have eyes and ears on the ground observing what is happening around the world?

So I still keep coming back to the original question. Do we want the President to continue have the authority to deploy people all over the world, anywhere he wants, however he wishes?

Do you want the President to have to get the consent of Congress BEFORE deploying the military onto foreign soil? Do you want the Congress to make a formal declaration of war before the U.S. military intentionally engages in combat conditions?

The president should have the authority to deploy troops in response to attacks or other emergency situations, but major conflicts should require a declaration of war by Congress. The War Powers Act was passed to avoid future Vietnams, but most of the time it's ignored.
I don't think our founding fathers envisioned a time when our country would be as divided as it is now, or that politicians would choose political expedience over the safety of our troops, or the Constitution itself. I blame immigration.

Bless you S.J. You are the first on this entire thread with sufficient courage of your convictions to actually take a stand on this issue.

If the United States is under attack--either here in our homeland or one of our embassies, I want the President to be notified immediately and for him to have full authority to launch everything we have at whomever is attacking us. That is a no brainer. The Constitution requires the federal government to provide the common defense.

The only problem I have with your position is in that pesky concept of what constitutes a 'major conflict'. Would Kosovo have been a 'major conflict?' How about Grenada? Panama? The Bay of Pigs. Confronting the Russian merchant fleet in the missile crisis? The raid to get bin Laden? Our recent military deployment to Lybia? I personally would have wanted Congressional authority to engage in all those events and in several of them Congress wasn't formally advised until the event was already underway or over.

And there is a part of me that also wants a formal declaration of war before engaging in ANY combat situations anywhere on foreign soil. I once was naive enough to trust the President with such decisions. I no longer have such confidence.

 

[Flopper]

See? Even the staunchest, most hawkish members won't touch this question. Won't even acknowledge it. Why? Because it is the crux of the debate and the most important component in it. It is easy to point fingers and accuse and complain and blame and wring our hands, etc. etc. etc. so long as we aren't in the position of making a decision.

If you were FDR, would you have declared war on Japan knowing that we would also have to fight Germany and its allies?

If you were Truman, would you have sent troops to Korea?

If you were JFK, would you have gotten us into the war in Vietnam? Would you have risked war with Russia to back down those Cuban bound missiles?

If you were Reagan, would you have sent troops to Grenada? To Panama? Sent the bombers to Lybia in retaliation to terrorist attack?

If you were George H.W. Bush, would you have gone to Kuwait and Saudi Arabia's rescue?

If you were Bill Clinton, would you have joined the effort to stop the genocide in Kosovo? Would you have used military force to enforce sanctions on Saddam Hussein? Retaliated to terrorist attack?

If you were George W. Bush would you have retaliated against the 9/11 attack? Given in to significant congressional pressures to defang Saddam Hussein?

If you were Barack Obama, would you continue to support military efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq, committed the military to get Qadaffi. Would you ignore the genocide going on in Syria?

Would you restrict military action to Congressional declarations of war?

These are not easy questions. They are really uncomfortable questions. They get to us deep down where our deepest convictions and sense of right and wrong are held and bother us. But we don't want to have to decide.

And yet we have a Constitution that allows the President of the United States to order the military to do anything and could easily order it to start WWIII. Is that a good thing? Or not?

Your entire premise presupposes we have no interests abroad, or a right to protect those interests. As worded, your amendment would effectively stop us from responding to immediate threat to our own best interest.

So then, your opinion is that the President should have power to deploy the military however, whenever, wherever he chooses for any reason he wishes? That there should be no consent of Congress for immediate deployment of troops outside of the USA? That there should be no declaration of war if the deployment will involve engagement or risk of combat conditions?

Is that a fair assessment of what your position is?

By troops, do you include military advisers, Marine and Seal team rescues, military actions to stop eminent attacks on the US or our allies, air attacks on terrorist facilities, and US troop normally assigned to NATO or the UN? If your answer is yes, mine is no.

 

[S.J.]

BUT. . . .still trying to maintain focus here. . . .we have had U.S. military in harms way for a very long time now going back many decades before 9/11. Our more leftist doves and some of our more staunch libertarians sometimes accuse us of perpetuating a condition of perpetual war because we have deployed that military presence all over the world and thus created resentment that we are there.

We have active duty U.S. military deployed--working from memory here--I believe in 148 different countries and we maintain 662 bases around the world--if we count military presence in ours plus other people's bases, that number rises to something like 900. Some of these detachments are as few as maybe 10 people, but they are there as U.S. military personnel.

And is the result resentment of our presence? Does that outweigh our ability to have eyes and ears on the ground observing what is happening around the world?

So I still keep coming back to the original question. Do we want the President to continue have the authority to deploy people all over the world, anywhere he wants, however he wishes?

Do you want the President to have to get the consent of Congress BEFORE deploying the military onto foreign soil? Do you want the Congress to make a formal declaration of war before the U.S. military intentionally engages in combat conditions?

The president should have the authority to deploy troops in response to attacks or other emergency situations, but major conflicts should require a declaration of war by Congress. The War Powers Act was passed to avoid future Vietnams, but most of the time it's ignored.
I don't think our founding fathers envisioned a time when our country would be as divided as it is now, or that politicians would choose political expedience over the safety of our troops, or the Constitution itself. I blame immigration.

Bless you S.J. You are the first on this entire thread with sufficient courage of your convictions to actually take a stand on this issue.

If the United States is under attack--either here in our homeland or one of our embassies, I want the President to be notified immediately and for him to have full authority to launch everything we have at whomever is attacking us. That is a no brainer. The Constitution requires the federal government to provide the common defense.

The only problem I have with your position is in that pesky concept of what constitutes a 'major conflict'. Would Kosovo have been a 'major conflict?' How about Grenada? Panama? The Bay of Pigs. Confronting the Russian merchant fleet in the missile crisis? The raid to get bin Laden? Our recent military deployment to Lybia? I personally would have wanted Congressional authority to engage in all those events and in several of them Congress wasn't formally advised until the event was already underway or over.

And there is a part of me that also wants a formal declaration of war before engaging in ANY combat situations anywhere on foreign soil. I once was naive enough to trust the President with such decisions. I no longer have such confidence.

It's not an "either, or" kind of thing, unfortunately. Like you said, we can't always trust our president (or Congress) to do the right thing. A lot more thought and debate is needed before we find a solution. Sadly, these decisions are often made according to how many votes they will produce (or cost) in the next elections. It didn't use to be that way.

 

[Foxfyre]

Your entire premise presupposes we have no interests abroad, or a right to protect those interests. As worded, your amendment would effectively stop us from responding to immediate threat to our own best interest.

So then, your opinion is that the President should have power to deploy the military however, whenever, wherever he chooses for any reason he wishes? That there should be no consent of Congress for immediate deployment of troops outside of the USA? That there should be no declaration of war if the deployment will involve engagement or risk of combat conditions?

Is that a fair assessment of what your position is?

By troops, do you include military advisers, Marine and Seal team rescues, military actions to stop eminent attacks on the US or our allies, air attacks on terrorist facilities, and US troop normally assigned to NATO or the UN? If your answer is yes, mine is no.

I didn't specify did I? I asked you if you wanted the President to have full authority to decide when, where, how, and WHY the military should be deployed in ALL circumstances. What happens if he doesn't exercise good judgment or act out of righteous motives is a separate issue.

Do you want the President to have the authority whether he uses that authority well or uses that authority badly?

 

[Contumacious]

So again. Would any of us agree to a constitutional amendment that our military could not be deployed on foreign soil for any peace keeping or military action without a congressional declaration of war?

See? Even the staunchest, most hawkish members won't touch this question. Won't even acknowledge it. Why? Because it is the crux of the debate and the most important component in it. It is easy to point fingers and accuse and complain and blame and wring our hands, etc. etc. etc. so long as we aren't in the position of making a decision.

If you were FDR, would you have declared war on Japan knowing that we would also have to fight Germany and its allies?

If you were Truman, would you have sent troops to Korea?

If you were JFK, would you have gotten us into the war in Vietnam? Would you have risked war with Russia to back down those Cuban bound missiles?

If you were Reagan, would you have sent troops to Grenada? To Panama? Sent the bombers to Lybia in retaliation to terrorist attack?

If you were George H.W. Bush, would you have gone to Kuwait and Saudi Arabia's rescue?

If you were Bill Clinton, would you have joined the effort to stop the genocide in Kosovo? Would you have used military force to enforce sanctions on Saddam Hussein? Retaliated to terrorist attack?

If you were George W. Bush would you have retaliated against the 9/11 attack? Given in to significant congressional pressures to defang Saddam Hussein?

If you were Barack Obama, would you continue to support military efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq, committed the military to get Qadaffi. Would you ignore the genocide going on in Syria?

Would you restrict military action to Congressional declarations of war?

These are not easy questions. They are really uncomfortable questions. They get to us deep down where our deepest convictions and sense of right and wrong are held and bother us. But we don't want to have to decide.

And yet we have a Constitution that allows the President of the United States to order the military to do anything and could easily order it to start WWIII. Is that a good thing? Or not?

Your entire premise presupposes we have no interests abroad, or a right to protect those interests. As worded, your amendment would effectively stop us from responding to immediate threat to our own best interest.

THERE ARE NO INTERESTS ABROAD WHICH CONGRESS IS CONSTITUTIONALLY AUTHORIZED TO PROTECT.




Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none.

Thomas Jefferson

.

 

[Foxfyre]

See? Even the staunchest, most hawkish members won't touch this question. Won't even acknowledge it. Why? Because it is the crux of the debate and the most important component in it. It is easy to point fingers and accuse and complain and blame and wring our hands, etc. etc. etc. so long as we aren't in the position of making a decision.

If you were FDR, would you have declared war on Japan knowing that we would also have to fight Germany and its allies?

If you were Truman, would you have sent troops to Korea?

If you were JFK, would you have gotten us into the war in Vietnam? Would you have risked war with Russia to back down those Cuban bound missiles?

If you were Reagan, would you have sent troops to Grenada? To Panama? Sent the bombers to Lybia in retaliation to terrorist attack?

If you were George H.W. Bush, would you have gone to Kuwait and Saudi Arabia's rescue?

If you were Bill Clinton, would you have joined the effort to stop the genocide in Kosovo? Would you have used military force to enforce sanctions on Saddam Hussein? Retaliated to terrorist attack?

If you were George W. Bush would you have retaliated against the 9/11 attack? Given in to significant congressional pressures to defang Saddam Hussein?

If you were Barack Obama, would you continue to support military efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq, committed the military to get Qadaffi. Would you ignore the genocide going on in Syria?

Would you restrict military action to Congressional declarations of war?

These are not easy questions. They are really uncomfortable questions. They get to us deep down where our deepest convictions and sense of right and wrong are held and bother us. But we don't want to have to decide.

And yet we have a Constitution that allows the President of the United States to order the military to do anything and could easily order it to start WWIII. Is that a good thing? Or not?

Your entire premise presupposes we have no interests abroad, or a right to protect those interests. As worded, your amendment would effectively stop us from responding to immediate threat to our own best interest.

THERE ARE NO INTERESTS ABROAD WHICH CONGRESS IS CONSTITUTIONALLY AUTHORIZED TO PROTECT.




Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none.

Thomas Jefferson

.

So what is your point with this, Contumacious? Are you saying you do not want the President to deploy troops on foreign soil without the express consent of Congress? Or that Congress must declare war before the President can authorize troops to be in combat conditions?

 

[Erand7899]

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.

How about we just surrender, and claim victory? We are in a perpetual war with Islamic terrorists for one simple reason. They are in a perpetual war with us. They are not going to stop hitting at us, in any way possible, until they destroy us, or we destroy them.

The radical Islamists do not expect victory in months, years, or even decades. They are thinking in generations. They do not believe that Westerners have the guts for prolonged warfare, and they may well be correct in that assumption.

Another simple fact that you should consider, is that a free society cannot protect itself from terrorism, and still remain free. If you doubt this, see how well the battle goes between the police and inner city gangs who use terrorism as a tactic.

That is the primary reason that Bush took the battle to the terrorists, in their own backyards. That forced them to defend their own turf, and took away assets that could have been used in our homeland. That also meant that their terrorist tactics killed other Moslems, and that surely did not endear them with the relatives of those they killed.

Since we are now backing out of the Middle East, we can expect the radicals to once again be plotting big blows within the United States. We have a whole lot of very soft targets.

 

[Contumacious]

Your entire premise presupposes we have no interests abroad, or a right to protect those interests. As worded, your amendment would effectively stop us from responding to immediate threat to our own best interest.

THERE ARE NO INTERESTS ABROAD WHICH CONGRESS IS CONSTITUTIONALLY AUTHORIZED TO PROTECT.




Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none.

Thomas Jefferson

.

So what is your point with this, Contumacious? Are you saying you do not want the President to deploy troops on foreign soil without the express consent of Congress? Or that Congress must declare war before the President can authorize troops to be in combat conditions?

No, I am saying let's invade every country on the face of mother earth.

Fuck the infrastructure and bridges....I have always wanted a watery grave.

.