Are We In A Perpetual State Of War?

[Londoner]

I attended a Ron Paul talk in 2004.

He said the War on Terrorism was classic Big Government - it gives Washington a blank check but leaves the public no measuring device for evaluating whether the money has been correctly or competently spent.

This is because terrorism is too vague. Whereas traditional wars had an actual location and a definable enemy, terrorism is potentially everywhere, and there is no way to defeat it 100%. Any country or state can have a small group of people who want to do evil. And it will never end because there will always be someone who can and will perform violent acts. This is the kind of thing Big Government has always wanted - an amorphous and completely open context for expanding the budget - BUT, the old Republican Party refused to allow it. The old Republican Party, which didn't trust Government with so much money and power is dead.

Ron Paul said that the vagueness gave too much power to the executive branch since they could apply terrorism to any country they wanted to control or influence. The war on terrorism gives Washington a context for invading a country even when there is insufficient reasons since terrorism does not provide enough structure to for weighing the actual threat and, more importantly, whether Washington bureaucrats are capable of responding in such a way that makes things better.

Paul was asked by an audience member why the Righting voter was willing to give Washington a blank check for something so vague. Paul said the GOP has gotten better at silencing alternative voices like him, but also that the party had created a message system that effectively convinced people that the government which was incapable of running a laundromat was somehow capable of rebuilding the Arab world. He pointed out that this is the kind of contradiction that only works with lie-informations zombie, and then ended the talk by saying we should send more time thinking about and questioning our own party...

 

[Flopper]

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?

Requiring congressional action to put any military personnel on foreign soil may have made sense two hundred years ago, but not today. This could make it virtually impossible to affect a rescue on foreign soil, capture terrorists, prevent an attack on the US or our allies, or participate in almost any kind covert action abroad.

If the president misuses his authority Congress or the American people can act.

 

[Foxfyre]

[/B]

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.

.

Sorry. Non sequitur response. We aren't discussing infrastructure or bridges or even the cost of maintaining a military.

The topic here is a "perpetual state of war." And because we seem to be in such a state and most here point to the President, whoever he might be, as the catalyst for that, I have suggested that we start with Presidential and Congrssional powers to address the condition of a perpetual state of war.

Unless we agree on what the President and Congress's respective roles should be--not what they are but what they should be--we are probably doomed to be in a perpetual state of war from now on. Those who want that or just want to enjoy moral indignation and point fingers and accuse somebody won't care.

Those of us who do care will approach the issue from a more realistic perspective and recognize that it really does hinge on what powers we allow the President and Congress.

So do you want the President to have the powers he currently has which include the power to start a war? Or not?

 

[Derideo_Te]

The "War on Terror" was absolutely not started by George W. Bush. Consider the attack and taking hostage of 52 Americans at our Iranian embassy--those hostages were held for 444 consecutive days. That was Jimmy Carter.

The next President, Reagan, presided over a Muslim attack on our Marine barracks in Lebanon - 299 American and French personnel were killed. And there were other incidents during those eight years too. George H.W. Bush had to deal with a militant Saddam Hussein requiring deployment of troops in Desert Storm in addition to other incidents. Bill Clinton had to deal with Arafat (yet again), Kosovo, the first bombing of the World Trade Center and the attack on the USS Cole killing 17 naval personnel and wounding 39 others and maintaining the interminable sanctions on Iraq that in themselves most likely killed more than 50,000 civilians.

George W. Bush, in the aftermath of 9/11 for which he was completely innocent, simply gave a name to the terrorist phenomenon that had been going on for decades and he was determined to tolerate no further. Afghanistan had full sanction of the U.S. Congress and the United Nations. Iraq had full sanction of the U.S. Congress and no objection from the U.N. that had been unable or unwilling to enforce its own sanctions against Iraq.

So you can please just stuff your righteous indignation that only one of those people is the evil one and all the others were wonderful saints or whatever it is you are trying to say there.

My point is, however, would we have engaged in ANY of those military operations if Congress was required to declare war before troops could be deployed?

Would you care to address that?

With all due respect you are conflating war with CRIMES of terrorism. War is waged between NATIONS. Terrorism is a criminal act carried out for religious and/or political purposes. The huge mistake that Bush made was to PROMOTE terrorism from being a criminal act to the level of war. His second mistake was to promote terrorists to the status of "enemy combatants". We are still living with the dire consequences of those mistakes.

So your litany of "acts of terrorism" up to and including 9/11 were all just crimes. The NATO invasion of Iraq had the stated purpose of eliminating Al Queda (which was initially funded by Reagan and who praised them). Having failed to achieve that goal the smart move was to withdraw.

The invasion of Iraq was illegal for a number of reasons. Firstly the administration lied to both Congress and the American people in order to obtain their "consent". (They lied to the UN too as subsequently confirmed by Secretary Powell.) Secondly it was done under the umbrella of the "War on Terror" which named 3 nations as the "Axis of Evil". This was all bogus propaganda and done for the express purpose of misleading the people into supporting this illegal warmongering. The actual cost of the war was grossly underestimated as was the length. There was no consideration given to the aftermath or the plan to withdraw. (Probably because there was no intention of ever doing so.)

So with all of the above context what are the lessons learned? Firstly the criminal acts of terrorism perpetrated prior to the Bush administration were handled in accordance to the rule of law. Subsequently they were promoted to "enemy combatants" and have been denied due process rights in violation of the rulings by the Supreme Court. The waging of war against entire nations in order to root out terrorism costs trillions of taxpayer dollars and the lives and limbs of our finest troops while failing to reach the intended goals. Targeted drone strikes and the use of Seal Team 6 have done more to decimate terrorism at a fraction of the cost than the decade of the failed "War on Terror".

Finally to answer your question, no, we would not have done so had the Bush administration been honest as to the true nature of the threat of terrorism.

Just shaking my head and reminding myself again that haters are gonna hate and will reject any argument that questions their justification for the hate and will refuse to focus on the real issue that is something different than their hate. And while I generally enjoy and respect your posts, I won't engage you further on this lest you turn this thread into just one more "I hate Bush" thread.

What on earth makes you believe that was an "I hate Bush" post? Legitimate criticism is not "hatred" and all presidents make stupid mistakes. Bush Sr was brilliant when it came waging Gulf War 1 but made a complete screw-up of the economy and it cost him a 2nd term that should have been a shoo-in. Clinton screwed up by giving away our taxpayer rights to the airwaves to the special interests for a mere pittance instead of licencing it and ensuring a steady revenue stream. He also couldn't keep his zipper closed. Obama fouled up when he supported the "do-over" in Afghanistan and when he failed to keep his promise on gay marriage. Please note that these are completely bi-partisan criticisms. As an Independent who reserves the right to level criticism on either side as it appears to be warranted there are no "sacred cows". In the Chris Christie thread he is currently the only serious viable Republican candidate in 2016 in spite of costing the state several hundred million by cancelling the tunnel. Taxpayers are going to have to pick up that tab for him but he did a magnificent job during Hurricane Sandy and therefore deserves a 2nd term and a shot at the WH. When it comes to Bush Jr he did a number of things correctly amongst them were the Do-Not-Call legislation and refusing to pardon Scooter Libby.

So please try and address the legitimate issues that I actually raised regarding perpetual war rather than pretending that I am trying to turn this into an "I hate Bush" thread. Thank you.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Derideo-Te's open hatred of George Bush and desire to blame him for all of it ?

Seriously? Posting the truth is not "hatred". Bush Jr was not infallible. Pretending that anyone who posts legitimate criticism of his failures is expressing "open hatred" is ludicrous.

Hatred is a toxic emotion, Foxfyre. It does the hater far more harm than the hated. Hating someone for the mistakes they made is utterly futile. For better or worse he was the President and therefore it is his record that will be ultimate judge of his accomplishments. (He even implied as much himself.)

So here is where we stand. You are making an erroneous assumption about me based upon a single post that I made containing legitimate criticisms of his policies that resulted in the current state of "perpetual war". You can point out exactly where this alleged "hatred" manifested itself or you can refuse to respond to my posts in this thread. Whichever option you chose I would appreciate it if you refrain from tossing out baseless allegations of "Bush hater" against me when responding to other posters. Thank you.

 

[Foxfyre]

Derideo-Te's open hatred of George Bush and desire to blame him for all of it ?

Seriously? Posting the truth is not "hatred". Bush Jr was not infallible. Pretending that anyone who posts legitimate criticism of his failures is expressing "open hatred" is ludicrous.

Hatred is a toxic emotion, Foxfyre. It does the hater far more harm than the hated. Hating someone for the mistakes they made is utterly futile. For better or worse he was the President and therefore it is his record that will be ultimate judge of his accomplishments. (He even implied as much himself.)

So here is where we stand. You are making an erroneous assumption about me based upon a single post that I made containing legitimate criticisms of his policies that resulted in the current state of "perpetual war". You can point out exactly where this alleged "hatred" manifested itself or you can refuse to respond to my posts in this thread. Whichever option you chose I would appreciate it if you refrain from tossing out baseless allegations of "Bush hater" against me when responding to other posters. Thank you.

Seriously, when you go out of your way to express your disdain and opinion of criminality targeted at one administration while giving all others an apparent pass, I will see that as unreasonable 'hatred' of George W. Bush every single time. When you accuse HIM of starting the war on terror when the evidence so clearly contradicts that, I will see that as an unreasonable "hatred" of George W. Bush every single time.

If I'm wrong in my perceptions, then I am wrong. But I call it as I see it. Every single time. You have a lot of company in your perceptions, but I still see it as unreasonable hatred targeted at one individual, every single time.

Most especially when it was non sequitur to the question and myriad scenarios I put to you and focused ONLY on George W. Bush.

 

[georgephillip]

I attended a Ron Paul talk in 2004.

He said the War on Terrorism was classic Big Government - it gives Washington a blank check but leaves the public no measuring device for evaluating whether the money has been correctly or competently spent.

This is because terrorism is too vague. Whereas traditional wars had an actual location and a definable enemy, terrorism is potentially everywhere, and there is no way to defeat it 100%. Any country or state can have a small group of people who want to do evil. And it will never end because there will always be someone who can and will perform violent acts. This is the kind of thing Big Government has always wanted - an amorphous and completely open context for expanding the budget - BUT, the old Republican Party refused to allow it. The old Republican Party, which didn't trust Government with so much money and power is dead.

Ron Paul said that the vagueness gave too much power to the executive branch since they could apply terrorism to any country they wanted to control or influence. The war on terrorism gives Washington a context for invading a country even when there is insufficient reasons since terrorism does not provide enough structure to for weighing the actual threat and, more importantly, whether Washington bureaucrats are capable of responding in such a way that makes things better.

Paul was asked by an audience member why the Righting voter was willing to give Washington a blank check for something so vague. Paul said the GOP has gotten better at silencing alternative voices like him, but also that the party had created a message system that effectively convinced people that the government which was incapable of running a laundromat was somehow capable of rebuilding the Arab world. He pointed out that this is the kind of contradiction that only works with lie-informations zombie, and then ended the talk by saying we should send more time thinking about and questioning our own party...

Paul Craig Roberts is a former Assistant Treasury Secretary in the Reagan Administration and editor of the Wall Street Journal's editorial page with similar thoughts about not only questioning our political parties but also our own personal agendas:

"Have you ever wondered how the government’s misinformation gains traction?

"What I have noticed is that whenever a stunning episode occurs, such as 9/11 or the Boston Marathon bombing, most everyone whether on the right or left goes along with the government’s explanation, because they can hook their agenda to the government’s account.

"The leftwing likes the official stories of Muslims creating terrorist mayhem in America, because it proves their blowback theory and satisfies them that the dispossessed and oppressed can fight back against imperialism.

"The patriotic rightwing likes the official story, because it proves America is attacked for its goodness or because terrorists were allowed in by immigration authorities and nurtured by welfare, or because the government, which can’t do anything right, ignored plentiful warnings."

The Global War on Terror shows signs of coming home to roost.
Questioning and jettisoning corporate-sponsored politicians and our own self-destructive agendas would give Big Government a fight it hasn't faced in over two hundred years.

 

[numan]

The political/economic structure of this country is entirely dependent upon warfare. Without a war, it lacks cohesion and citizens would begin installing economic and political systems more similar to the European social democracies.

We are essentially a fascist-style government.

I think it is an indication of how ga-ga the brainwashed zombies of America are that this can even be proposed as a serious question.

It is a simple matter of history that ever since the Second World War the United States has been a militarized National Security State whose people are kept in line by relentless brainwashing.
.

 

[Wildman]

editec.., impressive looking list, but that list could have started at 1776AD NOT 1945AD the U.S.A. would look no different, this country of ours has had contact with other countries ever since our begining

do you know what "from the Halls of Montezuma to the Shores of Tripoli", mean ? long, long before 1945AD

 

[Kondor3]

Funny how far back the animosity between the Arabs and America goes, isn't it?

"...to the shores of Tripoli..."

... indeed.

And they started that one, too, with their piracy and kidnapping... and we kicked their asses good-and-proper back then, as well...

Oh, and, an excerpt from a relevant Wiki article...

--------------------

"In March 1785, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams went to London to negotiate with Tripoli's envoy, Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman (or Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja). Upon inquiring "concerning the ground of the pretensions to make war upon nations who had done them no injury", the ambassador replied: It was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every mussulman who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise. He said, also, that the man who was the first to board a vessel had one slave over and above his share, and that when they sprang to the deck of an enemy's ship, every sailor held a dagger in each hand and a third in his mouth; which usually struck such terror into the foe that they cried out for quarter at once."

--------------------

Sound familiar, kids?

 

[Derideo_Te]

Derideo-Te's open hatred of George Bush and desire to blame him for all of it ?

Seriously? Posting the truth is not "hatred". Bush Jr was not infallible. Pretending that anyone who posts legitimate criticism of his failures is expressing "open hatred" is ludicrous.

Hatred is a toxic emotion, Foxfyre. It does the hater far more harm than the hated. Hating someone for the mistakes they made is utterly futile. For better or worse he was the President and therefore it is his record that will be ultimate judge of his accomplishments. (He even implied as much himself.)

So here is where we stand. You are making an erroneous assumption about me based upon a single post that I made containing legitimate criticisms of his policies that resulted in the current state of "perpetual war". You can point out exactly where this alleged "hatred" manifested itself or you can refuse to respond to my posts in this thread. Whichever option you chose I would appreciate it if you refrain from tossing out baseless allegations of "Bush hater" against me when responding to other posters. Thank you.

Seriously, when you go out of your way to express your disdain and opinion of criminality targeted at one administration while giving all others an apparent pass, I will see that as unreasonable 'hatred' of George W. Bush every single time. When you accuse HIM of starting the war on terror when the evidence so clearly contradicts that, I will see that as an unreasonable "hatred" of George W. Bush every single time.

If I'm wrong in my perceptions, then I am wrong. But I call it as I see it. Every single time. You have a lot of company in your perceptions, but I still see it as unreasonable hatred targeted at one individual, every single time.

Most especially when it was non sequitur to the question and myriad scenarios I put to you and focused ONLY on George W. Bush.

You completely misread what was actually posted. There were no accusations against the Bush administration of "criminality". Terrorism is a crime, terrorists are criminals. Promoting terrorists AKA criminals to the rank of "enemy combatants" is a MISTAKE. The Bush administration must take responsibility because that egregious mistake happened on their watch. This was a shared responsibility amongst everyone in that administration who were party to that mistake. The president must take ultimate responsibility because it happened on his watch but my personal opinion is that he was mislead by his advisers.

This thread is about the Perpetual State of War. That began with the Cold War and lasted until the collapse of the former Soviet Union in 1989. There were criminal acts of terrorism throughout that period. Primarily it was aircraft hijackings and random bombings. The terrorism continued after the Cold War ended because it had nothing to do with it. The first attack on the World Trade center was treated like the criminal act that it was and subsequently prosecuted and the terrorist criminals are still behind bars. American embassies have been targets of criminal terrorist attacks for decades. The USA does not go to war because of a terrorist bombing of an embassy. If it were to do so America would be at war with Turkey, the Philippines, Cyprus, Malaysia, Portugal, Italy, Peru, Kenya, Tanzania, etc, etc.

Is that what you are advocating? That every single time there is a terrorist attack against any American facility anywhere in the world then this nation must declare war and invade the nation where it happened? Because that is exactly what the failed doctrine of the "War on Terror" mandates.

Bush Doctrine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In his 2010 memoir Decision Points, President Bush articulates his discrete concept of the Bush Doctrine. According to the President, his doctrine consisted of four "prongs," three of them practical, and one idealistic. They are the following: (In his words)

"Make no distinction between terrorists and the nations that harbor them--and hold both to account."
"Take the fight to the enemy overseas before they can attack us again here at home."
"Confront threats before they fully materialize."
"Advance liberty and hope as an alternative to the enemy's ideology of repression and fear."

Right there in his own words former President Bush is advocating a state of perpetual war. That is simply a matter of the factual record and has nothing whatsoever to do with your misperception of "hatred".

 

[editec]

editec.., impressive looking list, but that list could have started at 1776AD NOT 1945AD the U.S.A. would look no different, this country of ours has had contact with other countries ever since our begining

do you know what "from the Halls of Montezuma to the Shores of Tripoli", mean ? long, long before 1945AD

Yup, it could have started in 1789 and it could have also included US/INDIAN WARS, too.

I limited the list to post WWII because otherwise it would have been far too long for this venue.

You're seriously asking an historian and former NAV Medic who served with 3-1 if he knows about the Halls of Montezuma to the Shores of Tripoli"?


Yeah, I think I might have heard of those, mate.

The USA is nearly always involved in either a war or a conflict with somebody.

This nation is awash with blood.

 

[georgephillip]

editec.., impressive looking list, but that list could have started at 1776AD NOT 1945AD the U.S.A. would look no different, this country of ours has had contact with other countries ever since our begining

do you know what "from the Halls of Montezuma to the Shores of Tripoli", mean ? long, long before 1945AD

Yup, it could have started in 1789 and it could have also included US/INDIAN WARS, too.

I limited the list to post WWII because otherwise it would have been far too long for this venue.

You're seriously asking an historian and former NAV Medic who served with 3-1 if he knows about the Halls of Montezuma to the Shores of Tripoli"?


Yeah, I think I might have heard of those, mate.

The USA is nearly always involved in either a war or a conflict with somebody.

This nation is awash with blood.

Luckily we now have NATO to share some of the blood letting:

"US-NATO war crimes in Libya
23 January 2012

"A report released last week by Middle East human rights groups presents extensive evidence of war crimes carried out in Libya by the United States, NATO and their proxy 'rebel' forces during last year’s war, which brought down the regime of Colonel Muammar Gaddafi... "

At its current rate of expansion, look for Libyan and Iraqi troops to participate in NATO's upcoming intervention in Iran.

 

[Billo_Really]

Just shaking my head and reminding myself again that haters are gonna hate and will reject any argument that questions their justification for the hate and will refuse to focus on the real issue that is something different than their hate. And while I generally enjoy and respect your posts, I won't engage you further on this lest you turn this thread into just one more "I hate Bush" thread.

Your post has nothing to do with him, but everything to do with you. Someone simply stating what is part of the historical record has nothing to do with hatred towards Bush. It's holding Bush accountable for the things he did in office, something you seem to be unwilling to do. And quite frankly, your reaction to his post, shows you lack the courage and integrity to deal with the issue of "perpetual war" honestly. Because you can't solve any problem until you break it down to the causal level. So if you're going to ask the question as to whether we are in a "perpetual state of war", you must start the clock at when the war began. Which brings us to Bush. Because he started the wars we are currently fighting.

Bush will be held accountable for those things he is responsible for and there's nothing you and your little "Bush hate" hissy-fits can do to change that.

BTW, thanks for ignoring my earlier post and I understand why you did.

 

[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.

In all due respect I have never in my life presupposed we have no interests abroad. My question does not include the separate issue of what interests we have anywhere.

My question is quite simple and yet so very difficult, and apparently impossible to answer. Or else a whole bunch of people here are unwilling to deal with it.

The question is the PROCESS by which we deploy our troops if we in fact do deploy them.

 

[Foxfyre]

Just shaking my head and reminding myself again that haters are gonna hate and will reject any argument that questions their justification for the hate and will refuse to focus on the real issue that is something different than their hate. And while I generally enjoy and respect your posts, I won't engage you further on this lest you turn this thread into just one more "I hate Bush" thread.

Your post has nothing to do with him, but everything to do with you. Someone simply stating what is part of the historical record has nothing to do with hatred towards Bush. It's holding Bush accountable for the things he did in office, something you seem to be unwilling to do. And quite frankly, your reaction to his post, shows you lack the courage and integrity to deal with the issue of "perpetual war" honestly. Because you can't solve any problem until you break it down to the causal level. So if you're going to ask the question as to whether we are in a "perpetual state of war", you must start the clock at when the war began. Which brings us to Bush. Because he started the wars we are currently fighting.

Bush will be held accountable for those things he is responsible for and there's nothing you and your little "Bush hate" hissy-fits can do to change that.

BTW, thanks for ignoring my earlier post and I understand why you did.

This thread is not about George W. Bush. My objections have been re the distortion of that record via unsupportable accusations and focusing on HIM to the exclusion of all others. I have never defended President Bush when I thought he was wrong. I have railed against his immigration, environmental, entitlement, and energy policies that frankly only a flaming liberal could love. He expanded the powers and scope and size of government in a way that only a liberal would do. I have faulted his prosecutions of both the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and have pointed to mistakes that I know were made.

But I don't hate him as do those who would single him out and accuse him of ridiculous things while giving everybody else a pass. I can at least acknowledge those things that President Bush got right and I don't have to accuse his motives or ethics in order to criticize him. They can say they don't hate him. But their words, focus, and emphasis say something different to me. And my criticizing them for singling him out has no bearing on my appreciation and enjoyment of them on this board either.

I'm just getting too old and too weary to be politically correct any more. And if conservatives don't start standing up on their hind legs and having the courage of their convictions to speak out against what is wrong, amd refuse to accept the revisionist history and foolish nonsense that passes for sociopolitical dialogue these days, we have no hope of restoring the best that this country has to offer.

And the question remains. When we can look back over the past century and even further and see that this country has been at or on the brink of war the entire time, do we accept that as the way things are? Do we continue to give the President the full authority to order the troops into combat situations on his own initiative?

Would we have engaged in all those military actions if the troops could have been deployed only via a congressional declaration of war?

Would you require congress to declare war before troops could be committed to combat conditions? Yes or no?

 

[Contumacious]

Right there in his own words former President Bush is advocating a state of perpetual war. That is simply a matter of the factual record and has nothing whatsoever to do with your misperception of "hatred".

The reason we are in a perpetual war is become powerful factions, ie, war profiteers , benefit from it:

"In 1968, with the expectation of a plum position in the Nixon administration, Henry Kissinger persuaded the south Vietnamese to spike the Paris peace talks with unreasonable demands, promising a better deal under a GOP administration. About a half decade and 20,000 dead Americans later, Kissinger brokered an accord like the one he'd scuppered illegally. But it had already served its purpose: Kissinger destroyed Hubert Humphrey's peace strategy and a huge 1968 campaign plank. Lyndon Johnson refused to publicly condemn Nixon and Kissinger for doing something incredibly fucking illegal (under the Logan Act), lest he be seen to use the office of the president to aggressively campaign for a successor or divulge the shady means with which his evidence had been gathered."

.

 

[NoNukes]

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.

You cannot be stupid enough to believe this. Or, maybe you are.

 

[Foxfyre]

Right there in his own words former President Bush is advocating a state of perpetual war. That is simply a matter of the factual record and has nothing whatsoever to do with your misperception of "hatred".

The reason we are in a perpetual war is become powerful factions, ie, war profiteers , benefit from it:

"In 1968, with the expectation of a plum position in the Nixon administration, Henry Kissinger persuaded the south Vietnamese to spike the Paris peace talks with unreasonable demands, promising a better deal under a GOP administration. About a half decade and 20,000 dead Americans later, Kissinger brokered an accord like the one he'd scuppered illegally. But it had already served its purpose: Kissinger destroyed Hubert Humphrey's peace strategy and a huge 1968 campaign plank. Lyndon Johnson refused to publicly condemn Nixon and Kissinger for doing something incredibly fucking illegal (under the Logan Act), lest he be seen to use the office of the president to aggressively campaign for a successor or divulge the shady means with which his evidence had been gathered."

.

In all due respect, Nixon and Kissinger came AFTER Lyndon Johnson who didn't get us into Vietnam but did send the first combat troops following the Gulf of Tonkin incident and steadily increased our involvement throughout his entire term of office. But the Truman Doctrine, Eisenhower's domino theory, and Kennedy increasing the number of American 'advisors' in Vietnam to about 1600 opened the door for all that. At least Nixon and Kissinger started the process to get us out of Vietnam--a process that was completed by President Ford.

But all that history notwithstanding, the question still remains. Would we have had ten long bloody years in Vietnam at a cost of more than 58,000 American lives and hundreds of thousands of permanently wounded if congress would have had to declare war before we could be there?

Today is Memorial Day and a good day to remember all those who have died in direct combat or because of combat or peace keeping missions just in the 20th and 21st centuries alone..

Phillipine-American war - 1898 - 1913 - 4196 dead

Boxer Rebellion - 1900-1901 - 131 dead

Mexican Revolution - 1914-1919 - 35 dead

Haiti occupation - 1915-1934 - 148 dead

WWI - 1917-1918 - 116,516 dead

North Russia Campaign - 1918-1920 - 424 dead

American Exped. Force Siberia - 1918-1920 - 328 dead

Nicaragua - 1927-1933 - 48 dead

WWII - 1941-1945 - 405,399 dead

Korea - 1950-1953 - 36,516 dead

Vietnam - 1955 - 1975 - 58,209 dead

El Salvador - 1980-1993 - 37 dead

Beirut - 1982-1984 - 266 dead

Grenada - 1983 - 19 dead

Panama - 1989 - 40 dead

Desert Storm - 1990-1991 - 258 dead

Operation Provide Comfort - 1991-1996 - 19 dead

Somalia Intervention - 1992-1995 - 43 dead

Bosnia - 1995-2004 - 12 dead

NATO Air Campaign Yugoslavia - 1999 - 20 dead

Afghanistan 2001-to present - roughly 2,200 dead

Iraq - 2003-2011 - Just under 4500 dead

American War Deaths Through History
Personal disclaimer. The number reported here I believe are pretty close to accurate. There will be some small variances in the numbers here and there when other sources are consulted. Also all deaths reported are not necessarily from enemy fire, but some resulted from various support operations in combat zones.

And again, we have not had a declared war, nor have we won a war, since WWII ended. We start them but don't finish them. We just stop fighting them.

Would we fight them at all if congress had to pass a declaration of war in order to commit American combat troops?

 

[Derideo_Te]

Just shaking my head and reminding myself again that haters are gonna hate and will reject any argument that questions their justification for the hate and will refuse to focus on the real issue that is something different than their hate. And while I generally enjoy and respect your posts, I won't engage you further on this lest you turn this thread into just one more "I hate Bush" thread.

Your post has nothing to do with him, but everything to do with you. Someone simply stating what is part of the historical record has nothing to do with hatred towards Bush. It's holding Bush accountable for the things he did in office, something you seem to be unwilling to do. And quite frankly, your reaction to his post, shows you lack the courage and integrity to deal with the issue of "perpetual war" honestly. Because you can't solve any problem until you break it down to the causal level. So if you're going to ask the question as to whether we are in a "perpetual state of war", you must start the clock at when the war began. Which brings us to Bush. Because he started the wars we are currently fighting.

Bush will be held accountable for those things he is responsible for and there's nothing you and your little "Bush hate" hissy-fits can do to change that.

BTW, thanks for ignoring my earlier post and I understand why you did.

This thread is not about George W. Bush. My objections have been re the distortion of that record via unsupportable accusations

But I don't hate him as do those who would single him out and accuse him of ridiculous things while giving everybody else a pass.

refuse to accept the revisionist history and foolish nonsense that passes for sociopolitical dialogue these days, we have no hope of restoring the best that this country has to offer.

Bush Doctrine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In his 2010 memoir Decision Points, President Bush articulates his discrete concept of the Bush Doctrine. According to the President, his doctrine consisted of four "prongs," three of them practical, and one idealistic. They are the following: (In his words)

"Make no distinction between terrorists and the nations that harbor them--and hold both to account."
"Take the fight to the enemy overseas before they can attack us again here at home."
"Confront threats before they fully materialize."
"Advance liberty and hope as an alternative to the enemy's ideology of repression and fear."

Did Bush distort his own record on his doctrine of preemptive war? Was Bush "hating" himself when he wrote that in his memoirs? Was Bush writing "foolish nonsense that passes for sociopolitical dialogue" in his memoirs?

Would you require congress to declare war before troops could be committed to combat conditions? Yes or no?

Yes. But besides trying to avoid Bush's own words of "justification" for waging perpetual war you need to address the following issues;

1. How do you propose handling an attack that destroyed congress? If they are no longer around to declare war does that mean that the president is now powerless to act to defend the nation because he doesn't have an official declaration of war from congress?

2. How do you intend to stop the nefarious influence on Congress of those who stand to profit from perpetual war?