Are We In A Perpetual State Of War?

[Foxfyre]

I would expect the President, if he survived an attack on Congress that incapacitated Congress, to do what any American would choose to do to protect the country. What would you do?

And otherwise I would require Congress to declare war before the President was authorized to send troops into combat for ANY reason other than to dispel a direct or imminent attack on Americans.

What would you do?

 

[Derideo_Te]

I would expect the President, if he survived an attack on Congress that incapacitated Congress, to do what any American would choose to do to protect the country. What would you do?

And otherwise I would require Congress to declare war before the President was authorized to send troops into combat for ANY reason other than to dispel a direct or imminent attack on Americans.

What would you do?

How exactly is that any different to the War Powers Act?

You didn't address the issue of the special interests malign influence on Congress.

 

[Billo_Really]

This thread is not about George W. Bush.

It might not be about him, but he's part of the answer to the question you posed in the OP.

My objections have been re the distortion of that record via unsupportable accusations and focusing on HIM to the exclusion of all others.

Can you give me an example of an unsupportable accusation?

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.

That's commendable!

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.

Can you give me an example of that?

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.

I can do that to and have done that as well.

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.

That's about you; it's not about them! It's about "your" perception of what someone else say's and how you "choose" to react to it. Like the post we're discussing, I didn't see anything about hating Bush in what that other poster said. He was merely stating what Bush did and how it is relevent to this thread. You reacted like a little 2 year old with his eyes closed and fingers in the ear not wanting to hear something you don't like. That's okay for a 2 year old; it's not okay for a responsible adult to act that way. There is no reason why you couldn't of addressed what he said in a more intelligent manner.

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.

We're in agreement here.

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?

No, we don't continue to give him that authority.

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

I would certainly hope so.

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

Overseas in someone else's country? Absolutely!

Here at home if we're attacked by a significant force? No.

 

[Foxfyre]

I would expect the President, if he survived an attack on Congress that incapacitated Congress, to do what any American would choose to do to protect the country. What would you do?

And otherwise I would require Congress to declare war before the President was authorized to send troops into combat for ANY reason other than to dispel a direct or imminent attack on Americans.

What would you do?

How exactly is that any different to the War Powers Act?

You didn't address the issue of the special interests malign influence on Congress.

I just posted a long list of military combat situations up there in the 20th and 21st centuries. Did you see that? And on that list, since WWII, not a single one of those combat situations involving the deaths of more than 102,000 American military personnel has been a declared war and quite a few of them didn't even involve consent of Congress before the military was already deployed. And that number doesn't even count all our military and other public servants who have been murdered in non combat situations. The attack at Benghazi, for instance, doesn't show up on that list.

I am not focusing on the REASONS here. That is for a different topic. A different thread. There are dozens of "I hate Bush", "I hate Republicans", "I hate the military industrial complex", etc. etc. etc. threads out there to hash out motives, reasons, wrongs, greed, etc. etc. etc.

My question remains. Do you want Congress to declare war before the President can commit our troops to combat for any reason other than to defend Americans that are under attack?

And that is different from the War Powers Act because the President currently can deploy troops for 48 hours without the consent of anybody or even notifying anybody, and can keep them deployed for up to 60 days without authorization of Congress.

 

[Billo_Really]

You didn't address the issue of the special interests malign influence on Congress.

Eisenhower did when he was leaving office.

 

[Foxfyre]

You didn't address the issue of the special interests malign influence on Congress.

Eisenhower did when he was leaving office.

That may certainly be a factor in why we see that long list of military combat situations up there. It is something we definitely need to look at. It should even be a consideration in whether we want to give one man, the President, sole authority to order our military into combat. But other than being a factor in who to trust to make life and death decisions involving Americans, it is irrelevent in the O.P. The question is are we at perpetual war. Since 9/11, the answer is yes and even throughout the 20th and 21st centuries the threat of war and/or the threat of war has existed.

Do you trust every President, even George W. Bush, to make the right decisions about that? He in fact did get permission from Congress and the U.N. before deploying troops. Congress gave its consent, but it made no declaration of war. Should it have? Would we be in perpetual war if that had been a requirement?

Or should we remove the constitutional authority from the President to make the call when there is no imminent threat to American lives and require congress to make an official declaration of war before we commit our military to combat conditions on foreign soil?

 

[freedombecki]

Can anyone on this Board right now, remember a time when our Nation wasn't involved in some sort of military action? Curious to see what you all think. Thanks.

Sometimes we don't understand the enemy and what would truly stop them. When leadership does stand up to them, the cancer we have developed within, in Ivy League schools and associated universities organize their own war against the United States, sabotaging every effort by preaching confused philosophies to America's kids who buy the farm on a failed political system and become sycophants to it.

A case in point is a pair of university professors who killed a San Francisco cop, bought their way out of it with lies, and today spread their continuing destructive ways, unabated, to university people who agree the USA must go. They launched the present Administration that is bent on division and humiliating America in the world to redeem themselves with international enemies who truly despise us.

 

[Derideo_Te]

I would expect the President, if he survived an attack on Congress that incapacitated Congress, to do what any American would choose to do to protect the country. What would you do?

And otherwise I would require Congress to declare war before the President was authorized to send troops into combat for ANY reason other than to dispel a direct or imminent attack on Americans.

What would you do?

How exactly is that any different to the War Powers Act?

You didn't address the issue of the special interests malign influence on Congress.

I just posted a long list of military combat situations up there in the 20th and 21st centuries. Did you see that? And on that list, since WWII, not a single one of those combat situations involving the deaths of more than 102,000 American military personnel has been a declared war and quite a few of them didn't even involve consent of Congress before the military was already deployed. And that number doesn't even count all our military and other public servants who have been murdered in non combat situations. The attack at Benghazi, for instance, doesn't show up on that list.

I am not focusing on the REASONS here. That is for a different topic. A different thread. There are dozens of "I hate Bush", "I hate Republicans", "I hate the military industrial complex", etc. etc. etc. threads out there to hash out motives, reasons, wrongs, greed, etc. etc. etc.

My question remains. Do you want Congress to declare war before the President can commit our troops to combat for any reason other than to defend Americans that are under attack?

And that is different from the War Powers Act because the President currently can deploy troops for 48 hours without the consent of anybody or even notifying anybody, and can keep them deployed for up to 60 days without authorization of Congress.

The WPA provides the president with "emergency powers". The failure of Congress to live up to it's responsibility as far as declaring war is concerned is no different to it's failure to prepare a budget and it has delegated both responsibilities to the Executive branch in real terms.

Do you trust Congress more than you trust whomever happens to sit in the WH? Neither of them have a track record that gives me any confidence that they will get it right. The Founding Fathers gave the responsibility to Congress in the belief that a deliberative body would make a wiser choice than a single person. We have more than a century of evidence that Congress can be duped so that means that it is no better at making the right decision.

There needs to be a checklist;

1. Whose interests does this war serve? If it not clearly a matter of defending the American people from actual attacks then the answer is that it is NOT in the interests of the American people and no declaration of war should be passed or signed by the president.

2. Has the nation been attacked in a manner that will result in the destruction of the American way of life and/or the upholding of the Constitution? If the answer is that it does neither then again no declaration of war should occur.

Probably add a few more but that is the place to start. If the situation doesn't meet the conditions on the checklist then it cannot be a legitimate declaration of war. Without that no troops can be deployed.

 

[Billo_Really]

That may certainly be a factor in why we see that long list of military combat situations up there. It is something we definitely need to look at. It should even be a consideration in whether we want to give one man, the President, sole authority to order our military into combat. But other than being a factor in who to trust to make life and death decisions involving Americans, it is irrelevent in the O.P. The question is are we at perpetual war. Since 9/11, the answer is yes and even throughout the 20th and 21st centuries the threat of war has existed.

Well, I agree we're in a perpetual state of war.

Do you trust every President, even George W. Bush, to make the right decisions about that? He in fact did get permission from Congress and the U.N. before deploying troops. Congress gave its consent, but it made no declaration of war. Should it have? Would be be in perpetual war if that had been a requirement?

Bush did not get permission from Congress to invade. It was conditional upon Iraq being a threat to our national security, which they never came close to being. The UN never gave the green light to invade. Bush submitted a resolution to the UNSC granting the use of military force, but withdrew it when it became clear it wouldn't of passed.

Or should we remove the constitutional authority from the President to make the call when there is no imminent threat to American lives and require congress to make an official declaration of war before we commit our military to combat conditions on foreign soil?

He should have the authority when the threat is imminent and not have the authority when a declaration is required.

 

[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."

.

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.

Excuse me , LBJ died in 1973 and far as i can remember there was nothing wrong with his tongue or intellect .

The problem was that LBJ was also a criminal who attempted to sink the USS Liberty and its crew to the bottom of the Mediterranean sea in order to have a pretext to invade Egypt, then a Soviet satellite..

.

.

 

[Flopper]

You didn't address the issue of the special interests malign influence on Congress.

Eisenhower did when he was leaving office.

That may certainly be a factor in why we see that long list of military combat situations up there. It is something we definitely need to look at. It should even be a consideration in whether we want to give one man, the President, sole authority to order our military into combat. But other than being a factor in who to trust to make life and death decisions involving Americans, it is irrelevent in the O.P. The question is are we at perpetual war. Since 9/11, the answer is yes and even throughout the 20th and 21st centuries the threat of war and/or the threat of war has existed.

Do you trust every President, even George W. Bush, to make the right decisions about that? He in fact did get permission from Congress and the U.N. before deploying troops. Congress gave its consent, but it made no declaration of war. Should it have? Would be be in perpetual war if that had been a requirement?

Or should we remove the constitutional authority from the President to make the call when there is no imminent threat to American lives and require congress to make an official declaration of war before we commit our military to combat conditions on foreign soil?

When planning the use of military force against individuals not nations, it would seem a declaration of war or even asking congressional approval might be inappropriate. Sometimes the decision to us military force must be rapidly and covert. For example, it would make no sense to seek approval of congress to use a seal team to capture a top terrorist plotting against the US, stop a huge drug shipment that will end up in the US, or a rescue attempt. Some use of military force must be at the president's discretion.

 

[Billo_Really]

When planning the use of military force against individuals not nations, it would seem a declaration of war or even asking congressional approval might be inappropriate. Sometimes the decision to us military force must be rapidly and covert. For example, it would make no sense to seek approval of congress to use a seal team to capture a top terrorist plotting against the US, stop a huge drug shipment that will end up in the US, or a rescue attempt. Some use of military force must be at the president's discretion.

And in the case of the Iraq war it makes no sense whatsoever, because there was no need to rush to war.

 

[Foxfyre]

How exactly is that any different to the War Powers Act?

You didn't address the issue of the special interests malign influence on Congress.

I just posted a long list of military combat situations up there in the 20th and 21st centuries. Did you see that? And on that list, since WWII, not a single one of those combat situations involving the deaths of more than 102,000 American military personnel has been a declared war and quite a few of them didn't even involve consent of Congress before the military was already deployed. And that number doesn't even count all our military and other public servants who have been murdered in non combat situations. The attack at Benghazi, for instance, doesn't show up on that list.

I am not focusing on the REASONS here. That is for a different topic. A different thread. There are dozens of "I hate Bush", "I hate Republicans", "I hate the military industrial complex", etc. etc. etc. threads out there to hash out motives, reasons, wrongs, greed, etc. etc. etc.

My question remains. Do you want Congress to declare war before the President can commit our troops to combat for any reason other than to defend Americans that are under attack?

And that is different from the War Powers Act because the President currently can deploy troops for 48 hours without the consent of anybody or even notifying anybody, and can keep them deployed for up to 60 days without authorization of Congress.

The WPA provides the president with "emergency powers". The failure of Congress to live up to it's responsibility as far as declaring war is concerned is no different to it's failure to prepare a budget and it has delegated both responsibilities to the Executive branch in real terms.

Do you trust Congress more than you trust whomever happens to sit in the WH? Neither of them have a track record that gives me any confidence that they will get it right. The Founding Fathers gave the responsibility to Congress in the belief that a deliberative body would make a wiser choice than a single person. We have more than a century of evidence that Congress can be duped so that means that it is no better at making the right decision.

There needs to be a checklist;

1. Whose interests does this war serve? If it not clearly a matter of defending the American people from actual attacks then the answer is that it is NOT in the interests of the American people and no declaration of war should be passed or signed by the president.

2. Has the nation been attacked in a manner that will result in the destruction of the American way of life and/or the upholding of the Constitution? If the answer is that it does neither then again no declaration of war should occur.

Probably add a few more but that is the place to start. If the situation doesn't meet the conditions on the checklist then it cannot be a legitimate declaration of war. Without that no troops can be deployed.

President Obama came under withering criticism from both Republicans and Democrats when he ordered Tomahawk Missiles fired into Lybia last year. No boots were on the ground at that time, but obviously this would be regarded by any country as an 'act of war' and could easily have generated retalitory fire. And it was revealed later that U.S. military would likely be involved in 'keeping the peace' in the aftermath. Dennis Kucinich, one of the most liberal Democrats, even suggested that on this face of this, Obama consulted with nobody and actions that could initiate a shooting war was, on the face of it, could be an 'impeachable offense.'

I'm quite certain Obama would have gone further with this if it hadn't been for the severe criticism even from his own party.

The Administration's response was that the operation was limited in scope, duration, and task which falls within the President's jurisdiction.

So yes, I trust Congress more than I trust a President to make a call like that. But I don't trust Congress, any more than the President, to be honest about their motives. And if we make it too easy for the President or Congress to do whatever based on whatever motive they come up with, then I think we will be at perpetual war for long into the future.

That incident didn't turn into a shooting war, but we were lucky. It does underscore how easily a Presidential decision re our military could put us at risk of yet another war, however.

http://abcnews.go.com/International...gadhafi-forces/story?id=13174246#.UaOgTzbnapo

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/51595.html

 

[paulitician]

How bout giving Peace a chance? Why does that seem so impossible to so many?

 

[Foxfyre]

How bout giving Peace a chance? Why does that seem so impossible to so many?

However much we long for peace and are willing to be peaceful, there will be those who out of religious fanaticism or out of illusions of grandeur or out of intent to conquer or punish or coerce or out of sheer craziness will do violence to us. Our greatest chance for peace is to be so strong nobody can prevail against us and few will even try.

And we must allow the President and our other elected leaders the ability to protect us against those who would do violence to us.

But firing Tomahawk missiles into Lybia is not a peaceful act. And, no doubt generates considerable impulse to shoot back or retaliate.

In WWII we gave no quarter, pulled no punches, and used as much overwhelming force as we could muster to defeat our enemies. We accepted nothing other than unconditional surrender and we got it. And then, in typical American fashion, we gave a hand up for our enemy to rebuild but rebuild as our friends and allies, not our enemies.

But it seems we learned nothing from that. Now we fight war after war after war but we do pull our punches and we no longer seem to have the will to win. At some point we just stop fighting them.

I say if we aren't going to win, if we are just going to leave a wounded and dangerous enemy in place of an unattacked one, let's don't go to war at all. If we are going to commit our troops on hostle foreign soil, let Congress declare war and let's throw everything we have at the enemy. And crush him.

Otherwise, let's just don't do it.

 

[Flopper]

When planning the use of military force against individuals not nations, it would seem a declaration of war or even asking congressional approval might be inappropriate. Sometimes the decision to us military force must be rapidly and covert. For example, it would make no sense to seek approval of congress to use a seal team to capture a top terrorist plotting against the US, stop a huge drug shipment that will end up in the US, or a rescue attempt. Some use of military force must be at the president's discretion.

And in the case of the Iraq war it makes no sense whatsoever, because there was no need to rush to war.

Actually, Bush did take it to Congress to get a resolution for the use military force, but not a declaration of war. The problem with a declaration of war is there is an expectation of total victory. Today most military actions are aimed at achieving some limited goals which may be well short of what we perceive as a victorious end of conflict. In short, no ticker tape parades or victory marches for our heroes

 

[freedombecki]

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.
.

It's simple. They have to have their bananas.

 

[S.J.]

Even when the president gets consent of Congress, it doesn't safeguard against anything. They can be deceived too.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/15/world/asia/15vietnam.html?_r=0

 

[paulitician]

How bout giving Peace a chance? Why does that seem so impossible to so many?

However much we long for peace and are willing to be peaceful, there will be those who out of religious fanaticism or out of illusions of grandeur or out of intent to conquer or punish or coerce or out of sheer craziness will do violence to us. Our greatest chance for peace is to be so strong nobody can prevail against us and few will even try.

And we must allow the President and our other elected leaders the ability to protect us against those who would do violence to us.

But firing Tomahawk missiles into Lybia is not a peaceful act. And, no doubt generates considerable impulse to shoot back or retaliate.

In WWII we gave no quarter, pulled no punches, and used as much overwhelming force as we could muster to defeat our enemies. We accepted nothing other than unconditional surrender and we got it. And then, in typical American fashion, we gave a hand up for our enemy to rebuild but rebuild as our friends and allies, not our enemies.

But it seems we learned nothing from that. Now we fight war after war after war but we do pull our punches and we no longer seem to have the will to win. At some point we just stop fighting them.

I say if we aren't going to win, if we are just going to leave a wounded and dangerous enemy in place of an unattacked one, let's don't go to war at all. If we are going to commit our troops on hostle foreign soil, let Congress declare war and let's throw everything we have at the enemy. And crush him.

Otherwise, let's just don't do it.

Well said. Yeah, it's time to give Peace a chance. Endless War has proven to be extremely exhausting and expensive. It's time to put the time of World's Policeman/Referee behind us. The People are now longing for that. Time to come home. Hopefully, more Politicians will step up and move us in that direction.

 

[MikeK]

Can anyone on this Board right now, remember a time when our Nation wasn't involved in some sort of military action? Curious to see what you all think. Thanks.

Yes. And luckily for me that time was the mid-1950s to early 1960s, the period between Korea and Vietnam. I was too young to enlist during Korea and my parents wouldn't sign for me, so I enlisted in the Marine Corps in 1956, which was the midst of the calm. I separated in 1960, which was three years before the Vietnam debacle got started.