Are We In A Perpetual State Of War?

[Foxfyre]

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

For sure the Gulf of Tonkin incident has been showing up on more conspiracy threads than history threads in recent years. Which probably inspired the NY Times reporter to look into it.

But I am quite certain that neither Lyndon Johnson nor anybody in Congress ever even considered that Vietnam would escalate to the decade of massive bloody mess it became. Any more than President Bush or the Congress ever envisioned that Vietnam or Iraq would turn out the way they have. In all these cases they expected limited military action to get an enemy to back off, cease, desist, and be no trouble to us thereafter. Sometimes our military ventures turn out that way. But it didn't turn out that way in Vietnam, in Afghanistan, or in Iraq. And in all cases when we choose to just stop fighting a war instead of winning a war, we leave perpetual enemies in our wake.

One of the traits of a Republic is that the people will support righteous retribution when warranted, but they also will quickly become war weary. The American people are currently very war weary.

But we have a President who doesn't seem to notice and who may or may not care about that. And who may or may not exercise the judgment that most of us would consider good judgment.

And he has full power to order military action that could result in our getting involved in another perpetual war at any time.

 

[usmcstinger]

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.

Are you too lazy to find out for yourself?

 

[georgephillip]

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

Halliburton knows:

"The accounting of the financial cost of the nearly decade-long Iraq War will go on for years, but a recent analysis has shed light on the companies that made money off the war by providing support services as the privatization of what were former U.S. military operations rose to unprecedented levels.

"Private or publicly listed firms received at least $138 billion of U.S. taxpayer money for government contracts for services that included providing private security, building infrastructure and feeding the troops."

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

Thank you, thank you, thank you for offering a non-partisan, non judgmental, non ideological as well as a very well thought out argument based on a concept and principle rather than partisan finger pointing. You, and you alone, have offered a reasoned rebuttal to my now no doubt tiresome assertions here. I appreciate that.

And you have introduced an important element into the debate as well as making me back up and rethink that part of the equation.

Special ops may indeed need to be separated from combat operations. I will need to think about that some more and promise to do so.

But could you explain why it would be inappropriate to consult with Congress in the excellent examples you provided? Could not Congress establish a policy allowing the President limited discretion in such events? For example, it wouldn't be like we didn't know the terrorist was out there. And just as you have added some additional perspective that is requiring me to rethink some thngs, would it not be advisable to have more than one head involved in covert operations.? Maybe it would help us avoid overlooking some really bad unintended consequences?

 

[Contumacious]

Special ops may indeed need to be separated from combat operations. I will need to think about that some more and promise to do so.

?

EVERYTHING the federal government needed was provided to them in 1787.



Article 1 of the United States Constitution lists issuing letters of marque and reprisal in Section 8 as one of the enumerated powers of Congress, alongside the power to tax and to "declare War.

Letters of marquee and reprisal grant the president the authority to use letters of marque and reprisal against the specific terrorists, instead of warring against a foreign state.

They refuse to do so , once again proving that retaliation is not the issue - there are hidden agendas which are not disclosed.

.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

Are you too lazy to find out for yourself?

How do we find out what you think unless we ask? Is there a website we can go to for that information?

Meanwhile some of us appreciate an opportunity to think about the topic and discuss it. Is that okay with you?

 

[Foxfyre]

Special ops may indeed need to be separated from combat operations. I will need to think about that some more and promise to do so.

?

EVERYTHING the federal government needed was provided to them in 1787.

Article 1 of the United States Constitution lists issuing letters of marque and reprisal in Section 8 as one of the enumerated powers of Congress, alongside the power to tax and to "declare War.

Letters of marquee and reprisal grant the president the authority to use letters of marque and reprisal against the specific terrorists, instead of warring against a foreign state.

They refuse to do so , once again proving that retaliation is not the issue - there are hidden agendas which are not disclosed.

.

But in 1787, the powers given to the federal government were extremely restricted and limited. The Founders, while they did not all agree on everything and did not march in lockstep on everything, were all agreed that the President and the Congress would not overstep their authority with impunity. And because they elected public servants instead of career politicians, there was little or no motive and nothing to be gained by overstepping their authority.

It is a very different world now. Theodore Roosevelt turned the Constitution on its head when he declared that the government could do anything the Constitution did not expressly forbid rather than restricting the government to what the Constitution expressly permitted. Perhaps because nobody of his era could imagine Americans ever using government in a self serving and corrupt way as we see now, nobody bothered to rise up and object to that then.

We have paid a heavy price for them not doing so.

And I think we are naive if we think that it is unthinkable that a modern U.S. President would not use his powers to start a war for his own reasons if he had sufficient personal incentive to do so.

And THAT is why I found this topic interesting and provocative and worth discussing and thinking through.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Special ops may indeed need to be separated from combat operations. I will need to think about that some more and promise to do so.

?

EVERYTHING the federal government needed was provided to them in 1787.



Article 1 of the United States Constitution lists issuing letters of marque and reprisal in Section 8 as one of the enumerated powers of Congress, alongside the power to tax and to "declare War.

Letters of marquee and reprisal grant the president the authority to use letters of marque and reprisal against the specific terrorists, instead of warring against a foreign state.

They refuse to do so , once again proving that retaliation is not the issue - there are hidden agendas which are not disclosed.

.

The agenda is nothing more than profits for the special interests that control Congress. The problem is figuring out how to stop this before it ruins the nation.

 

[Beachboy]

Ultra liberal Bill Maher actually said it better than I could. The video is at the bottom of the link. This was Maher's commentary to North Korea when they were threatening war a couple months ago.

Daily Kos: Bill Maher: 'We Are The War People.. Anything With War In The Title We Are So There' (VIDEO)

Bill Maher's Real Time is on HBO where there is no censorship.
Maher does bring on conservative guests to his panel.
Best of all there are no commercials!​

 

[Billo_Really]

How do we find out what you think unless we ask? Is there a website we can go to for that information?

Meanwhile some of us appreciate an opportunity to think about the topic and discuss it. Is that okay with you?

Well said.

 

[Beachboy]

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.

Are you too lazy to find out for yourself?

How do we find out what you think unless we ask? Is there a website we can go to for that information?

Meanwhile some of us appreciate an opportunity to think about the topic and discuss it. Is that okay with you?

Your point is well taken, but there are a lot of lazy posters who do not consult Google before they post. I come here to debate with knowledgeable people, not do research for the ignorant.

 

[Billo_Really]

Your point is well taken, but there are a lot of lazy posters who do not consult Google before they post. I come here to debate with knowledgeable people, not do research for the ignorant.

Kowabunga! Let's do it, dude! This is awesome!

 

[RKMBrown]

Yes. We have been in a perpetual state of war since the North invaded the South.

 

[Contumacious]

Special ops may indeed need to be separated from combat operations. I will need to think about that some more and promise to do so.

?

EVERYTHING the federal government needed was provided to them in 1787.



Article 1 of the United States Constitution lists issuing letters of marque and reprisal in Section 8 as one of the enumerated powers of Congress, alongside the power to tax and to "declare War.

Letters of marquee and reprisal grant the president the authority to use letters of marque and reprisal against the specific terrorists, instead of warring against a foreign state.

They refuse to do so , once again proving that retaliation is not the issue - there are hidden agendas which are not disclosed.

.

The agenda is nothing more than profits for the special interests that control Congress. The problem is figuring out how to stop this before it ruins the nation.

Yes, indeed.

The Military Industrial Complex will let nothing stand in the way of profits.

LBJ was willing to send the [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=fRZSzdQuOqM#!"]USS Liberty and its sailors to the bottom of the Mediterranean Sea[/ame] in order to allow the MIC to extend its sphere of interest to Egypt.

.

 

[Flopper]

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.

Thank you, thank you, thank you for offering a non-partisan, non judgmental, non ideological as well as a very well thought out argument based on a concept and principle rather than partisan finger pointing. You, and you alone, have offered a reasoned rebuttal to my now no doubt tiresome assertions here. I appreciate that.

And you have introduced an important element into the debate as well as making me back up and rethink that part of the equation.

Special ops may indeed need to be separated from combat operations. I will need to think about that some more and promise to do so.

But could you explain why it would be inappropriate to consult with Congress in the excellent examples you provided? Could not Congress establish a policy allowing the President limited discretion in such events? For example, it wouldn't be like we didn't know the terrorist was out there. And just as you have added some additional perspective that is requiring me to rethink some thngs, would it not be advisable to have more than one head involved in covert operations.? Maybe it would help us avoid overlooking some really bad unintended consequences?

I think it really depends on the situation. Consulting with Congress could be a very good idea if secrecy is not of paramount importance or if the use of military force could lead to a much larger military involvement.

I really don't know the answer. We certainly don't want a president pushing us into a war, but I don't think congress is much help. It sure didn't keep us out of the Iraqi war. I can't think of a single case where congress said no to a president who asked for congressional approval of a military campaign.

 

[Contumacious]

EVERYTHING the federal government needed was provided to them in 1787.



Article 1 of the United States Constitution lists issuing letters of marque and reprisal in Section 8 as one of the enumerated powers of Congress, alongside the power to tax and to "declare War.

Letters of marquee and reprisal grant the president the authority to use letters of marque and reprisal against the specific terrorists, instead of warring against a foreign state.

They refuse to do so , once again proving that retaliation is not the issue - there are hidden agendas which are not disclosed.

.

The agenda is nothing more than profits for the special interests that control Congress. The problem is figuring out how to stop this before it ruins the nation.

Yes, indeed.

The Military Industrial Complex will let nothing stand in the way of profits.

LBJ was willing to send the [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=fRZSzdQuOqM#!"]USS Liberty and its sailors to the bottom of the Mediterranean Sea[/ame] in order to allow the MIC to extend its sphere of interest to Egypt.

.

There is nothing that will prevent the prez from engaging in a false flaf operation if its suits his purpose.

.

 

[Politico]

Humans have been at war since the beginning of time.

 

[georgephillip]

Humans have been at war since the beginning of time.

Why not tax war into extinction in the same way chattel slavery could have been exterminated during the decades between Valley Forge and Cold Harbor?

 

[Derideo_Te]

Humans have been at war since the beginning of time.

Why not tax war into extinction in the same way chattel slavery could have been exterminated during the decades between Valley Forge and Cold Harbor?

It is the failure to increase taxes to pay for the past decade of wars that is putting the American way of life on the endangered species list.

 

[Foxfyre]

Humans have been at war since the beginning of time.

Why not tax war into extinction in the same way chattel slavery could have been exterminated during the decades between Valley Forge and Cold Harbor?

It is the failure to increase taxes to pay for the past decade of wars that is putting the American way of life on the endangered species list.

Do you know that the total tab for fighting the war in Iraq and Afghanistan all these years is less money than was allocated for TARP followed by Obama's stimulus package? Neither of which any provision was made for repaying?

We have a self-serving government that no longer makes any pretense of paying off its debts and doesn't care. Don't blame the wars. Blame the government. Once TARP was over, did they reduce the budget back to where it was before TARP was passed? No.

Once the Stimulus money was allocated, did they reduce the budget back to where it was before the Stimulus package was passed? No.

Once the wars are ended, will the government we have now then reduce the budget by the amount they are currently spending on the wars? No.

You look at that debt clock and the money spent is spinning like a blur. And they no longer care.

How about instead of government confiscating ever more of the people's wealth which increasingly reduces the ability of the people to create wealth and increases the drag on the economy, how about we just stop spending money we don't have? How about we just stop spending money on anything we don't absolutely have to spend money on?

And how about having a declaration of war in place before we go to war to eliminate the apparently too great temptation to get ourselves into situations that we don't have the money in the bank to pay for? Evenso, the wars are costing us roughly 145 billion or so a year against a federal budget that has passed 3 trillion and is ever expanding. The total cost of the wars since 2001 is now about 1.4 trillion against a national debt approaching 17 trillion dollars. Perspective is everything.