Posted on 09/23/2014 8:48:11 AM PDT by Sean_Anthony
You may, as in our case, openly state that we are not at war with the declared enemy. But, nonetheless, you are at war
President Obama and his administration have been adamant that he is not taking America back to another war in the Middle East. Earlier this month, Secretary of State John Kerry stated, in a CNN interview, that our planned attack on the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) is not a war but is a “...very significant counter-terrorism operation…”
We have begun air strikes on ISIS in Iraq and now in Syria. We are training and arming those who we hope will fight against ISIS in Syria and Iraq. Some of our military generals are openly speaking out that air strikes cannot defeat ISIS and we will need to put troops on the ground if we are serious about defeating this threat against, not only our country, but many other countries around the world.
(Excerpt) Read more at canadafreepress.com ...
As much confidence as I have in our guys I just can’t see anything good coming out of a military expedition led by Obama and his clown car co.
Once women start Ranger school, we’ll be invincible.
/sarc
Good God!
What is it GOOD FOR?!
HUMBLEGUNNER!!!! He’s baaaaaaack.
absolutely nothing. Say it again.
It ain’t nothin’ but a heartbreak~!
7 countries that obama has so far ordered bombed. Creating chaos. Who will be #8?
Mark Steyn story from 9-13-14: There is a disinclination to believe his promises, said Mustafa Alani of the Gulf Research Center in Dubai.
“We have reached a low point of trust in this administration,” he said. “We think in a time of crisis Mr. Obama will walk away from everyone if it means saving his own skin.”
“Whose call is it?”
Duh.
Interestingly enough, back when Wilson pushed us into WWI I believe he officially informed Congress a state of war had existed between us and whoever for some time. If this were true why hadn’t we declared war earlier? Presidents like to think it’s 1888, or something, and Congressmen need a week to ride back to Washington after the Apache hit some cavalry column in Bumwad Territory. Of course, Germany had been hitting American ships or ships with Americans for some time. Some might say they were lured into doing so. But it didn’t turn into cassus belli until Wilson was ready to go to war. At that time you’d like to have a reason, and you don’t want to say “I’ve finally decided the stuff that happened a while ago was bad enough.” So you say “a condition of war already exists,” and Congress is only rubber stamping it.
People are want to talk, when their guy is in office, about the president’s prerogatives in starting war. You know, how many wars have been spur of the moment and how obsolete is the war declaration clause in today’s confusing modern world, with our toaster ovens and horseless carriages. But if it’s obsolete it’s because we’ve deliberately decided to ignore it, much like almost the rest of the Constitution. How long do actual emergencies last? And I don’t mean the 80+-year “emergency” justifying the power grabs of the New Deal. Maybe a while back when we were fighting the Apache. They got it done in a day after Pearl Harbor, not counting the 12 or so hours of forewarning while they pretended not to be capable of reaching Kimmel and Short.
Unlike the Wilson days or 1888, we now have troops every damn place. Some call that the “tripwire” strategy of empire. Dangle troops out there and should they be actually attacked or merely threatened, whammo! We’re at war; if we feel like ot. We’re not at war whenever a wire is tripped. We didn’t go to war in Beirut in ‘83. If the president should want, he can make war on an “emergency” basis when wires are tripped,even though he could as easily not.
Sometimes we have a declaration of war and Congress gets the balls to stop the president’s encroachment anyway, as with Cambodia. The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution was vague enough to allow for Cambodian excursions, I think, but they were against the spirit of the law, even if it was partly Congress’ own fault. The War Powers Act was stupid, anyway, because it sacrificed their constitutional prerogatives in writing, even if they’d long been overturned in fact. Besides, presidents can ignore it, as did Obama in Libya and presumably in time with ISIS/ISIL/IS. Some say ISIS is covered by the non-declarative declaration of the War on Al Queda, but not only did we not declare war on Al Queda (just like Congress didn’t declare war on North Vietnam [just as well, since it wasn’t what we were specifically at war with]), but ISIS isn’t Al Queda, specifically. If you let Obama make war on ISIS on that basis, we might as well be at war with Russia now because some SS officer’s second cousin on his mother’s side was best buddies with a guy whose kid was a casual acquaintance with Putin.
But in ISIS’ case (or is it ISIL, or just IS?), no tripwire been tripped. No direct threat to us whatsoever exists. The president has no emergency to which to respond. So what? Who’s gonna stop him.
“My question is why don’t we repeal those laws?”
Why don’t most laws fey repealed? Because we might need them later. They’d hate to have to repass them all should we be in another world war. I wouldn’t be surprised if according to one federal agency or another we’re still in WWII, though, just like we’ve been in a state of emergency since the Great Depression to justify New Deal-era legislation and executive action.
So maybe your speaker was talking out the other side of his mouth. We could be still in Nixon’s “emergency” for all I know.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.