Ah, so now we're striking those who are plotting. Mind you they haven't acted but they're 'plotting'. Pre-emptive strikes were not the standard in the past. I could discuss the concept of 'just war' with you but I think you would ignore it in your support of Republican talking points (that's not an insult, just an observation). By your argument, we may as well attack China and half of Africa next year as I imagine they're 'plotting' too...
As for citizens traveling abroad, you're using the one of the same arguments Wilson used to help get us into WWI. You travel outside the borders of this nation of states, you have made a willful choice to remove yourself from protection by the Armed Forces. Wilson's view was wrong then and it's still wrong today
you believe that the President and the Congress do not have the Constitutional power to 'define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations?' (remember that the Congress approved the military action against the regime of Iraq, well within their Constitutional bounds).
Please provide the declaration of war as passed by Congress. Not an open-ended passage of power to the President but one that specifically named the enemy and the scope of the war. The only possible foe in this 'war' would have been Afghanistan, whose 'democracy' BTW you don't hear a lot about lately (wonder why that is....)
Also considering the administration has dropped the 'war on terror' phrase in place of GSAVE, the administration has all but admitted this was not an official war as outlined in Article I, Section 8. Contrary to Republican talking points, the purpose of war as seen by the Framers (again according to their words) was defense only, not 'spreading democracy', not focusing on violence in other nations, not pie in the sky ideals, but defense of the borders of this nation of states
btw, it is the Iraqis who are creating their own democracy (although here again, you are in perfect alignment with leftists if you see us as Imperialist occupiers imposing democracy on the poor Iraqis who just wanted to be left alone and brutalized by Saddam.....), and we are protecting them while they build it.
The Iraqis could only have began to create a democracy (although our own Framers warned against democracies) after the removal of Hussein. In effect, our actions directly brought about the change. Something the Framers again would not have desired. And you would be hard pressed to find an argument for our intervention to help in any form for establishment of a republic anywhere in the world.
You, once again, see only one half of the equation, and presume your own views on what the Founders would have done.
No, not my 'own views' but their own words
No more conversation, bill. (I stopped reading at this line).
I have analyzed the War in Iraq deeply from the philosophical and theological standpoint of a just war, and determined that it met the criteria required. I have investigated it from the standpoint of whether there was adequate evidence that Saddam was connected with terror and provided a threat to our safety (with or without WMD).
And I did so well before March of 2003 when Iraqi Freedom began.
Your constant insults about my thought process and ability to think for myself (calling them 'observations' reveals an even deeper condescension on your part), are sickening, and for me to continue a discussion with your pre-set condescension would be unwise.
I know you have well thought out reasons for your position......even though I think they are wrong, and I believe history will prove me to be right and not you. But deep down inside, you really do think anyone who supports the war in Iraq is a non-thinking fool, and that, sir, is absolutely disgusting.
You probably know that my son spent 15 months of his young life helping defend this country from terror, and if you don't think I thought deeply about whether or not this was a just war, you are an idiot. It doesn't matter if 40% of the country doesn't understand why we are there (your extremist colleages, and the democrats), because the truth is, that Iraq was a viper's nest of brutality and terror; a brutal dictatorship that is now gone. And it needed to be done to PROTECT the American people from those who want us dead.
And that was a determination I made based on investigation of facts before he was deployed. The idea that I blindly follow RNC talking points is so derogatory that it's nauseating. It would be like my actually believing that you look to Dennis Kucinich for your views on the war, just because you agree with him. It would be patently absurd, wouldn't it? But you assume because I agree with the administration, that I haven't thought it through. Arrogance. Just plain arrogance.
If Nazi Germany had been taken out before they invaded and attacked most of Europe, thousands upon thousands of innocents and brave American soldiers would not have died. That's what has happened in Iraq. Because it was pre-emptive, the potential deaths were prevented.
And as one who loves America, and knows that God loves all the people of the world, I happen to believe that it's a good thing to save lives.
This war on terror is far from over, but at least we have a President and Commander in Chief who is fighting, and doing his Constitutional duty to defend the country that he leads.
Praise GOD that a weak, isolationist (the kind of President you would support) has NO chance to win the Presidency. This country would not survive.
That's all I'm going to say on this for now. It is off topic for the subject of this thread, and since you are not capable of responding without insults, please don't.
I found it very odd based on what had been said to you......