Posted on 12/22/2018 5:10:53 AM PST by reaganaut1
2,000 troops in Syria are going to “contain” Iran? LOL. Is that their mission? What about the 15,000 in Kuwait and 5,000 in Iraq. Or the thousands more in Bahrain and Saudi Arabia?
France and Saudi Arabia have said they will replace the US presence in Syria. Another tempest in a teapot. The sky is not falling.
“That’s how stuff used to work in a country called America a long time ago.”
The United States has declared war eleven times in its history. Four of those times after hostilities had stated. It has sent troops into combat at on least three times that many occasions without a declaration of war, dating back to 1789. Without debating the wisdom of declaring war or not, it is a misplaced sense of nostalgia to think we always declared war in the good old days.
Casualties win wars
Thc current extrapolation of Euro fears of war are detrimental to our well being. Enemies are enemies, even if they are wives
Of course you mean ex wives....
If the damn 'elites' want to fight eternal wars in Middle East hellholes they can send large groups of their own children over... NOT OURS... Not our kids - not our problem.
No, I mean Hamas wives, Isis wives, Taliban wives
The entire country is a big cluster-flock.
Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates and Israel all commit to helping in the region. And rightly so, it’s their area, not the United States
It’s been ongoing with practically nothing about it in the US press.
https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20181122-saudi-arabia-uae-send-troops-to-support-kurds-in-syria/
Thanks for that!
“Obama’s Military Coup Purges 197 Officers In Five Years”
Trump ought to see if any of them want to come back to lead our military. They are the people that we probably need to do it!
Also read the three tweets in this thread. Again nothing about it in the US press.
https://twitter.com/HeshmatAlavi/status/1076103563082940418
This is an example of why twitter is so good, some people here act like it worthless but that is wrong.
“The liberals loved it when Truman fired McArthur. In hind sight, I think McArthur was correct, Korea was a stalemate, either destroy the enemy or stop the war, but Truman was the boss.”
In that case, the CiC was an idiot, who left Korea as a festering problem for 70 years for Trump to attempt to fix. My father used to say “Truman was like an automatic transmission, shiftless!”
It could be argued - but you'd be wrong. 22 Army divisions fought in the Pacific in WWII, from Guadalcanal to Okinawa, including on those Marianas islands which you mentioned, and from which Army Air Corps pilots flew to bomb Japan. It amazes me how some completely ignore the contributions made by the Army in the Pacific.
Help me out here: Is “the Mattis Repercussion” number 517 or number 518 in the running count of “We got Trump now and he’ll be gone by Thursday!”? It’s so hard to keep track.
Trump thinks we can replace U.S. forces in Syria with Arab troops. He’s wrong.
Actually, problems created with the demise of the Ottoman empire in 1918 are now being solved.
What you see as a cluster-flock is actually history reverting to a past mean that some do not want.
The Brits and the Frogs bit off more than they could chew and that is now being rectified
How many times did those military actions with no war declaration involve U.S. troops operating within the borders of another sovereign nation?
I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that it was probably close to ZERO. Most of those campaigns involved: (1) disputed territories in North America that later became part of the U.S.; and (2) protection of U.S. interests in areas with no sovereign government (i.e., the "high seas," which were legally defined as open waters that are under the control of no nation).
The language of Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution was specifically written to distinguish between two different types of U.S. military campaigns:
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
Just look at those two items and notice the difference between them. The Federal government was given the authority to build and maintain a Navy on a permanent basis. The Army, on the other hand, was never intended to be a permanent fixture in the Federal government. The Federal government was supposed to "raise" an Army by drawing resources from the state militias. This Army was never designed to operate as a permanent standing military force.
The Navy was not designed to be raised from state militias because the Navy (by definition) operated outside the control of any individual state.
This is also, by the way, the reason why the Marines operate under the authority of the U.S. Navy. Unlike the Army, which was designed to operate as a continental force in the defense of the United States, the Marines were designed as land forces that would operate in those areas ("high seas") that were not under any nation's jurisdiction.
When I read provisions like this in the U.S. Constitution, one thing stands out to me: The U.S. was never designed to wage wars overseas within the borders of other nations that represented no threat to the U.S. here in North America.
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.