Posted on 04/28/2006 9:17:28 PM PDT by neverdem
That is precisely the pattern they have attempted (and still are attempting) in Iraq. That is why it is central to that effort to get the various Iraqi factions involved in a civil war, just as Lebanon in the 80's. To this end al-Qaeda is either a tool or irrelevant; at the moment it seems to be vacillating between the two. It cannot now be what it wanted: a spearhead of a popular revolution.
Succeed or fail, it's an exercise in butchery. I think it will fail, personally. The Iraqis have one single motivation for remaining a unified state that the Lebanese did not enjoy - nobody gets rich from the oil unless everybody does.
Thanks for post and ping.
Thanks for the PING!
detained all nationals of the Islamic nations and screened them for deportation. Why? Was it a crime to be from an Islamic nation on Sep 16, 2001? Do you think it should have been? Your reverence for the First Amendment is Lincolnesque.
50-60 divisions, Sorry. With that you forfeit any credibility as someone to be taken seriously on military affairs.
I would have expanded the USMC to ten divisions. See above. That's four more than there have ever been.
I would have told the people from the beginning that our goal was the conquest, occupation, and reconstruction of the Arabian peninsula and Pakistan, So you would have alerted the Saudis, Yemenis, Omanis, Emiratis, Qataris, Bahrainis, Kuwaitis and Pakistanis that we were coming to conquer them long before we had the ability to do so.
Hindsight is 20/20 only for some people.
That's a legitimate "slam dunk"...
Yes! Because of the many implications of declaring war there has not been one since WWII. Not Korea, Vietnam, The Falklands, Grenada, Panama, and any others we may have fought. The Senate is even redder now than in those times so it is highly unlikely to have cooperated.
Who would we have declared war against, a group of roaming thugs called Al Qaeda? Afghanistan? Iraq? Saudi Arabia? Iran? Lybia? Syria?
Dream on.
It is easy to be an Internet Rambo and declare bold intentions but quite another to actually get things done in this country where nearly half the Congress, all the media, all the labor unions, school and university teachers, and many, many foreign-funded and inspired agitators oppose your every move.
There are many good conservative solutions to most of our problems but implimenting them in today's environment is nye imppossible. After all, it is the left and their policies that have put us where we are.
Bump
I'm not sure what you are saying.
We live in a Constitutional Republic. The War Power, which is nearly unlimited, was placed in Congress IN ORDER TO PREVENT U.S. forces fighting in wars without adequate support at home.
It is idiocy to send forces into combat with an inadequate mission and inadequate force structure because Congress won't declare war (I think they would have, you don't).
That limitation on Executive power is their to PROTECT OUR TROOPS AND THEIR FAMILIES.
I like it.
I can't figure out all of the Divisions stuff. Sixty Divisions seems like a lot, but there should be expansion and there should be a lot of incentives in the form of an enhanced GI Bill and more. Still, I do like a lot of what you say.
Unfortunately, the media is against us, and the opportunities of 2001 are now lost.
It will take another hit like 9-11 to wake people up.
Yup, the crazies over there will not stop until we take them out. I hope that we don't have to lose NYC or some other places before we wise up. I think it is coming though.
Because Presidents cannot declare war.
Article I, section 8 "The Congress shall have Power... To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water..."
I can name that tune in two words "Bush's fault".
Don't be picky. You know what I mean. Now answer why they didn't ask Congress to decalre war.
Here is a bigger question, why didn't Jefferson ask for a declration war against the Barbary Pirates????
Because the wars in question did not have adequate support from the People.
Because of the legal ramifications of a declaration of war they went to the nearly new UN for support and called the defense of Korea a Police Action. Again, all for the international politics involved. Vietnam they sort of bungled and stumbled into because of domestic politics. Should they not have gone into Korea or Vietnam?
If you are going to wait for universal support in this day and time before you defend this country you will always be just an internet Rambo. Even now, because of the leftist Democrats we can't even get a decent immigration bill passed. Do you think you could ever get them to declare war on anyone except the Republicans? They are still trying to take away the guns of responsible citizens and give illegals the right to vote. Are those the people you are waiting to declare war?
Do you mean without a declaration of war you would take no action? 9/11 you would have let stand?
As I said, there is no question in my mind that Congress would have passed a declaration of war on 9/16/01.
"There is a tide in the affairs of men which, when taken at the flood, leads on to fortune. Omitted, all the voyage of their life is bound in shallows and in miseries. On such a full sea are we now afloat. And we must take the current when it serves, or lose our ventures.”
yup , we have something similar here [figuratively speaking]
... they detonate misinformation IEDs
... MSM , AntiqueMedia , shading "their news" with the abomination known as The Marxist Dialectic
"... they detonate misinformation IEDs"
"... MSM , AntiqueMedia , shading "their news" with the abomination known as The Marxist Dialectic,"
My tagline says basically the same.
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.