Skip to comments.
There is a war on
Center for Security Policy ^
| 15 May 06
| Center for Security Policy
Posted on 05/15/2006 12:39:01 PM PDT by LSUfan
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-94 next last
To: Jack Black
It is blatently obvious who the enemy is [in a "real" war], and in large part they are viewing you as the enemy and organized to fight you.
I think it's pretty obvious who the enemy is - Iraq, Iran, and the multifarious terrorist network emanating from the Middle East and infiltrating nations worldwide. They view us as the enemy and are organizing to fight us.
To: Blueflag
PLUS, and it's a really big PLUS, remnant, renegade elements of the former Islamic Caliphate have declared war against us. They didn't need an act of Congress to do so.
22
posted on
05/15/2006 1:31:57 PM PDT
by
muawiyah
(-)
To: LSUfan; Joe Black
We DID declare war. See my post above on this thread. Also see my UPI article reviewing American declarations of war. That was also posted on FR, but I don't have the knowledge to find and link to it.
John / Billybob
To: Protagoras
"they have both declined to declare war." OH REALLY - PERHAPS YOUR DEFINITION IS TO NARROW. WHERE IS THE APPROVED FORM SPECIFIED IN THE CONSTITUTION ?
24
posted on
05/15/2006 1:40:54 PM PDT
by
aumrl
(Providence - don't call it luck!)
To: LSUfan
The War is over!!!?????? Geez, has anybody let Mother Sheehan know? Maybe she can now go get a job.
25
posted on
05/15/2006 1:45:08 PM PDT
by
Lekker 1
("Stocks have reached what looks like a permanently high plateau" - I. Fisher, Yale Econ Prof, 1929)
To: Jack Black
So I think ZB is correct, the WOT is really just a fancy name for something that is less than a real war, like say Vietnam or WW2. Until it is percieved as a real war the USA won't fight it appropriately."ZB" is correct in the same way that a judge is correct when he let's a murderer walk because his Miranda rights weren't read properly. The President declined to ask for a formal declaration of war because he didn't want to be perceived as "making war on a Muslim nation", and because he wanted a near-unanimous vote in Congress on a "Use of Force" resolution to show that "the American people were united behind him". As unsatisfactory as a "Use of Force Resolution" is to those of us who would like to see those who have committed treason and sedition behind bars right now (as they might well have been in a declared war), it is none the less "war by any other name", just as Korea was a war (even if Harrya$$ Truman called it a "police action").
To: Congressman Billybob; LSUfan; Joe Black
27
posted on
05/15/2006 1:49:05 PM PDT
by
Just A Nobody
(NEVER AGAIN..Support our Troops! I *LOVE* my attitude problem. Beware the Enemedia!)
To: Blueflag
Yet, all Presidents, Democrat and Republican alike, have sought AND received authorization from Congress for the use of significant military force against a sovereign nation.There is so much more to the People of the United States invoking their War Power through their representatives in Congress assembled than the use of military force against a sovereign state.
Censorship, propaganda, internment, revocation of naturalization, trials by military tribunal, restriction of the US mails, extraordinary intervention in the economy including nationalization of industry and rationing - all of these flow from the War Power of the People.
And all of them are missing in Iraq, were missing in Korea, were missing in Vietnam - is there a trend?
28
posted on
05/15/2006 1:50:54 PM PDT
by
Jim Noble
(And you know what I'm talkin' 'bout!)
To: Jack Black
"First off there are wars and 'wars'. We've had a 'war on drugs' and a 'war on poverty' and many others. These are not wars, they are 'wars'. So the question is: is the WOT a 'war' or a war."
I followed that particular linguistic activism by feminists over the decades and see that it has had some success. Every effort is a "war." That contributes to propaganda against defense, to amazonian feminism, and it diverts funds and time to domestic social programs against families.
The War on Terror is light in intensity because of our newer military abilities, equipment, better attitudes and more open terrain in areas of operations than what we saw in the late '60s and early '70s. That's no excuse for so much couch-potato, television fantasy opposition against defense. Several countries are propagating nuclear weapons capabilities to Islamist regimes.
During the first Gulf War and since then, I've seen media people calling Army soldiers "Marines," mistaking other branches and specialties, and repeating many untrue catch phrases about tactics. During one operation, the media chicks and their effeminate male friends went on about how our Air Force was the only needed branch. And in another, they yakked incessantly about needing "Special Forces" "boots on the ground." The worst that they do is to fabricate an impression that the War is a kind of entertainment and should last little longer than a television "mini-series."
The civilian "news" "experts" know very little about our military, and most of the retired military officers presented on television have been sexually confused extremists of the radical, anti-American left. The few who are yet masculine and faithful to our country (for example, Major General Paul E. Vallely) have been objects of disrespect and efforts to push them out of public venues (for example, when the ignorant news chick publicly and repeatedly whined at him something like, "Uh! Was that supposed to be funny?"). I stopped my satellite feed and stopped watching television soon after the effort started in Afghanistan.
29
posted on
05/15/2006 1:51:44 PM PDT
by
familyop
("Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists." --President Bush)
To: Jim Noble
Censorship, propaganda, internment, revocation of naturalization, trials by military tribunal, restriction of the US mails, extraordinary intervention in the economy including nationalization of industry and rationing - all of these flow from the War Power of the People. And all of them are missing in Iraq, were missing in Korea, were missing in Vietnam - is there a trend?Yeah, we have gotten so much better at kicking ass that we don't need all of those things at the moment.
30
posted on
05/15/2006 1:56:33 PM PDT
by
AmusedBystander
(Republicans - doing the work that Democrats won't do since 1854.)
To: Justanobody
Yes, that is the precise article I remembered. I am grateful to you, as I often am to Freepers, when their computer literacy exceeds mine in finding things. I stand by every word of that article four years ago, stating exactly why we are NOW "at war" exactly as we were against the Barbary Pirates two centuries ago.
John / Billybob
To: Congressman Billybob
"We DID declare war. See my post above on this thread."
I think a lot of people need to go back and read what the constitution actually says in article 1, section 8:
"...To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;
To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water..."
By my read, Congress get wide latitude not only in the type of authorization they issue, but in DEFINING what constitutes an offence that we will act against. We can split hairs on the definition of "war", but it is clear to me, at least, that Congress has authorized one.
32
posted on
05/15/2006 1:58:54 PM PDT
by
Owl558
(Pardon my spelling)
To: LSUfan
It is a suprise to know that the Fed can handle the millions of phone records generated by the average American
How in the heck do they handle all that info and to what purpose?
I don't even know an arab, much less a radical islamic one.
But I do call my congress and senate critters, do they want that information and if so for what purpose? We really don't know do we. I would like a lot more information on what this information is collected for before giving it a rubber stamp approval.
To: Jim Noble
"Censorship, propaganda, internment, revocation of naturalization, trials by military tribunal, restriction of the US mails, extraordinary intervention in the economy including nationalization of industry and rationing - all of these flow from the War Power of the People."
Yes there is a trend, Americans will not loose our constitutional rights to fight wars that do not directly threaten the mainland United States. We've fought conflicts every several years since 1945, should we permanently suspend the constitution to beat on some third world nation? We don't need to.
34
posted on
05/15/2006 2:00:24 PM PDT
by
RHINO369
(Politicians are not born; they are excreted.)
To: pawdoggie
There is no such thing as a "formal declaration of war." The Constitution does not specify precise language for that, as it does, for instance, specify the exact language for the Presidential Oath of Office.
More "formal" language was used, as my article points out, in the declarations of war against Japan and Germany. However, that extra language has NO influence on whether Congress has acted adequately as required by the Constitution. I suggest you read my UPI article, linked above, by the kind offices of another Freeper.
John / Billybob
To: RHINO369
The Constitution has not been "suspended." To the contrary, the Constitution has been obeyed. I was all over this subject like white on rice in my UPI article referenced above.
John / Billybob
To: LSUfan
Brzezinski has few accomplishments to put him in the category of "authority". The MSM continues to play his song with backup by the Jimmie Carter choir.
37
posted on
05/15/2006 2:09:16 PM PDT
by
hgro
To: LSUfan
I'd be more inclined to listen to the "there's a war on" verbiage if I had a congressional declaration of war to read.
38
posted on
05/15/2006 2:12:33 PM PDT
by
Dumb_Ox
(http://kevinjjones.blogspot.com)
To: Congressman Billybob
Okay, I read your article. I don't necessarily disagree with anything you wrote, but I think you must acknowledge that there are a lot of people, to include Harry S. Truman, serving Congressmen, judges and Zbiggy Brezhinski, who firmly believe that there is such a thing as a "Use of Force" that does not have the same practical effect as a "declaration (formal or otherwise) of War". Were it not so, we could have been looking at Michael Moore's ugly mug behind bars at Leavenworth by now.
To: Congressman Billybob
Exactly it has been obeyed, but the other poster was saying we weren't doing things we did during total war, and I said its because we don't feel its necessary to break our constitution to fight third world nations.
40
posted on
05/15/2006 2:14:23 PM PDT
by
RHINO369
(Politicians are not born; they are excreted.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-94 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson