Originally posted by: palehorse74
I could really do without war... completely.
However, when we are in one, it really would nice to have a country that allows us to fight it until we actually win it; and one that allows the military to fight it as they see fit without 24/7 interference and intervention! The populace and politicians have been forcing us to suffer through half-fought wars for over 40 years, and it pisses me off. In fact, it angers me even more than our irrational cowardly enemies do. Doesnt that say something about the collective caliber of our populace and policians?
Yes, it says you have absolutely no understanding of the U.S. Constitution and the intent of those who wrote it. From
Soldier-Statesmen of the Constitution by Robert K. Wright, Jr. and Morris J. MacGregor, Jr.:
The Constitutional Convention is a major transition point in American history between the Revolutionary era and the birth of national republican government. The delegates who met in Philadelphia in 1787 not only fashioned a new form of government to replace the Articles of Confederation, but also submitted their handiwork to the citizens of the individual states for ratification. Long debates marked both stages of this process. On one side were ranged those who argued that survival depended on increasing the efficiency and strength of central government; their opponents, worried more about potential abuses, sought to reserve as much power as possible to the states, where government was closer to the people. The question of military force, in the form of an army, navy, and militia, was a central topic in these debates. In the end, compromise produced a uniquely American solution derived from colonial modifications of a European heritage: a federal system of checks and balances that divided responsibility between the states and the national government, a separation of the latter's powers into executive, legislative, and judicial branches, and a clear subordination of the military to the elected government.
If we can call any war "good," meaning that is was necessary for our own survival and the best of bad options, WW II was it. In that war, the U.S. fought war against Hitler's German military dictaorship in Europe and the military dominated empire of Japan in the Pacific.
We then fought a "cold" war against the Soviet military dicatorship that lasted for decades. We "won" that war not because of military superiority, but because their system collapsed of its own dead weight and inablity to provide the for the needs of their people.
Now, you're suggesting we should trash our own successful history and allow the U.S. military to do the bidding of those in power without civilian oversight? Since the majority of Americans would still oppose that, if that's what you want, I suggest you should move to a country where that's the way things are done. You have plenty of choices. The U.S. is not one of them.
And you people spend more time whining about how bad everything is than brainstorming realistic solutions to the situation. I still haven't seen one damn opposition leader come forward with a well thought out plan for peace in Iraq. not ONE!
That's because the idiocy of the Bushwhackos led us into a war in Iraq that has left us with ZERO good options, not ONE! I, and many others, knew better from the beginning of this fiasco.
There are valid reasons for going to war, NONE of which apply to this useless, stupid, elective ideological war in Iraq that has killed tens of thousands of people and cost us trillions of dollars of debt that will remain a burden on our society for generations to come. They did so while offering continuously shifting alleged LIES as their reasons for this actions:
- There was no yellow cake uraniium in Niger.
- There were no aluminum tubes capable of being used in centrifuges process nuclear material.
- There were no facilities for making nerve gas or biological weapons.
- There were no long range rockets.
- There were no WMD's.
They ignored any information from competent internal sources that ran counter to their ambitions:
- They ignored all warnings about the possiblity of an attack like 9/11, despite explicit warnings from people like Richard Clark, former terrorisim advisor to Presidents Reagan, Bush Sr. and Clinton. Richard Clark also warned Bush that Saddam probably was not tied to 9/11.
The Bush administration didn't want to hear that so they did what any good exec would do -- They fired him.
- They claimed their pre-war planning included plenty of troops to handle foreseeable problems in the aftermath of their invasion, despite warnings from Army Chief of Staff, Eric Shinseki that they would need around 300,000 - 400,000 troops to do the job.
The Bush administration didn't want to hear that so they did what any good exec would do -- They fired him.
There is NO good way out, but the first thing that should go is the Asshole In Chief and his criminal crew. Then, maybe we can get someone with an IQ greater than a mushroom to try lead us to the best of the bad options the Bushwhackos have left us. Or as I said in my song:
At the time of the crime, who believed us?
We all took a fall on the ride,
When the powers that be had deceived us to leave us the debtor.
And
Who's Watching Over Who's Watching Over You?
What scares me is how true my lyrics are.
So guess what, I think I'll stick with the 5-10 year plan that Bush has already begun, keep fighting them, and pray that the Iraqi security services can get their sh*t together within 10 years. That sounds fine to me, and I'm willing to serve until it's done.
Thanks for volunteering to do your part to trim the low side of the bell shaped curve.
Facebook
Twitter