Who's paying all these pro-war, retired military pundits all over the media?

[Hayabusa Rider]

Colin Powell holding a model vial of anthrax while
giving presentation to the United Nations Security
Council on 5 February 2003

Welcome to 11 years ago. Doesn't seem much was learned.

 

[ivwshane]

Every war that I recall it was the President 'selling' it to us, not the other way around. While before my time, I understand WWII was that way too.

Naïvité not found.

Fern

You do realize that the president isn't the one who gets to decide if we go to war or not, right? That power is expressly granted to congress.

 

[cubby1223]

You do realize that the president isn't the one who gets to decide if we go to war or not, right? That power is expressly granted to congress.

Do you follow the definition of war that it is only an official war when congress declares it so?

If so, then you are correct, congress is the only entity that can decide if we go to war or not.

A quick google search would suggest:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States

On at least 125 occasions, the President has acted without prior express military authorization from Congress. These include instances in which the United States fought in the Philippine-American War from 1898–1903, in Nicaragua in 1927, as well as the NATO bombing campaign of Yugoslavia in 1999.

Don't take wikipedia's word for it if you still believe you are right, take it straight from the government:

http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/olc/opinions/2001/09/31/op-olc-v025-p0188_0.pdf

 

[ivwshane]

Do you follow the definition of war that it is only an official war when congress declares it so?

If so, then you are correct, congress is the only entity that can decide if we go to war or not.

A quick google search would suggest:



Don't take wikipedia's word for it if you still believe you are right, take it straight from the government:

http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/olc/opinions/2001/09/31/op-olc-v025-p0188_0.pdf

What does any of that have to do with what I'm saying? Unless you are implying that congress never has nor do they ever need to declare war? Of course history and the constitution doesn't agree with you and it is a fact that congress not only has the right and the duty to declare war, they have done so many times, including the time when they were sold a bunch of BS about Iraq and terrorism which also included BS from military insiders who went on tv and disclosed nothing about their employment or possible gains from their statements.

 

[Moonbeam]

Welcome to 11 years ago. Doesn't seem much was learned.

Fear causes irrationality. It's the mind killer and more.

We live in a world full of millions of morons screaming fire in the theater.

 

[sportage]

Doesn't it get a bit tiring when the media has nothing else to report on?
They need news and they know war means news.
What should be the most shocking part of all, more so than be-headings, is how the media can control what the people see, what people think, and eventually what people accept.
And that means power and they the media want that power.
For the most part, they achieved just that.

Gawd... I sure wish Paris Hilton would do something, anything, to distract the news media.
Then, we'd have no push for war.
The media is like a silly kitten amused by a shiny toy.
Just shake another shiny object in their view, and the little kitten forgets about the first shiny object and goes after the new shiny object.

The difference, 3000+ American soldiers need not die due to the media distraction with shiny objects.

 

[cabri]

Do you follow the definition of war that it is only an official war when congress declares it so?

If so, then you are correct, congress is the only entity that can decide if we go to war or not.

What does any of that have to do with what I'm saying? Unless you are implying that congress never has nor do they ever need to declare war? Of course history and the constitution doesn't agree with you and it is a fact that congress not only has the right and the duty to declare war, they have done so many times, including the time when they were sold a bunch of BS about Iraq and terrorism which also included BS from military insiders who went on tv and disclosed nothing about their employment or possible gains from their statements.

Congress has the power to declare war and in theory provides authorized funding for it.

The President is the one that leads the nation to war and executes it.
Congress is not going to have the political backbone to declare war unless the President requests and it is felt the american people are behind the action (at the time).

However, the President can also commit the country to "war" without the authorization of Congress and has done so in the past.
Congress has not authorized a declaration of war (that I can determine) without being requested by the President.

Both of you are splitting nuances like a little child saying "na-na, I am right"

 

[ivwshane]

Congress has the power to declare war and in theory provides authorized funding for it.

The President is the one that leads the nation to war and executes it.
Congress is not going to have the political backbone to declare war unless the President requests and it is felt the american people are behind the action (at the time).

However, the President can also commit the country to "war" without the authorization of Congress and has done so in the past.
Congress has not authorized a declaration of war (that I can determine) without being requested by the President.

Both of you are splitting nuances like a little child saying "na-na, I am right"

Not really, all I was saying was that these pro war ex military people influence the American people's opinion without disclosing their ties with the MIC and that persuasion then leads back to congress who then supports a war only because the American people support it. That's a horrible reason to vote for war.

All this other talk about who can/does/will authorize the war has nothing to do with my point,

 

[cabri]

Not really, all I was saying was that these pro war ex military people influence the American people's opinion without disclosing their ties with the MIC and that persuasion then leads back to congress who then supports a war only because the American people support it. That's a horrible reason to vote for war.

All this other talk about who can/does/will authorize the war has nothing to do with my point,

I should expect that if a person is being presented a credible in military knowledge based on experience/retired, that it is expected that they will have a certain bias toward the military.

One that does not value the military is not going to stay the full 20-30 years.

 

[ivwshane]

I should expect that if a person is being presented a credible in military knowledge based on experience/retired, that it is expected that they will have a certain bias toward the military.

One that does not value the military is not going to stay the full 20-30 years.

No, any credible person with a military background and nothing to gain from telling the truth should be telling the truth regardless if it's pro military or not. Any person with something to gain from military action should state as much when giving their opinion. You thinking ex military personnel would be expected to have a pro military position is your own naïveté.

 

[Jhhnn]

Every war that I recall it was the President 'selling' it to us, not the other way around. While before my time, I understand WWII was that way too.

Naïvité not found.

Fern

Gawd. Salesmanship wasn't an issue after Pearl Harbor.

 

[Jhhnn]

No, any credible person with a military background and nothing to gain from telling the truth should be telling the truth regardless if it's pro military or not. Any person with something to gain from military action should state as much when giving their opinion. You thinking ex military personnel would be expected to have a pro military position is your own naïveté.

Please. Ex flag officers appearing on national media are generally selected by media for their pro military bias.

 

[ivwshane]

Please. Ex flag officers appearing on national media are generally selected by media for their pro military bias.

That may be true but it doesn't mean all ex military are pro military. And really it doesn't matter if they are or not, what matters is if they would personally gain anything for pushing the public opinion towards war.

I'd certainly want to know, just like I'd want to know if a doctor on tv who is pushing a miracle drug is getting any kick backs from the drug maker.

 

[Jhhnn]

That may be true but it doesn't mean all ex military are pro military. And really it doesn't matter if they are or not, what matters is if they would personally gain anything for pushing the public opinion towards war.

I'd certainly want to know, just like I'd want to know if a doctor on tv who is pushing miracle drug is getting any kick backs from the drugs maker.

Agreed, but I think there are warmongers driven largely by ideology, as well. It's not necessarily about money per se, but rather Power & the will to rule over others. Witness the Neocons. Witness the role of billionaires in politics. They don't want money, they want something much greater than that.

 

[cabri]

That may be true but it doesn't mean all ex military are pro military. And really it doesn't matter if they are or not, what matters is if they would personally gain anything for pushing the public opinion towards war.

I'd certainly want to know, just like I'd want to know if a doctor on tv who is pushing a miracle drug is getting any kick backs from the drug maker.

Not ALL EX-MILITARY.

Those that have retired from the service will be.

And if a talking head is selected to provide commentary on a subject, only the blind would not realize that they have a bias.

As you know at present, only the financial people are being required to disclose an interest.