A simple question for amicus

[Colleen Thomas]

As all of the combatants on this forum know full well, the Congress of the United States voted and approved the current activity in Afghanistan and Iraq.

You will also note that only Congress can appropriate money to carry out the war effort. I has done so repeatedly since the inception.

Thus, you cannot single out 'Bush' or his administration singularly as the root of all evi. You must as one recent poster did somewhere, declare that the entire majority of Americans are but adolescents and unworthy of participating in affairs of a Nation.

Which of course bares the true intent of the detractors, you really don't like America and what it stands for.

Tough Titty.


amicus....

I hope this wasn't aimed at me.

As to congress, they are the only ones who may vote approrpiations for anything. Just because they fund the National endowment for the arts, does not make them artists. Nor does voting appropriations for NASA make them rocket scientists, no matter what they think. Voting military approrpiations dose't make them soldiers, nor does such a vote equal a declaration of war.

A declaration of War is a specific power, enumerated to the congress in the Constittion. No declaration of war existed when we went to Korea nor did one exist when we went to vietnam. The last one was issued on December 8, 1941. No president since Harry S. Truman has utilized the full war powers given to a president as commander in Chief.

Bush has no declaration of war. He has no wholly legitimate basis for assuming war powers then. He may be able to assume them, under the umbrealla of an undeclared war on terror. Much as truman assumed some during Korea and LBJ assumed some during Vietnam, and later presidents have under the auspices of the war on drugs. The scope and detail of what powers he may asume is up for judicial review.

Some war powers don't infringe on individual rights. Some do. The ability to seize american citizens, suspend habeus corpus, suspend illegal search and seizure and suspend the right to not be imprisoned without charges do infringe. In time of war, these rights may be suspended, if the need is great. Obviously, it has been before in the case of enemy nationals operatng as spies and in the case of Japanese americans.

The question of just what powers the war on Terror does confer is legitimate. And acusations that he is making a power grab are sustainable. And the courts are the place wehre differnces of opinion on what the law says are resolved.

 

[amicus]

I personally think you have a weak case, Colleen. I should have a succinct answer as to why 'war' has not been declared since 1941, but I do not, only broad speculations.

I do know that the United States did not want to risk world war three with a head to head confrontation with the Soviet Union or Communist China. Korea and Vietnam were, surrogate wars, with the Soviets and the Chinese Communists supplying arms and equipment to third world nations in an attempt to destabilize the current world order.

That is a simplification, of course, just as it is to mention that Egypt and other Arab nations were supplied with Soviet arms to destabilize the middle east and that Soviet Mig fighters and French Mirage fighters made up the Air Force of Saddam Husseins military in 1991.

Many nations have sold armaments around the world as the 'surrogate wars' have moved from Communist backing to terrorist support from similar nations.

While I agree that the protection of civil liberties in the United States is of great importance, by aligning yourself with the shady characters of the left, you malign your own modus operandi by seeming to cohabit with those that are just anti anything American.

Rest assured that this administration, especially this administration, is taking all precautions necessary to protect civil liberties in this country and at the same time, combat international terrorism which has demonstrated that it can get to us on our own soil.

It is not nearly as fine a line to tread and the left would have it. Any rational person realizes that the United States must take proactive measures to protect our people.

I did not enjoy have my bags searched and being required to remove my shoes before boarding my last flight. I am not pleased that my internet friends in Egypt and China, just to name two, might be cause for my emails and conversations to be monitored.

There are many aspects of the increased security that I am not pleased with and I would like 'sunset' restrictions placed on all Homeland Security edicts and Patriot Act procedures.

While you are correct in stating that we are not 'technically' at war, perhaps you would choose a name for a conflict that took nearly 3,000 lives in New York City in 2001.

Perhaps you do not think we should seek out and destroy those who funded and supported that attack, perhaps you think we should not institute security measures to prevent it from happening again.

I do and support those efforts to protect me and my loved ones. And if I were not so damned ancient, I would volunteer to serve again in whatever capacity I could to protect this nation.


amicus...

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I personally think you have a weak case, Colleen. I should have a succinct answer as to why 'war' has not been declared since 1941, but I do not, only broad speculations.

I do know that the United States did not want to risk world war three with a head to head confrontation with the Soviet Union or Communist China. Korea and Vietnam were, surrogate wars, with the Soviets and the Chinese Communists supplying arms and equipment to third world nations in an attempt to destabilize the current world order.

That is a simplification, of course, just as it is to mention that Egypt and other Arab nations were supplied with Soviet arms to destabilize the middle east and that Soviet Mig fighters and French Mirage fighters made up the Air Force of Saddam Husseins military in 1991.

Many nations have sold armaments around the world as the 'surrogate wars' have moved from Communist backing to terrorist support from similar nations.

While I agree that the protection of civil liberties in the United States is of great importance, by aligning yourself with the shady characters of the left, you malign your own modus operandi by seeming to cohabit with those that are just anti anything American.

Rest assured that this administration, especially this administration, is taking all precautions necessary to protect civil liberties in this country and at the same time, combat international terrorism which has demonstrated that it can get to us on our own soil.

It is not nearly as fine a line to tread and the left would have it. Any rational person realizes that the United States must take proactive measures to protect our people.

I did not enjoy have my bags searched and being required to remove my shoes before boarding my last flight. I am not pleased that my internet friends in Egypt and China, just to name two, might be cause for my emails and conversations to be monitored.

There are many aspects of the increased security that I am not pleased with and I would like 'sunset' restrictions placed on all Homeland Security edicts and Patriot Act procedures.

While you are correct in stating that we are not 'technically' at war, perhaps you would choose a name for a conflict that took nearly 3,000 lives in New York City in 2001.

Perhaps you do not think we should seek out and destroy those who funded and supported that attack, perhaps you think we should not institute security measures to prevent it from happening again.

I do and support those efforts to protect me and my loved ones. And if I were not so damned ancient, I would volunteer to serve again in whatever capacity I could to protect this nation.


amicus...

Cloaking yourself in the flag may very well work when you are arguing with liberals. But don't try it with me. I've got freinds in family in Iraq, I come from a martial family, and I know I have given a greater percentage of my gorss income to the navy, VFW and USO than you have. I support the troops as loyaly as anyone here and I have gone to bat for the belief on this forum as often as anyone, if not more so.

Congress declares war, not the yahoo in the white house. It's written that way, specifically, to make sure the sentiments of the nation are represented and not just one man's vendetta when that precipitous step is taken. That isn't a weak argument, it's in the document in black and white.

If the proactive steps you say are self evident, include the abrogation of the rights we enjoy, then what's the fucking point? We've already lost the very freedoms and ideals that we agree make us different.

You might be happy to lube up and take the loss of your rights lying on you back with a smile and a gw tatto on your forehead. I'm not. My grandfather didn't ridk his life in the pacific so GW can go around arresting anyone he damned well pleases without charges or trial or represenation. My uncle didn't risk his life in a p-51 over germany escorting b-17's for the 8th army so bush could aggrgate to hiself more power than any president in memory, including those liberals you so detest.

I may not be cut from the same fibre as those men. I may not have their courage or resolve. But the apple didn't fall far from the tree and I won't sit quietly, cowed into silence by accusations against my patrioptism, while my rights are chipped away at. I won't go silently, into that night. There are too many ghosts that would cry out traitor if I did to make the accusations of tin plated patriots make an iota of difference to me.

 

[amicus]

One helluva defense and statement, Colleen, almost makes me want to stand up and salute.

There was a band of unhappy campers during world war two when many freedoms were restricted, yes, I know, that was a 'declared' war.

Were the Saudi's who destroyed the twin towers sent by the King of Saudi Arabia, this war on terror would also be a 'declared' war.

Suffice it to say that I think your fears of a diminution of civil rights by the dreaded Dubya, as ya'all say, is much overblown.

I think it is a product of the rabid left that you have bought into and I do not agree with you.

I do have that right, you know?


amicus...

 

[elsol]

Suffice it to say that I think your fears of a diminution of civil rights by the dreaded Dubya, as ya'all say, is much overblown.


amicus...

Warrantless searches.
Habeus Corpus discarded

Yeah... maybe they overblow it... but tell me Dubya wouldn't do more if someone didn't.

I know I for fucking sure would!

Sincerely,
ElSol

 

[Colleen Thomas]

One helluva defense and statement, Colleen, almost makes me want to stand up and salute.

There was a band of unhappy campers during world war two when many freedoms were restricted, yes, I know, that was a 'declared' war.

Were the Saudi's who destroyed the twin towers sent by the King of Saudi Arabia, this war on terror would also be a 'declared' war.

Suffice it to say that I think your fears of a diminution of civil rights by the dreaded Dubya, as ya'all say, is much overblown.

I think it is a product of the rabid left that you have bought into and I do not agree with you.

I do have that right, you know?


amicus...

You have every right. I fully support your right. I think the fact that I haven't put you on ignore and continue to respond to your posts, when others have not should be good evidence that I do support your right.

On the other hand, I won't support your right to cloak your opinion in the flag of our country and use it to deflect criticism of you position. Intimations that I am less loyal, less devoted to this country or less sensitive to or admiring of our soldiers in the field will draw my ire. I put my money where my mouth is. I live on a fixed income, my monthly income from disability just barely comes out to what I made per pay period when I was working. The only part of my budeget that hasn't suffed is the untouchables. Among those few neccssities are donations to the Navy, to the VFW and the USO.

My only point was that.


Padilla is a US citizen. Improsioned over two years, with no charges filed, no right of habeous corpus and, for most of that time no right to counsel. That happens in Saddam's Iraq or Pinochet's Chile. It isn't supposed to happen in the USA to US citizens. But it has.

Unlike many here, it is airly rare for me to directly go off on Dubya. But in this case, this has happened on his watch. And I am well within the rights of reasoned and rational thinking to hold him ultimately responsible for it. Your defense of the action is war powers and security. I don't happen to think an undeclared war, on a nebulous threat, warrants the same degree of abrogation of fundamental rights by the powers that be that I warranted in a declared war.

I am perfectly capable of debating with you the range and scope of war powers, both the legal ramification and the moral ones. I am willing to debate them as concrete issues or in a more theoretical context, as you please.

I am not willing to have my patriotism and love of country ridiculed, which I felt your post did.

 

[elsol]

And if I were not so damned ancient, I would volunteer to serve again in whatever capacity I could to protect this nation.


amicus...

Don't worry, Ami... if Bush keeps this up in the face of his military recruitment numbers, you'll get your chance.

Iran is around the corner so he's only go three choices

a) The evalengicals go...

His voter base... not going to happen.

b) The draft

And you might as well hand the Democrats the next 50 years of majority (Something Rove will lead the exodus out of the Middle East before he'll do it).

c) The age of service will be raised to the point where you can live up to those words... i hope you like sand.

I fucking hated the stuff... chafed my nuts.

Sincerely,
ElSl

 

[elsol]

And Colleen... Amicus is using the present favorite tool of neo-cons...

Question the patriotism of anyone who disagrees.

It's a very good strategy... I hope the neo-cons continue to win... like I said Amicus is an atheist, he's going in the pot soon enough

At my core, I'm a bible-thumper so I'll be the one lighting the torches.

"Hey, where in this here theory of evolution does it say life started in the Garden of Eden?"

HALLELUJAH!! IT'S OUR TIME! BELIEVE OR BE SACRIFICED FOR THE GREATER GLORY OF THE LORD!


Sincerely,
ElSol

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Don't worry, Ami... if Bush keeps this up in the face of his military recruitment numbers, you'll get your chance.

Iran is around the corner so he's only go three choices

a) The evalengicals go...

His voter base... not going to happen.

b) The draft

And you might as well hand the Democrats the next 50 years of majority (Something Rove will lead the exodus out of the Middle East before he'll do it).

c) The age of service will be raised to the point where you can live up to those words... i hope you like sand.

I fucking hated the stuff... chafed my nuts.

Sincerely,
ElSl

Iran won't be a war of men Sol, it'll be genocide. Prefearbly at long range. Saddam put the forth largest army in the world up against them and, with few exceptions, got his ass handed to him.

When you talk about war with Iran, your talking about killing Iranians, in droves. Their human wave attacks swampped Saddams armor and defeated his artillery, and he was using soviet guns, the best on the market.

Not saying we couoldn't do it, but if we do, you are talking wholesale carange on a World War I batle of the Somme or Verdun scale. Forty or fifty thousand casualties at a pop stuff. And you'll have to do it, because your rear areas will be one big partisan shooting galler on the soviet modle.

There is no percentage in invading Iran, unless you are prepared to kill on a grand scale.

 

[elsol]

There is no percentage in invading Iran, unless you are prepared to kill on a grand scale.

Make for an easy victory... and Dubya needs one.

Sincerely,
ElSol

 

[amicus]

Egads and Wow, here...early in the morning after I watched Flight 93....

By the way it is being repeated several times in the next few days if you did not see it.

Colleen, as I recall, nearly two years ago, you were the only rational voice amongst the rable of Bush haters on this forum.

I did not consider what I said to imply questioning your patriotism, although many here see the word itself as a burden.

I have been reading or reporting news since the early 1960's and remain a news 'junkie' if you will. I am not and have never been a 'blind' patriot and have had and do have many objections to actions considered and carried out by the United States.

In this instance of NSA, Patriot Act, Surveillance tactics, et cetera, the whole nine yards, I simply think we must do what we must do to protect American citizens and unlike you, I do not see a serious threat to basic civil rights, but a very careful and controlled effort to combat terrorism within the confines of law and civil liberties.

Second Issue...

Iran...

I think you do not fully realize the capabilities of the US Military. I think you do not fully realize the import of 'air superiority' and interdiction.

I think you may not be aware of 'Warbots' and Armed Drones and airborne and satellite laser weapons and targeting.

And what I have learned, is all declassified and what I do not know, is far beyond that.

Aside from eliminating a military threat from Iran, and isolating them from any contact from the outside, contingency plans exist to assist in any way, revolutionary forces within Iran and Syria, for that matter.

If that does not come to fruition, then, quite different from Iraq, the entire infrastructure of Iran can be neutralized in a few hours; no electricity, no water, no transportation, any moving vehicle targeted and destroyed, remotely, like a video game.

That is not the preferred scenario but I assure you, it is one of the contingencies.

I do not appreciate the 'faith based' foundation of President Bush, but beneath that, I think, is a certainty of purpose that adheres to the highest values of human values.

I listened fully to the State of the Union address and although his speeches may be written for him, he knows of what he speaks. His is not on a crusade, but a firm determination to defend the values of this nation and extend them if possible.

It is a different world than there has ever been before. There has never before been only one 'superpower' with global influence and the ability to extend that influence and power within hours. Not Rome, not Spain, not the British Empire, nor Hitler's Germany or Hirohito's Japan.

It is a strange world where Europe, even the E8, and Russia and China, are really but pawns in global strategy, there has never been such a time and I do truly fear the aftermath if the left ever gains control of American politics and withdraws from the position of dominance in the world.


sighs...sorry...went off...


amicus...

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Egads and Wow, here...early in the morning after I watched Flight 93....

By the way it is being repeated several times in the next few days if you did not see it.

Colleen, as I recall, nearly two years ago, you were the only rational voice amongst the rable of Bush haters on this forum.

I did not consider what I said to imply questioning your patriotism, although many here see the word itself as a burden.

I have been reading or reporting news since the early 1960's and remain a news 'junkie' if you will. I am not and have never been a 'blind' patriot and have had and do have many objections to actions considered and carried out by the United States.

In this instance of NSA, Patriot Act, Surveillance tactics, et cetera, the whole nine yards, I simply think we must do what we must do to protect American citizens and unlike you, I do not see a serious threat to basic civil rights, but a very careful and controlled effort to combat terrorism within the confines of law and civil liberties.

Second Issue...

Iran...

I think you do not fully realize the capabilities of the US Military. I think you do not fully realize the import of 'air superiority' and interdiction.

I think you may not be aware of 'Warbots' and Armed Drones and airborne and satellite laser weapons and targeting.

And what I have learned, is all declassified and what I do not know, is far beyond that.

Aside from eliminating a military threat from Iran, and isolating them from any contact from the outside, contingency plans exist to assist in any way, revolutionary forces within Iran and Syria, for that matter.

If that does not come to fruition, then, quite different from Iraq, the entire infrastructure of Iran can be neutralized in a few hours; no electricity, no water, no transportation, any moving vehicle targeted and destroyed, remotely, like a video game.

That is not the preferred scenario but I assure you, it is one of the contingencies.

I do not appreciate the 'faith based' foundation of President Bush, but beneath that, I think, is a certainty of purpose that adheres to the highest values of human values.

I listened fully to the State of the Union address and although his speeches may be written for him, he knows of what he speaks. His is not on a crusade, but a firm determination to defend the values of this nation and extend them if possible.

It is a different world than there has ever been before. There has never before been only one 'superpower' with global influence and the ability to extend that influence and power within hours. Not Rome, not Spain, not the British Empire, nor Hitler's Germany or Hirohito's Japan.

It is a strange world where Europe, even the E8, and Russia and China, are really but pawns in global strategy, there has never been such a time and I do truly fear the aftermath if the left ever gains control of American politics and withdraws from the position of dominance in the world.


sighs...sorry...went off...


amicus...

It's all right. Going off I mean. I went off on you when I felt you were making dispargin remarks about my patriotism. If you weren't I apologize. It's a very deeply held and emotionally charged part of my make up and I suppose I tend to get defensive faster than is warranted.

On Iran, I understand our military capability about as well as anyone on this forum. I don't have to go to Jane's to know the effective range of a tomahawk, or the specs on an Fa-18, or the crusing range of a carrier task group, or the bomb load of a b-52 or B-2. I don't need a primer in advanced infantry tactics, or armor tactics, or combined arms operations. I know exactly what is entailed in gaining air supremacy. I even know the difference between air superiority and air supremacy. I know the battle history of at least half the units engaged. I would say, I am on top of what we theoretically can do.

Warbots are, more or less sueless in this kind of fighting. Predator RPV's would be used, but their usefulness in this kind of war would be limited. You aren't talking baout a clean war, with percision munitions in iran. You're talking about arc light strikes. You aren't talking about fire and manuver infantry tactics. You're talking 6th panzer army stalingrad defensive tactics.

Iran has a demographic curve thatt's a military comannders field of dreams. Very few on the very old and very young scale, with a huge surplus of fighting age men.

We do have the technological capability to win. That isn't in question. Even if we keep the tac nukes in their lockers. But you are talking about a fanatical enemy, and having to inflict casualties in the 15 to 20 million dead range. And even after you occupy them, you are talking a bloody ocupation that makes Iraq look like a cake walk.

Also, you have to consider this, Iraq is 60% shia muslim. Iran is a shia muslim country. Any stageing bases you use for this war, are going to be in shia Iraq. You will very likely face an uprising in your rear areas, before you get more than a few clicks into Iran.

I don't question the military means to do it. I question the ability of any administration to order what will boil down to genocide. Considering Iraq, I question this administration's ability to recognize exactly what an invasion of Iran entails.