Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Jim DeMint votes to end Iraq War
The Daily Caller ^ | 2011-12-08 | Jack Hunter

Posted on 12/10/2011 1:46:40 PM PST by rabscuttle385

James Madison, “The Father of the Constitution,” wrote: “In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.”

Enabling governments to “control the governed” has always been easy, as tyranny has long been mankind’s default position: Virtually every regime in history has sought to increase its power. Obliging government to “control itself” has always been the hard part, and nations that value freedom have always tried to place limits on their rulers in recognition of the fact that governors are not always angels.

Most Americans, from the Founding Fathers to the current generation, would likely agree that decisions to wage war are probably the most important decisions our federal government makes. Madison noted that it was a fairly universal truth that the more powerful a government’s leaders, the more interest there will be in going to war. “The Constitution supposes, what the History of all Governments demonstrates, that the Executive is the branch of power most interested in war, and most prone to it,” Madison wrote. “[The Constitution] has accordingly with studied care vested the question of war in the Legislature.”

Last week, Senator Jim DeMint studied the question of the nine-year-long Iraq War, and decided to end it. I don’t mean “end” the Iraq War in merely the sense that President Obama now advertises — bringing the troops home, ending hostilities, etc. Hell, President Obama starts and ends wars all the time (see: Libya) without even the pretension of seeking legal authority. Sen. DeMint’s support was for something much different and more significant: He voted to end the Iraq War by demanding that the president no longer be able to legally wage it.

The United States hasn’t officially declared war since World War II. Korea, Vietnam, Somalia, Afghanistan — none of these were “wars” officially, though the men and women who fought in them might beg to differ. President Bush took us to war with Iraq in 2003 in the same extra-constitutional manner: He went to Congress to get “authorization,” but still both Congress and the president apparently thought that the Iraq War wasn’t important enough to merit an official declaration of war, as the Constitution demands.

When Senator Rand Paul offered an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act last month that would revoke the authorization given to Bush in 2003 regarding Iraq, only three Republican senators joined him: DeMint, Dean Heller of Nevada and moderate Republican Olympia Snowe of Maine. There were plenty of Democrats who voted for Paul’s amendment. Of course, there were plenty of Democrats who were against the Iraq War from the beginning, though they were probably not motivated by limited-government considerations.

Sen. DeMint supported the Iraq War. Most Republicans did. Conservatives can now debate whether that support, in retrospect, was justified. But Sen. Paul’s amendment was a debate over whether the Iraq War is still justified today. Paul’s amendment was also a debate over whether giving the president of the United States carte blanche in Iraq is still justified. Only four Republicans said “no.”

It is DeMint’s vote that is the most instructive. Sen. Paul is a tea party champion who has always been upfront about his opposition to the Iraq War. While her vote was commendable, Sen. Snowe is not exactly a guiding light for most Republicans. Sen. Heller probably has the lowest profile of the four. But Sen. DeMint is a conservative’s conservative. The right has long followed DeMint’s lead on most issues. Conservatives need to follow it on Iraq and executive power too.

If the Republican Party has any interest in limited government or the Constitution, the president’s authority to wage war in Iraq must eventually be revoked. As it stands now, this president and any future president will have the power to do whatever he likes militarily in Iraq without so much as consulting Congress. Many Republican members of Congress were rightly miffed that President Obama did not consult them before his recent military action in Libya. As it stands, Congress now gives any president free rein to do the same in Iraq. Forever.

For conservatives to dismiss war and foreign policy as the one area where presidents should have unlimited power is to dismiss the very purpose of our Constitution’s system of checks and balances. As Madison recognized, the president should not be entrusted with the power to act unilaterally, especially when it comes to war.

Americans must choose between Madison’s understanding of executive power and Obama’s. Last month, Sen. Jim DeMint chose Madison’s. His fellow conservatives must eventually choose too.


TOPICS: Editorial; Foreign Affairs; US: South Carolina; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: 112th; demint; iraq; lping; randpaul; realconservatives; undeclaredwars; wot
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-75 next last

1 posted on 12/10/2011 1:46:41 PM PST by rabscuttle385
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385

He is correct, now when will he revoke TARP.


2 posted on 12/10/2011 1:49:15 PM PST by org.whodat (Just another heartless American, hated by "AMNESTY" Newt, Willard, Perry and his fellow supporters)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385

Finally a senator with some common sense. This war should never have been started.


3 posted on 12/10/2011 1:52:45 PM PST by doc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 506Lake; alrea; Amanda King; americanophile; Babsig; be-baw; Canticle_of_Deborah; catfish1957; ...
Jim DeMint: serving up platefulls of awesomesauce.

  
Jim
DeMint
Ping!

Want on or off this ping list? GET WITH THE PROGRAM! Just FReepmail me.

Follow Sen. DeMint on Twitter.

4 posted on 12/10/2011 2:00:08 PM PST by upchuck (Let's have the Revolution NOW before we get dumbed down to the point that we can't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: doc

Congress gave themsleves an unconstitutional “out” when they passed the War Powers Act in 1973. They did so to limit the Presdient’s ability to commit troops for more than 60 days without their approval. The fact is that Congress already had that ability; its called the “power of the purse”. They can end ANY conflict by withdrawing the funding, but because they don’t want to deal with the political fallout of defunding “the troops”, Congress takes the easy way out. Its all about “checks and balances” and Congress’ “check” was their control of the money. Period!


5 posted on 12/10/2011 2:02:01 PM PST by cumbo78
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385

Yep. No more nation-building!

Go in and kill the terrorists and leave. Period.


6 posted on 12/10/2011 2:06:59 PM PST by GeronL (The Right to Life came before the Right to Pursue Happiness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385

DeMint just voted for Iran to take over Iraq.


7 posted on 12/10/2011 2:12:52 PM PST by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385
I didn't realize there were so many cowards who didn't care about national security who disguise themselves as conservatives.

But I've seen many on FR lately. I guess you can brag about your cowardice if no one knows who you are, eh?

8 posted on 12/10/2011 2:15:38 PM PST by ohioWfan (Proud Mom of a Bronze Star winner!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Not talking about DeMint......just the punks and cowards who roam FR these days.....


9 posted on 12/10/2011 2:16:41 PM PST by ohioWfan (Proud Mom of a Bronze Star winner!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385

Good for DeMint.

And I salute Rand Paul for taking this stand.


10 posted on 12/10/2011 2:17:45 PM PST by SharpRightTurn ( White, black, and red all over--America's affirmative action, metrosexual president.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ohioWfan

Libertarians that follow the Paulite version of “foreign policy”. Not conservative, no, but a number of them are on FR.


11 posted on 12/10/2011 2:19:38 PM PST by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: doc
This war should never have been started.

Therefore, we [Free Republic] wholeheartedly support the Bush Doctrine of pre-emptive strikes on known terrorist states and organizations that are believed to present a clear threat to our freedom or national security.

Statement by the founder of Free Republic

"We fight them [Islamofacists] over there so we don't have to fight them over here" sounds like a winning strategy to me.

12 posted on 12/10/2011 2:20:38 PM PST by re_nortex (DP...that's what I like about Texas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: AdmSmith; AnonymousConservative; Berosus; bigheadfred; Bockscar; ColdOne; Convert from ECUSA; ...

Thanks rabscuttle385.
...starts and ends wars all the time (see: Libya) without even the pretension of seeking legal authority. Sen. DeMint's support was for something much different and more significant: He voted to end the Iraq War by demanding that the president no longer be able to legally wage it.

13 posted on 12/10/2011 2:22:07 PM PST by SunkenCiv (It's never a bad time to FReep this link -- https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385

Now that we’ve withdrawn almost everyone we have there...what a brave stand!

I know, I like DeMint, but excuse me while I stifle a yawn.


14 posted on 12/10/2011 2:23:08 PM PST by Future Snake Eater (Don't stop. Keep moving!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: re_nortex
Exactly. We didn't start this war, and not finishing it will make us look much weaker. The Mullahs in Iran have been cheering on the "last helicopter scenario" ever since we allowed the new Iraqi government to vote itself an Islamic constitution (of all things‼—why did we allow that to happen?!?)—what kind of egg on our face will that be if we allow more terrorism to breed, and allow Iran to create a new Caliphate across a wide swath of the Middle East and North Africa?
15 posted on 12/10/2011 2:59:59 PM PST by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: ohioWfan; Abathar; Abcdefg; Abram; Abundy; albertp; Alexander Rubin; Allosaurs_r_us; amchugh; ...
I didn't realize there were so many cowards who didn't care about national security who disguise themselves as conservatives.

The only cowards here are the ones who refuse to stand up against illegal, immoral wars of aggression.

The traitors are the ones who think that the U.S. government ought to act as a "global policeman," a role not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution, yet are unwilling to pay for it, in blood or in treasure, and would prefer to send others to die and make others - even the unborn - to pay. Even worse, these traitors leave the back door wide open for foreign invaders, all the while lying to the men and women whom they send to die in strange lands that they are "defending" their families, friends, and communities, when in reality they are being dispatched as mercenaries to serve foreign powers and foreign interests.

Libertarian ping! Click here to get added or here to be removed or post a message here.

16 posted on 12/10/2011 3:07:30 PM PST by rabscuttle385 (Live Free or Die)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai
Exactly. Calling themselves conservative, but aligning themselves with Dennis Kucinich's 'Department of Peace.'

The best phrase I've heard describing them is 'liberal tightwads,' but 'cowards' also suits them well.

17 posted on 12/10/2011 3:13:28 PM PST by ohioWfan (Proud Mom of a Bronze Star winner!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385
Calling Dennis Kucinich!!! Come join your fellow peaceniks on FR!

Refusing to protect this country from its enemies and from danger is the only cowardice here.....

18 posted on 12/10/2011 3:16:13 PM PST by ohioWfan (Proud Mom of a Bronze Star winner!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385
btw, exiting this thread as the liberal peacenik 'army' has been pinged......

Enjoy your hippie flower fest. :)

19 posted on 12/10/2011 3:18:21 PM PST by ohioWfan (Proud Mom of a Bronze Star winner!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: upchuck

Your Senator and his colleague from Kentucky (you know which one I speak of, and it isn’t Mitch McConnell) are real patriots and statesmen.

It’s a darn shame that neither DeMint nor the Paul from Kentucky are running in 2012, but, irrespective of which flip-flopping, soulless statist pig (Gingrich/Romney or Obama) wins, I will sleep soundly knowing that there are actual patriots and statesmen in the Senate actively working to drain the Federal swamp.


20 posted on 12/10/2011 3:19:39 PM PST by rabscuttle385 (Live Free or Die)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385
There are plenty of neocons, like Bill Kristol, who are always ready to place the lives of other people's children on the line for nation-building around the world. Yet, they and their children always avoid military service.
21 posted on 12/10/2011 3:21:23 PM PST by bwc2221
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: ohioWfan

Exactly. Calling themselves conservative, but aligning themselves with Dennis Kucinich’s ‘Department of Peace.’
The best phrase I’ve heard describing them is ‘liberal tightwads,’ but ‘cowards’ also suits them well.
________________________________

If being conservative means not fighing usless wars with useless people but instead, making out country safe with defensive tactics and insisive covert military ops, I am all for it. Staying in Iraq does nothing more for our defense. We would have to occupy every country in the world, and it wont work.


22 posted on 12/10/2011 3:22:35 PM PST by Chickensoup (In the 20th century 200 million people were killed by their own governments.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: GeronL; All

The Iraq and Afghan wars did succeed in attracting enemy fighters’ attention to their home turf instead of America. As much as I did not see much benefit to having an extended urban fight there, it did draw enemy fighters away from America.

IMHO, however, in the big picture, the optimal solution to national security is very easy if approached the right way.

A) Congress should declare war on islamic enemies in general, i.e., anyone or any group that is islamic is a potential enemy combatant.

B) American courts and the Federal government then need to handle cases differently than they do now where a person is 1) accused of mass murder type actions AND also 2) the person declares that they hate America or seek to destroy it, i.e., they are part of the war. They need no-nonsense scheduling of the prosecution. If the person is a citizen, they need to treat it as a treason case. If they are not a citizen - including being here illegally or legally - then they need to be treated as an enemy combatant in the war, and sent through a military tribunal.

C) If America is attacked and the source of the attack is traced back to a foreign nation, the war is already declared, that nation simply becomes the next battleground. That nation should be flattened as quickly and efficiently as possible, with extreme prejudice, and that battle ends and most forces return home. The only ones left there should be implementing our extraction of payment for the task, i.e., the spoils of war. No Mr. nice guy, no worrying about American anti-war types crying, just do it. The surviviing citizens of the defeated nation are on their own. Every military that we utterly destroy makes the world that much safer a place. The remaining nations of the world will quickly take notice and the whining and chatter will gradually subside as everyone realizes the new reality - we’re serious. In the mideast, if a number of those nations were wacked in this way, the mideast problems would be over very quickly.

I’ve come to realize even the word terrorist kind of soft-pedals what’s really going on. The enemy folks don’t want to terrorize us, they actually all want us converted to islam or dead. Terrorism, IMHO, is trying to blow up a plane and hoping to cause political change by doing it. But islamic leaders actually say they want all Americans dead; they seek a war to the death, not just to terrorize us.

IMHO.


23 posted on 12/10/2011 3:34:36 PM PST by PieterCasparzen (We have to fix things ourselves.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385
There are plenty of neocons, like Bill Kristol, who are always ready to place the lives of other people's children on the line for nation-building around the world. Yet, they and their children always avoid military service.
24 posted on 12/10/2011 3:34:45 PM PST by bwc2221
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: All; rabscuttle385
President Bush took us to war with Iraq in 2003 in the same extra-constitutional manner: He went to Congress to get “authorization,” but still both Congress and the president apparently thought that the Iraq War wasn’t important enough to merit an official declaration of war, as the Constitution demands.

Setting aside that the constitution used the verb "declare," is there any legal distinction between the "authorization" and a "declaration" in terms of international law or leeway of President has to conduct the war?

25 posted on 12/10/2011 3:39:31 PM PST by newzjunkey (Republicans will find a way to reelect Obama and Speaker Pelosi.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ohioWfan

They’ll be pulling their hair out when they discover that everyone they carelessly branded “neocon” (a favorite epithet of the liberals) was absolutely right about Iran. Won’t take long now. We did not start this war, as they have been brainwashed by the leftists into believing.


26 posted on 12/10/2011 3:53:20 PM PST by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Chickensoup
Well, if Iraq were 'useless' I might agree, but since they were a major proponent and supporter of terrorism, at war with the United States, and seeking to build nuclear weapons, the facts support our needing to defeat them.

The rest of your post about 'occupying every country in the world' is just silly hyperbole.

27 posted on 12/10/2011 4:00:33 PM PST by ohioWfan (Proud Mom of a Bronze Star winner!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai
Oh.....you are SO right.

Just a few posts above you some Paulite leftie used the epithet,'neocon.'

And they think we actual conservatives don't notice..... :)

28 posted on 12/10/2011 4:02:53 PM PST by ohioWfan (Proud Mom of a Bronze Star winner!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: bwc2221
I believe at least one of Bill Kristol's kids is in the military.

Disagree with his politics if you will (we all do about something), but make sure you're right when you accuse him of having his children 'avoid the military.'

btw, I just happened to look at a bunch of liberal sites on Kristol, and they called him a 'neocon' ......just.....like.......you......did. :)

29 posted on 12/10/2011 4:09:02 PM PST by ohioWfan (Proud Mom of a Bronze Star winner!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: ohioWfan
Ah come on, why don't you call the "Chickenhawks" to the rescue -- you know the ones who spent Vietnam getting covered by college deferments and who'd never think of sending their own kids off to war, but who show their great "patriotism & bravery" by sending the children of others off to die for their ego trips and political careers.

You'd be surprised at just what that "Chickenhawk List" looks like if you researched it -- it's a who is who of most Neocon America, including Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, Newt Gingrich, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, etc. Their wars are good enough for killing your kids, but not for them or theirs.

My husband is a decorated Vietnam AF Vet who enlisted to go to Vietnam. A close family member, same age, was college deferred out for most of Vietnam but not quite all of it, so eventually he was asked to report -- he deliberately aggravating a minor skin condition on his right hand with Clorox for a week so that it showed he "couldn't hold a gun" and got declared 4F.

Now guess which one of these two is the Neocon and guess which one is more careful about reasons for us going to war? Guess which one had a son who went into the military, and which one in spite of arguing for us going into Iraq, sniffed at the very idea that his 24 yr son should enlist?

I know what the cost of war looks like, I live with it everyday. There are good reasons to go to war, in defense of home and country. But those reasons should not include just becoming a pawn on some arrogant policy geeks chessboard - -especially one who has no respect for you, your life or your country --only their egos and their globalist financiers plan for them.

There was actually one element to having a military draft that made sense: When people were forced to send their own sons to war, they thought twice about the value and the costs of that war. Today, all they have to do is slap up an "I Support the Troops" post on their Facebook page and they think that they are a real "Patriot"! Personally, it turns my stomach.

30 posted on 12/10/2011 4:12:18 PM PST by Bokababe (Save Christian Kosovo! http://www.savekosovo.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Bokababe
Wow. That was quite the irrelevant rant. Brava!

Son in the military, support the military, supported the necessary invasion of Iraq and getting rid of Saddam.

Opposed the hippie peaceniks during Viet Nam, just as I oppose the Paul punk peaceniks now. Same breed. Leftist cowards.

Thank your husband for his service, chip on your shoulder and irrelevant personal Clorox anecdote notwithstanding......

31 posted on 12/10/2011 4:17:43 PM PST by ohioWfan (Proud Mom of a Bronze Star winner!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: ohioWfan
"I oppose the Paul punk peaceniks now. Same breed. Leftist cowards."

Yeah, Ron Paul -- one of the only Republican candidates who actually served in the military --as an AF Flight Surgeon during wartime -- and the candidate who has more financial support from the active duty military than all the other Republican candidates combined. Yes, must ignore those "leftist cowards" who actually put their lives on the line for our country./s

Waht are you smoking? You are a complete joke.

32 posted on 12/10/2011 4:23:34 PM PST by Bokababe (Save Christian Kosovo! http://www.savekosovo.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Bokababe
I don't smoke......anything. Ever.

The real question is what is Ron Paul smoking. His foreign policy is in line with Dennis Kucinich's. It is Paul who is the joke, not me.

33 posted on 12/10/2011 4:28:39 PM PST by ohioWfan (Proud Mom of a Bronze Star winner!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: ohioWfan
The real question is what is Ron Paul smoking. His foreign policy is in line with Dennis Kucinich's.

No, the real point is that you can have whatever foreign policy view you want -- and you can disagree with Jim De Mint or Ron Paul as much as you like -- but what you don't get to do is spit on and dismiss the opinions of those who have served in our military and are serving, as all just being "Leftist, hippie, Peaceniks". They've paid and are paying the price to be heard. They deserve that respect at least, given that they are the ones who have and are fighting the wars we are talking about.

You know, the hell with what I think about these wars. But don't diss them because they don't deserve it!

34 posted on 12/10/2011 4:45:30 PM PST by Bokababe (Save Christian Kosovo! http://www.savekosovo.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: ohioWfan; Bokababe; mkjessup
I don't smoke......anything. Ever.

I don't think you do.

I think that you're naturally off the reservation.

Another FReeper whom I hold in esteem once referred to you as "a mad puppy with a chew toy." After all, you said you were leaving this thread; instead, nearly one-third of the posts on this thread are yours, including at least five made after you said you were leaving.

35 posted on 12/10/2011 4:49:25 PM PST by rabscuttle385 (Live Free or Die)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385
It’s a darn shame that neither DeMint nor the Paul from Kentucky are running in 2012,

And to think a few months back the meme was "Scott Brown for President." We rush to every new face on this forum and always wind up with the same loser, globalist candidate.

36 posted on 12/10/2011 4:57:15 PM PST by itsahoot (Throw them all out! Especially the Frugal Socialists who call themselves Republicans.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: GeronL

Absolutely! Unleash the dogs of war completely or bring them home now. I worry about losing our brothers n sisters who have to adjust if there is a big wave returning. Hard to re -intergrate. I hope this is done responsibly.


37 posted on 12/10/2011 5:01:20 PM PST by momincombatboots (Back to West by G-d Virginia.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Bokababe
I never once said that any veteran didn't have the right to be heard. Ron Paul can say and think anything he wants. He can be an isolationist, he can believe in a policy that would put us in mortal danger if he wants.

The problem comes when he wants to become Commander in Chief with a dangerous, head-in-the-sand, foolhardy, brain-dead foreign policy.

btw, if you think every single veteran is a conservative, you'd better think again.....

38 posted on 12/10/2011 5:18:19 PM PST by ohioWfan (Proud Mom of a Bronze Star winner!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: doc
Finally a senator with some common sense. This war should never have been started.

This one was highly avoidable. For the record I am not antiwar. My R.O.E's would get me labeled a barbarian in here by some who were pro-Iraqi war. Not one 911 terrorist was Iraqi if I remember right. But Saddam did need too be taken out and there was other Constitutional ways to do it cheaper, likely faster, and would not have involved deploying troops. It's called letters of marque and/or reprisals.

War is indeed the most serious act congress can authorize and it should never be taken lightly nor should it be bypassed in the manners it has since Korea. NEVER should a member of the Armed Forces be asked to shed blood in combat without a formal declaration of war or letter of marque or reprisal being issued. The authorization was U.N. resolution enforcement crap. WE declared war on Germany and Japan as well with about two simple paragraphs. Look at the authorization of force in Iraq. It's pages of CRAP!

Some it seems do not understand what war is for and how it is too be fought. I'll give you a clue you don't fight it in the limited tieing our troops hands behind their back manner we did in Korea, Nam, and Iraq. You go to war with troops hands free. You do not second guess mens actions in combat when it comes to where they shoot unless it is at their own troops. War should always be for the elimination of a stated threat done with extreme prejudice.

The policy of going to war too rebuild nations needs to be ended. It is morally wrong. I remind Bush backers Bush himself condemned nation building Clinton did. You go to war too destroy infrastructure and kill people. There are no innocents in an enemy nation. That is immoral some might say? No it's not and some need too read Joshua and get GOD's plan for war.

We had good soldiers, airmen, sailors, and Marines being Court Martialed over their actions under fire in Iraq while Bush and his useless McNamara the second Sec of Defense Rummy did nothing. They didn't support our troops so why would congress? Congress {Murtha for example} was calling for our troops heads and ZILCH from Secof DEF or POTUS in desfense of the troops in combat. COWARDS!!!! They owed it too the troops to stand up for them. War is not for making buddies richer. If that is the case that this is the purpose for war then Smedley Butler was right.

The war in Iraq should have been declared and media kept home. It should have left all infrastructure including communications, bridges, buildings, power generation facilities, and defense facilities in smoldering ruins. Anything Iraq could have used to produce weapons destroyed and our troops upon completion of that goal called back home for a victory celebration. But anyone with minimal military knowledge could tell by the third night of bombing that this was going to be just what it become. A nation building boondoggle and now Iraq is armed much better than it was when Saddam was alive. We have idiots for leaders. We never should have re-armed Iraq.

You don't build them new roads, bridges, power plants, schools, hospitals, etc nor do you ask a United States Member of the Armed Forces too do such as that is not their job. Their job is too kill and destroy the enemy and protect our nation.

I was against the war in Iraq because no war was formerly declared by congress to obligate congress too it's military conclusion. The results? The same as Nam and Korea. Why should we expect different?

It also amazes me that places we had every right to declare war against we didn't like Yemen and Somalia. We got into this terrorism mess thanks to an E.O. penned by Gerald Ford which in effect ended Letters of Marque and Reprisals as a means to address foreign threats. Ford stopped covert assassinations of foreign heads of state. From that time forward terrorism took hold. Heads of state knew they were safe and hell was unleashed afterward in the Middle East and Med Sea Basin starting with the Iranian Hostage Crisis.

I support our troops 100% unconditionally. Does even our Republicans these days? Cuts continued through the Bush terms despite a two house GOP majority. Not that DEMs are better they aren't but the GOP has become one with the DEMs on foreign policy and our military.

National Defense is the number one function of government and they can't even manage it correctly. Yet because someones idol POTUS sits in the Oval Office persons on both sides are willing to give their parties POTUS Carte Blanche privileges with regards too sending troops into harms way. History will not judge any POTUS from Bush Sr through present kind.

39 posted on 12/10/2011 5:18:32 PM PST by cva66snipe (Two Choices left for U.S. One Nation Under GOD or One Nation Under Judgment? Which one say ye?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385; mkjessup

Hi, mk! rabs is trying to stir up trouble again. :)


40 posted on 12/10/2011 5:20:14 PM PST by ohioWfan (Proud Mom of a Bronze Star winner!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: ohioWfan
Refusing to protect this country from its enemies and from danger is the only cowardice here.....

There are lots of ways to do that. "Nation building" is not among them.

41 posted on 12/10/2011 5:21:42 PM PST by Carry_Okie (The Democrats are and always have been the Party of the Extremely Rich, the Party of Slavery.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

Got news for you, sport. Obama ha already pulled the plug on that war. DeMint doesn’t want an endless cycle of us going to war in Iraq for the next hundred years at the pleasure of whomever is occupying the White House. If we need to go to war against a country then let’s declare war and go pound them.


42 posted on 12/10/2011 5:29:31 PM PST by Scotsman will be Free (11C - Indirect fire, infantry - High angle hell - We will bring you, FIRE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: ohioWfan

You are pretty free with your insults and I sure as hell don’t remember you wearing fatigues when I was. I’d guess from your tagline that you never did.


43 posted on 12/10/2011 5:31:47 PM PST by Scotsman will be Free (11C - Indirect fire, infantry - High angle hell - We will bring you, FIRE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: re_nortex
"We fight them [Islamofacists] over there so we don't have to fight them over here" sounds like a winning strategy to me.

A better strategy would have been to leave Saddam Hussein in place so he could fight the Iranians, keeping a lot of that burden off us.

A better strategy would have been to finish the job in Afghanistan before starting something else.

The Iraq war was a colossal blunder. President Bush meant well, but it was not well thought out. Realism and a sober assessment of the region was lacking.

44 posted on 12/10/2011 5:52:27 PM PST by Colonel Kangaroo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Colonel Kangaroo
A better strategy would have been to leave Saddam Hussein in place so he could fight the Iranians, keeping a lot of that burden off us.

That would have worked and did work for years. I'm for it and I'm serious. If they want to go at it then let them. Keeps them busy. Too accomplish this though would requiring the closing down of the U.S. State Department that considers itself the only expert on all military matters :>}

45 posted on 12/10/2011 6:04:28 PM PST by cva66snipe (Two Choices left for U.S. One Nation Under GOD or One Nation Under Judgment? Which one say ye?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Colonel Kangaroo
A better strategy would have been to leave Saddam Hussein in place so he could fight the Iranians, keeping a lot of that burden off us. A better strategy would have been to finish the job in Afghanistan before starting something else. The Iraq war was a colossal blunder. President Bush meant well, but it was not well thought out. Realism and a sober assessment of the region was lacking.

Precisely! Afghanistan and bin Laden were Jobs 1 & 2, and no distractions were worth it.

46 posted on 12/10/2011 6:24:24 PM PST by Bokababe (Save Christian Kosovo! http://www.savekosovo.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Scotsman will be Free
My 'insults' are narrowly directed, and do not include men or women who have served this country honorably in uniform, other than Ron Paul, who is a pacifist who wants to be CinC. I do not insult his service, however. Only his naivte regarding the dangers of the world, including his ridiculous pov regarding Iran.

You're right about my not serving. I'm old enough not to have had that privilege as a female.

47 posted on 12/10/2011 7:05:40 PM PST by ohioWfan (Proud Mom of a Bronze Star winner!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie
Sometimes it's required. For example, it's a good thing we didn't leave Germany or Japan to their own devices after WWII. I would say we did quite a bit of 'nation building' in Japan, and I, for one, am glad we did.

Not an exact parallel, I know, but an example that can't be ignored.

Ron Paul buries his head in the sand and pretends that Iran is not a threat, and can be ignored.

He would be a dangerous President. Fortunately, he hasn't got a prayer to be elected, his rabid groupies notwithstanding. (I think that's why they're so mad all the time. Their 'cause' is hopeless. :)

48 posted on 12/10/2011 7:10:58 PM PST by ohioWfan (Proud Mom of a Bronze Star winner!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Scotsman will be Free

Got news for you, sport. Obama ha(s) already pulled the plug on that war. DeMint doesn’t want an endless cycle of us going to war in Iraq for the next hundred years at the pleasure of whomever is occupying the White House
You're contradicting yourself. Here, libertarian backs up liberal. Nobody was conducting any war "at the pleasure of the White House"—that is, unless you believe all the anti-US propaganda about the war, coming out of places like (where?) Iran, Russia, the European Union, and other such places with enmity towards the US. All this pullback was done because of folly insofar as very fearful-looking liberal foreign policy towards Iran, and no other reason. Iran's the number-one state sponsor of terrorism on the whole planet, and allowing surrounding middle-eastern states that have themselves sponsored terrorism in the name of Islam or Islamic socialism to become more like Iran is to institute anti-US policies right on US soil . . . sport.

If we need to go to war against a country then let’s declare war and go pound them
What, their declaring war on us isn't enough?
49 posted on 12/10/2011 7:31:49 PM PST by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Scotsman will be Free
PS. Iran was indeed fighting against US troops in Iraq—and we're still pulling out while leaving the job unfinished in both cases. Same goes for Afghanistan, where Iranians have been assisting both the native Taliban and the Taliban in Pakistan. Do we have to wait for a declaration of war every time to protect the US and other nations? Imagine if we had to wait for such declarations for both Barbary Wars (none were made), the engagements in Iraq and Afghanistan being modern-day parallels.
50 posted on 12/10/2011 7:38:43 PM PST by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-75 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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson