Posted on 10/14/2009 8:56:48 AM PDT by rabscuttle385
What if tomorrow morning you woke up to headlines that yet another Chinese drone bombing on US soil killed several dozen ranchers in a rural community while they were sleeping? That a drone aircraft had come across the Canadian border in the middle of the night and carried out the latest of many attacks? What if it was claimed that many of the victims harbored anti-Chinese sentiments, but most of the dead were innocent women and children? And what if the Chinese administration, in an effort to improve its public image in the US, had approved an aid package to send funds to help with American roads and schools and promote Chinese values here?
Most Americans would not stand for it. Yet the above hypothetical events are similar to what our government is doing in Pakistan. Last week, Congress did approve an aid package for Pakistan for the stated purposes of improving our image and promoting democracy. I again made the point on the floor of the House that still no one seems to hear: What if this happened on US soil? What if innocent Americans were being killed in repeated drone attacks carried out by some foreign force who was trying to fix our problems for us? Would sending money help their image? If another nation committed this type of violence and destruction on our homeland, would we be at all interested in adopting their values?
Sadly, one thing that has entirely escaped modern American foreign policy is empathy. Without much humility or regard for human life, our foreign policy has been reduced to alternately bribing and bombing other nations, all with the stated goal of “promoting democracy”. But if a country democratically elects a leader who is not sufficiently pro-American, our government will refuse to recognize them, will impose sanctions on them, and will possibly even support covert efforts to remove them. Democracy is obviously not what we are interested in. It is more likely that our government is interested in imposing its will on other governments. This policy of endless intervention in the affairs of others is very damaging to American liberty and security.
If we were really interested in democracy, peace, prosperity and safety, we would pursue more free trade with other countries. Free and abundant trade is much more conducive to peace because it is generally bad business to kill your customers. When one’s livelihood is on the line, and the business agreements are mutually beneficial, it is in everyone’s best interests to maintain cooperative and friendly relations and not kill each other. But instead, to force other countries to bend to our will, we impose trade barriers and sanctions. If our government really wanted to promote freedom, Americans would be free to travel and trade with whoever they wished. And, if we would simply look at our own policies around the world through the eyes of others, we would understand how these actions make us more targeted and therefore less safe from terrorism. The only answer is get back to free trade with all and entangling alliances with none. It is our bombs and sanctions and condescending aid packages that isolate us.
No. Actually, it makes good sense to do it that way. Then, as GraceG suggested, we unleash the hounds of hell on any nation who either attacked us or supported any terrorist group who did.
Our Navy and Marines could STILL make port calls and project a presence in various places, as well as being that force in readiness. But since the Army is seen much differently than the Marine Corps IT would have to stay home until war broke out. The army is, as has been true though the ages, an OCCUPYING force, which does not make foreign nations feel warm and fuzzy toward it. The Amphibious Ready Groups are seen in a whole different light. While they can be used as “forced entry” troops to make it safe for the army to land and occupy, they are ALSO seen as humanitarian in nature, which tends to enhance their reputation.
“Breach of treaties and truces are ‘offenses against the Laws of Nations’ and congress is given a separate clause to ‘define and punish’ said offenses.”
Yeah, Matt, that’s what the Afghan resolution was: a punishment expedition. Then we started getting bogged down and now look at where we are. I think the resolution was more akin to “hot pursuit” than anything else and that’s fine. But when we have time to sit and mull things over and jawjack about stuff, we have time to draft a proper declaration of war. Like we should have in Iraq if things were so bad FOR US there.
On THAT you are as wrong as you can be, either through ignorance or design, you pick it. RP does not believe in waiting for our shores to be breached. He believes in taking the fight to the enemy, JUST AS WE DID IN WWII. The thing he wants is a CONSTITUTIONAL MANDATE TO DO SO. That is, a proper declaration of war which commits the Congress and the nation to a swift and sure VICTORY, and which does NOT give congress an out to waffle as the rats did in Iraq.
That is absolutely fair to consider and discuss. My concern with that is that we already have a legal and actionable document with the Authorization of the Use of Force. Going back to the drawing board and changing this to a Declaration of War has several challenges, not in the least is that you now have a bunch of politicians in DC given the opportunity to tweak and modify action orders and even dumping on those in the field, simply to satisfy the political winds of pop culture versus simply being held accountable for the authorization they already approved. The other issue I see is that a Declaration of War is generally against a specific state or regime versus our current conflict deals with an enemy that crosses or doesn’t bear allegiance to specific states and/or whose regimes change names faster than mafia families.
This is why I will never consider voting for Ron Paul and consider the folks who support him loonies. Same for Libtards. They don’t seem to get it. This isn’t a law enforcement situation. Its a war.
I expect that may be true for a majority of Freepers also so I realistically can not expect people to react to the loss of an intangible concept the same way that I would react to the loss of a tangible lifestyle. That being said, even allowing for an ignorance factor, it really rankles me to see another "Conservative" ripping at any person's attempt to provide a straw for us to grasp as this ship is floundering in the communist storm that is gripping this nation.
True conservatives need to swallow their spit and get united against the common foe instead of wasting our ire on the likes of Ron Paul or this country will be gone forever.
We ALSO have a pres__ent who has said that his aim is NOT to win in Afghanistan. To me, that means he needs to get our people OUT of there NOW, since he has undermined our whole purpose for going in there to begin with. I was OK with going after the AQ and talibunnies when we first entered, with the goal of getting rid of them and perhaps being able to kill bin Laden. But after we did 2 of 3, the mission changed into a NON-MILITARY mission and at that point we should have left. You do NOT use military force to monitor elections or “build democracies” or any such other thing, even if it were Constitutional, which, of course, it is NOT.
Sorry, but keeping military forces where their mission is no longer a valid military mission makes no sense and gets folks killed when some jackass who stole an election decides to change the ROE with little to no notice and STOP protecting our forces by allowing them to protect themselves with artillery and close air support and whatever else is needful. They need to come home NOW. So do the guys and gals in Iraq, since we achieved our stated goal of getting the Hussein regime out of power and seeing Saddam hanged. The rest is NOT OUR MISSION.
With respect to a Declaration of War, pass the word that we will go to war with any nation that harbors and/or fails to root out terrorists who attack us from within their borders. That should cure that problem, I would think.
Where exactly do you see it as a war any more? It is NOT, not any longer. It has evolved into a NON-MILITARY mission and our pres__ent has already decided that we are not (if ever we were) in it to win. So please explain why we should still be in either place. With specifics, if you would, as to who the enemy is, why the current governments cannot take care of their OWN defense, and just where in OUR Constitution FedGov is allowed to behave like this. ESPECIALLY when FedGov has REFUSED to secure our very OWN borders against terrorist groups penetrating it illegally.
Ron Paul voted FOR the authorization to use force in Afghanistan.
An Inconvenient Truth.
Your history is lacking, I fear.
Jefferson sent a naval squadron to Tripoli with a letter AND a ransom in 1801 but it was found by the time they arrived that the Pasha of Tripoli HAD ALREADY DECLARED WAR ON THE UNITED STATES. So what the Navy and Marines did, until they got Congressional approval, was to DEFEND THEMSELVES IN A WAR THAT WAS DECLARED ON THEM BY THE ENEMY.
Please, don’t try to distort history to a Marine who knows the history of his Corps. Won’t work.
How did that Ron Paul settlement work out? Did they ever decide if they needed sewage?
Nothing inconvenient about it. He was OKing hot pursuit after the planners and financiers of 9/11, which is legitimate by ANYONE’S definition. It was when the mission changed that many of us grew leery, AS WE SHOULD HAVE.
I'm not sure I want to waste much time posting on Paul, but from your comments you seem to have some knowledge of the historical use of the Corps, more directly the Navy. It's fair to say that most of their actions over the centuries would be deemed "unconstitutional" by Paul supporters.
G-d Bless Lt. O’Bannon, Consul Eaton, the handful of Marines who served with them raising our Flag on a foreign shore for the first time (I’m sounding like a neocone here), as well as the hundreds of Arabs and Greeks who served with them. But if you know the history then you know Congress did NOT declare war. Deliberately. And they had four years from the Pasha’s declaration to the battle of Derna to do it. And the pirates were no threat to the continental US. Ron Paul would be dismayed by Eaton’s adventureism. You’re sounding like a neocon too.
Yes, a good number would. I would also consider some of them unconstitutional, particularly our “interventions” in Central America during the 1920s and our actions in China during the same time period. However, the war with the Barbary pirates was fully legitimate and done properly as far as I can see.
Also, with respect to the current situation, do you REALLY see us “winning” in either Afghanistan OR Iraq? If so, how? If not, why would we want to leave our troops in either place?
Okay, its complicated, but stick with me.
Al Qaeda didn’t attack the US to hurt us. (Its not that they didn’t enjoy hurting us, but to them, that was just a side benefit.)
Al Qaeda attacked us to provoke a reaction; it had tried three or four times before and failed to get the reaction it wanted. The 9/11 attack was scaled to make sure we couldn’t ignore it or respond by blowing up some tents and camels with some cruise missiles. It wanted us to go to war with the “Islamic world,” and cause anti-”Crusader” uprisings that would eventually overthrow the various ME regimes that were “allied” with us and lay the groundwork for restoring the Caliphate.
They failed utterly.
(There is a lot of other funny stuff that went on. For instance, Iraq wasn’t invaded because of Saddam and WMDs, but to make an impression on an uncooperative Saudi government...)
However, Al Qaeda survived. They lost some people, but otherwise they’re still in pretty good shape. They’re hiding out in Pakistan, Iran and other areas, with plenty of money still coming in from various sources: “Islamic charities,” drugs, bribes from NGOs, etc.
And, unfortunately, Al Qaeda shows signs of being able to learn from its mistakes. Of course it might be in the process of making some new ones (like POing the PRC - bad, bad idea).
(Incidentally, this is probably why we haven’t seen more large scale attacks in the US. They got their reaction from us, but they didn’t didn’t the response they wanted from Muslims. So they’re gonna have to try something else. No sense in wasting resources before then.)
So, if we bail, the Taliban comes back, Al Qaeda comes back, and they have “street cred” for “beating” (aka surviving) the Americans. Then they start laying some new ground work for their next try.
And I really don’t want to contemplate what their next try is going to look like.
Its rough on the troops but better a police action in Afghanistan that 9/11^2.
I just wish we had a marginally pro-American president who cared about crushing our enemies more than he cares about appeasing them. Of course, part of or strategy has always been avoid provoking that “uprising” that Al Qaeda wanted (”religion of peace,” coming down on Israel and supporting the Palis, idiotic RoEs, bribes, etc.).
(Mind you this is sort of a condensed “Strategy Page” version of history and I could be completely out to sea, but it makes a sort of sense.)
So isn't that more or less the same leeway that Congress granted Bush in regards to Iraq?
I do not care what he voted for, Ron Paul is not the enemy!
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.