A nation at war, but kept clear of combat

[thegodfather]

Preventive measures are not always the most popular or easiest but they are the best in the long run.

'Preventetive Measures' are not authorized in our Constitution. Thats a fact. Also, wars that are not declared by Congress, are illegal. You need a Declaration of War, so the rebuttal that Congress "authorized" the war by approving funds for it is void. It doesn't matter, they didnt have the authority to do that under the Constitution. Constitution, Constitution, Constitution, Constitution, Constitution, Constitution... Everyone look it up please...

[B.E.N.]

'Preventetive Measures' are not authorized in our Constitution. Thats a fact. Also, wars that are not declared by Congress, are illegal. You need a Declaration of War, so the rebuttal that Congress "authorized" the war by approving funds for it is void. It doesn't matter, they didnt have the authority to do that under the Constitution. Constitution, Constitution, Constitution, Constitution, Constitution, Constitution... Everyone look it up please...

Who said they or anything else was or was not authorized. The war IS...arguing why or by who is irrelevant at this point.

The war is/was necessary to wipe out terrorist cells then, now, and in the future. Do it right now so you don't have to fix it or do it over again. Preventive measures...

[thegodfather]

Who said they or anything else was or was not authorized. The war IS...arguing why or by who is irrelevant at this point.

The war is/was necessary to wipe out terrorist cells then, now, and in the future. Do it right now so you don't have to fix it or do it over again. Preventive measures...

You're terribly uninformed... There was never a single shred of evidence to suggest that there was a single terrorist cell within Iraq. Iraq was not ever a state sponsor of "terrorism" and Saddam Hussein actually persecuted Al-Qaeda. So you can join our President in searching for endless reasons and justifications for going to war with Iraq, all of them baseless and unsubstantiated. The war with Afghanistan I supported, as we should have gone in to get the person we suspected was behind the 9/11 attacks.

As far as the authorization goes. You need to read the Constitution of the country you live in. Congress is only authorized to declare war on another country if the United States (homeland) national security is being directly threatened (I.E.-troops massing on our borders, warships inbound to the US homeland, bombs being dropped, inbound fighter planes, or a declaration of war on us from another country). The pre-emptive warfare doctrine is nowhere to be found in the Constitution, therefore making it an illegitimate and ILLEGAL policy. It is hard, and I would say pretty much impossible, to make any sort of legitimate argument that Saddam Hussein and his very weak army presented any real and viable threat to the homeland of the United States. Perhaps he posed a threat regionally, but then again that is absolutely NONE OF OUR FUC*ING BUSINESS.

It's a shame to see how out of touch Americans really are with the ideas of the founding fathers and the ideas of liberty&freedom (libertarianism). Your responses to me sound exactly like the garbage the American people get spoon fed by Fox News at 6pm. Do you have any independent free thoughts that you formed on your own? Have you done any real research into the topic(reading the news paper is not research)? Do you even know anything about the countries we invaded, the number of lives lost, etc? My guess is that you do not.

[B.E.N.]

You're terribly uninformed... There was never a single shred of evidence to suggest that there was a single terrorist cell within Iraq. Iraq was not ever a state sponsor of "terrorism" and Saddam Hussein actually persecuted Al-Qaeda. So you can join our President in searching for endless reasons and justifications for going to war with Iraq, all of them baseless and unsubstantiated. The war with Afghanistan I supported, as we should have gone in to get the person we suspected was behind the 9/11 attacks.

As far as the authorization goes. You need to read the Constitution of the country you live in. Congress is only authorized to declare war on another country if the United States (homeland) national security is being directly threatened (I.E.-troops massing on our borders, warships inbound to the US homeland, bombs being dropped, inbound fighter planes, or a declaration of war on us from another country). The pre-emptive warfare doctrine is nowhere to be found in the Constitution, therefore making it an illegitimate and ILLEGAL policy. It is hard, and I would say pretty much impossible, to make any sort of legitimate argument that Saddam Hussein and his very weak army presented any real and viable threat to the homeland of the United States. Perhaps he posed a threat regionally, but then again that is absolutely NONE OF OUR FUC*ING BUSINESS.

It's a shame to see how out of touch Americans really are with the ideas of the founding fathers and the ideas of liberty&freedom (libertarianism). Your responses to me sound exactly like the garbage the American people get spoon fed by Fox News at 6pm. Do you have any independent free thoughts that you formed on your own? Have you done any real research into the topic(reading the news paper is not research)? Do you even know anything about the countries we invaded, the number of lives lost, etc? My guess is that you do not.

Yep...very uniformed...ha.

Where is the Constitution rambling coming from? No one but you brought this up. Focus...back on topic. The war is happenning to argue if it should and authorized it is futile.

When I speak to my best friend, whom is a highly educated employee working for the D. Dept. as a Special Agent guarding heads of state, diplomats, and Congressmen in the war zone, and he is telling me what he can about terrosist shooting mortars at his convoy. I'll believe someone in country than some liberal yahoo sitting in front of his keyboard. Same goes for when he was in Afghanistan and Somalia. But I'm sure the US is just there to take over to. How about you do a little reading about the fledgling govt. in Somalia that the US is attempting to support to eliminate the current corrupt govt. there. Yep...no terrorism there either.

9/11 didn't happen either right...

[B.E.N.]

NONE OF OUR FUC*ING BUSINESS.

Yeah...bury your head the problem will work itself out.

[thegodfather]

Yep...very uniformed...ha.

Where is the Constitution rambling coming from? No one but you brought this up. Focus...back on topic. The war is happenning to argue if it should and authorized it is futile.

When I speak to my best friend, whom is a highly educated employee working for the D. Dept. as a Special Agent guarding heads of state, diplomats, and Congressmen in the war zone, and he is telling me what he can about terrosist shooting mortars at his convoy. I'll believe someone in country than some liberal yahoo sitting in front of his keyboard. Same goes for when he was in Afghanistan and Somalia. But I'm sure the US is just there to take over to. How about you do a little reading about the fledgling govt. in Somalia that the US is attempting to support to eliminate the current corrupt govt. there. Yep...no terrorism there either.

9/11 didn't happen either right...

Again, are you capable of forming your own opinions and thoughts, or do you rely on your 'friend' in the DOD to make up your mind for you? The FACT of the matter is, if we had not invaded a sovereign country to begin with, they would not be able to fire mortars at us. If another country had done the same thing to our country, I'm certain a large portion of the population here would be firing mortars at them!

Yes, the issue of the legitimacy of the war is very relevant. I stated a FACT, that Iraq was never a state sponsor of terrorism, and the evidence of such was never substantiated in any form what so ever. So, any suggestion to the contrary is an outright fabrication.

By the way, I'm not a liberal, I'm a conservative Republican.

[B.E.N.]

Again, are you capable of forming your own opinions and thoughts, or do you rely on your 'friend' in the DOD to make up your mind for you? The FACT of the matter is, if we had not invaded a sovereign country to begin with, they would not be able to fire mortars at us. If another country had done the same thing to our country, I'm certain a large portion of the population here would be firing mortars at them!

Yes, the issue of the legitimacy of the war is very relevant. I stated a FACT, that Iraq was never a state sponsor of terrorism, and the evidence of such was never substantiated in any form what so ever. So, any suggestion to the contrary is an outright fabrication.

By the way, I'm not a liberal, I'm a conservative Republican.

I'll tell you what helps form my opinion...

When he calls me after having a shit of a day because he actually had to fire on another vehicle attempting to attack his convoy. Or when he almost had to shoot a Hajie point black for running up to a stopped convoy, for fear he was a suicide bomber. Or when the call goes dead because he drops the call because the sky starts whistling with mortars.

Look I understand your passion for your opinion...it's admirable. But don't try to talk to me like I am some uneducated meat head. Or start calling childish names. That lessons to impact of argument and makes you appear uneducated.

[thegodfather]

I'll tell you what helps form my opinion...

When he calls me after having a shit of a day because he actually had to fire on another vehicle attempting to attack his convoy. Or when he almost had to shoot a Hajie point black for running up to a stopped convoy, for fear he was a suicide bomber. Or when the call goes dead because he drops the call because the sky starts whistling with mortars.

Look I understand your passion for your opinion...it's admirable. But don't try to talk to me like I am some uneducated meat head. Or start calling childish names. That lessons to impact of argument and makes you appear uneducated.

I dont see anywhere in my post where I called names, and if I did previously then I apologize in advance. Anyway, you are addressing the unfortunate circumstances which your friend has to deal with as the direct result of flawed political policy in the United States. I am trying to address the reasons that your friend is even put into those positions. He has a job to do, to figh the given enemy of the conflict. I am simply arguing that he would not be put in harms way had our country stuck to the instructions of the Constitution and had the Executive branch not fabricated evidence in order to goto war.