Veto the 30 year war

Pat Buchanan......I disagree with a lot of it but a good deal of it is very hard to argue with....

http://www.theamericanconservative.c...rty-years-war/


The power to declare war, including the power of judging the causes of war, is fully and exclusively vested in the legislature.”

With this citation from Madison, Cong. Walter Jones is calling for a debate and decision on whether America should go to war in Syria and Iraq, when Congress reconvenes after Nov. 4. Last week’s events make Jones’ request a national imperative.

For former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta says we are heading into a “30-year war” against the Islamic State and the emerging threats in Nigeria, Somalia, Yemen, Libya and elsewhere. He faults Obama for not bombing Syria when Assad crossed his “red line” and used chemical weapons. U.S. credibility was damaged, says Panetta. “There’s a little question mark to, is the United States going to stick this out?” This new war is the opportunity “to repair the damage.”

Yet consider the man Panetta wants to lead the United States into a war to restore America’s credibility. The president’s “most conspicuous weakness” is “a frustrating reticence to engage his opponents and rally support for his cause,” says Panetta. Too often, he “relies on the logic of a law professor rather than the passion of a leader.” He “avoids the battle, complains, and misses opportunities.”

But with Hamlet as your commander in chief, why would you start a war? And consider our allies in this new war.

Joe Biden has been forced to apologize to Turkey and the United Arab Emirates for saying at Harvard that both had been providing huge infusions of money and weapons to the ISIS terrorists who have beheaded Americans. But what was Joe guilty of, other than blurting out the truth?

The terrorists of ISIS are today closing in on the Syrian-Kurdish city of Kobani on the Turkish border, having overrun scores of villages. A hundred thousand Syrian Kurds have fled into Turkey. Yet though ISIS warriors are visible right across the border, and Turkey has the second largest army in NATO, with 3,500 tanks and 1,000 aircraft, the Turks are sitting on their hands, awaiting what may be a massacre.

Why? David Stockman quotes Turkish President Erdogan this weekend: “For us, ISIL and the (Kurdish) PKK are the same.” Erdogan is saying a plague on both their houses. To Istanbul, the PKK are terrorists, as are the ISIS fighters the PKK is trying to keep from overrunning Kobani. The United States, too, designates both the Islamic State and the PKK as terrorist organizations. Which terrorist organization do we want to win this battle?

Who do we want to win the war between ISIS and the al-Qaeda-linked al-Nusra front on one side, and Assad’s regime, which Obama and John Kerry wanted to bomb in August of 2013? Whose side are we on in Lebanon?

This weekend, al-Qaeda’s Syrian wing, Jabhat al-Nusra, lost 16 jihadists in an incursion into the Bekaa Valley. Who defended Lebanon and fought the terrorist intruders? Hezbollah, which we have declared a terrorist organization. Whose side are we on in the Hezbollah vs. al-Qaeda war?

In Yemen last week, al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, whom the United States has been attacking for years, sent a suicide bomber in an explosives-laden car into a hospital used by Houthi rebels, who have taken over the capital of Sanaa. Are the Houthis America’s allies? Probably not, as they have plastered Sanaa with their slogans, “Death to America, death to Israel, a curse on the Jews, and victory to Islam.”
The Houthis fighting al-Qaeda, like Hezbollah fighting al-Qaeda, are Shia, supported by Iran, which is on our side against ISIS in Syria and on our side against the Islamic State in Iraq. But to Bibi Netanyahu, speaking at the U.N. last week, Iran is the great enemy: “[T]o defeat ISIS and leave Iran as a threshold nuclear power would be to win the battle and lose the war.”

Hence, the neocon war drums have begun to beat for U.S. strikes on Iran if negotiations on Iran’s nuclear program conclude Nov. 24, with no deal satisfactory to the United States. But no matter how olfactory its regime, why start a war with an Iran that is a de facto, and perhaps indispensable, ally in preventing ISIS from establishing its caliphate in Damascus and Baghdad?

Since 1980, writes Andrew Bacevich, the United States has invaded, occupied or bombed 14 nations in the Greater Middle East—Iran, Libya, Lebanon, Kuwait, Iraq, Somalia, Bosnia, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Sudan, Kosovo, Yemen, Pakistan, and now Syria.

The cost: Tens of thousands of U.S. dead and wounded, trillions of dollars lost, hundreds of thousands of Muslim dead and wounded, millions of refugees, Christians foremost among them. And for what?

Are we better off now than we were 30 years ago, with the Middle East today on fire with civil, sectarian, tribal, and terrorist wars?

Congress should vote no on any new Thirty Years’ War.

Privately, Barack Obama would probably be grateful.

I'd veto any war with a set time limit. If it's worth going to war then it's worth winning it.

Wars are done when they are won.

The power to declare war, including the power of judging the causes of war, is fully and exclusively vested in the legislature.”

. Originally Posted by timpage

Then you would agree that the war that Congress declared on Iraq, at the time it was declared, was legitimate?
I'm not talking about who lied about what. That debate will go on forever. I'm talking about HJ res. 114 March, 2003. Was it or was it not a legitimate declaration of war?

Then you would agree that the war that Congress declared on Iraq, at the time it was declared, was legitimate?
I'm not talking about who lied about what. That debate will go on forever. I'm talking about HJ res. 114 March, 2003. Was it or was it not a legitimate declaration of war? Originally Posted by boardman

Legitimate in what sense? And, when you use the term "declaration of war", are we utilizing a legal term? Something that has statutory meaning? Forgive me.....I'd love to play your little game of "Watch me act like I'm in charge of the debate by changing the topic" but I'd rather hear what you think about the topic I chose:

Do you support the idea that Congress vote for a formal declaration of war of roughly, or maybe exactly, 30 years with....well, with...... whoever..... apparently?

Legitimate in what sense? And, when you use the term "declaration of war", are we utilizing a legal term? Something that has statutory meaning? Forgive me.....I'd love to play your little game of "Watch me act like I'm in charge of the debate by changing the topic" but I'd rather hear what you think about the topic I chose:

Do you support the idea that Congress vote for a formal declaration of war of roughly, or maybe exactly, 30 years with....well, with...... whoever..... apparently? Originally Posted by timpage

OK.
No, I think it's silly.
Just like anything else Parkinson's law will come in to play.
If you are going to go to war start hard and finish it. You don't stay and nation build or police them. You bring them to their knees as quickly and as brutally as you can and force the survivors to submit. If you don't have the stomach for that then you don't go to war.
We conquered the fucking world in 3 1/2 years. I say if you want to put a time limit on war it should be 3 1/2 years.

I'd veto any war with a set time limit. If it's worth going to war then it's worth winning it.

Wars are done when they are won. Originally Posted by TheDaliLama

That is true. But, the complicated part is when you start trying to figure out what "winning" means and just how difficult, or even, impossible, that might be. The best question of all is "What if it's not worth doing, even if we can "win" it but maybe especially what if we can't?.... because nobody knows what "winning" means? Be good if your boy Cheney had figured out a few of the answers to those questions before he went off all half-cocked.

Winning means unconditional surrender or annihilation.
It's really not as complicated as "what the meaning of "is" is.
But in our PC society some fucktard somewhere along the way decided to give a trophy to the loser lest they cry.

Legitimate in what sense? And, when you use the term "declaration of war", are we utilizing a legal term? Something that has statutory meaning? Forgive me.....I'd love to play your little game of "Watch me act like I'm in charge of the debate by changing the topic" but I'd rather hear what you think about the topic I chose:

Do you support the idea that Congress vote for a formal declaration of war of roughly, or maybe exactly, 30 years with....well, with...... whoever..... apparently? Originally Posted by timpage

It's settled law, Little Timmy-tard, the Supreme Court already ruled:

For purposes of international law, a war in fact is a war in law, and "it is not necessary to constitute war that both parties should be ... sovereign states. A war may exist when one of the belligerents claims sovereign rights as against the other." The Amy Warwick, 67 U.S. 635 (1862).


http://quod.lib.umich.edu/j/jala/262...;view=fulltext

Hence, when your **Constitutional lawyer** tells you he is not at war, Little Timmy-tard, he's lying to your dumb-ass ... AGAIN!

Timmy, why tell Congress?? Obama says he has the authority to start a war, without any votes by Congress, and has used that authority twice now. Are you saying Obama is wrong????

Timmy, why tell Congress?? Obama says he has the authority to start a war, without any votes by Congress, and has used that authority twice now. Are you saying Obama is wrong???? Originally Posted by RedLeg505

Try reading the post genius. Maybe you will figure it out. Obama doesn't want to do it and never will on his own. Unlike you and the rest of the knuckledraggers, he understands that sending US combat troops to the Middle East is a black hole with little to no upside.

Legitimate in what sense? And, when you use the term "declaration of war", are we utilizing a legal term? Something that has statutory meaning? Forgive me.....I'd love to play your little game of "Watch me act like I'm in charge of the debate by changing the topic" but I'd rather hear what you think about the topic I chose:

Do you support the idea that Congress vote for a formal declaration of war of roughly, or maybe exactly, 30 years with....well, with...... whoever..... apparently? Originally Posted by timpage

He is not changing the debate. You said it first! Any lawyer will tell you not to bring up something you don't want to have to talk about. As I have, and some others have previously posted, it is Congress who declares war. The president generally ASKS for that declaration. So it was Congress who approved the use of military force in both Afghanistan and Iraq. If only the democratic could understand that then we could save a lot of time arguing over "statutory meanings".

I also agree with the Lama. If we're not going to win the damned war then maybe we should stay out. Taking about ISIS, we need to start bombing the shit out of them 24/7 and not his only at night (where it's safer) thing. We need to start giving that close ground support that is so dearly needed by the PPK. If Obama can't bring himself to ask for a declaration then Boehner sould draft the bill himself and put it before the House.

At this time I also question the authority that Obama is using to send troops to Africa. What is their mission? Is it to build facilities? They don't usually have carpenters and masons on ships or in the ranks of the army. Is it to provide security? What are the rules of engagement? What is the overriding national interest that demands we send troops who have no special training and not readily special equipment. You liberals blamed Bush for not having armored Humvees even though it was Congress who voted the money (and didn't) so where are you when it comes to environmental suits for everyone in the US mission.

Congress will be back after the elections, maybe they will do something then.

Congress will be back after the elections, maybe they will do something then. Originally Posted by i'va biggen

A GOP congress!!!!

Oh I forgot, they won't do anything then.

Oh I forgot, they won't do anything then. Originally Posted by i'va biggen

We will be in for another 2 years of stalemate.
Neither side will compromise.

Term Limits!