ironglow,
I did answer your question but let me clarify, I am not in favor of violating the Constitution for any reason. We invaded two sovereign nations without a Constitutional declaration of war. After 9/11 I wanted Bin Laden dead just as much as you you did. To me the right thing to do would have been to let the Taliban government know that they have a choice, either give us what we wanted or we would formally declare war on them. As far as Iraq goes, I don't see the point. If it's our nation's policy to go after any country that has weapons that might do us harm then there are other countries such as Iran who are more deserving.
We have a template on how to win and lose wars. During the last war that we won congress formally declared war on Germany and Japan. We used every tool we had at out disposal and we went all in. We dropped the big bombs knowing many innocent lives would be taken, it didn't matter to us, we just wanted to win. Since then we have changed to a policy of undeclared wars while at the same time decided the lives of American soldiers are less important than collateral damage. That is absolutely sickening and the biggest reason why we lost in Korea and Vietnam. To me if a war is necessary then we better be prepared to use every tool at our disposal or else don't send our good men and women to battle.
To further answer your question, I don't want to give up. I want to see us change our policy of foreign alliances. Get out of the middle east completely, protect our own borders and not worry about what happens in the rest of the world. Like I said before, there is no way a few hundred thousand American troops in Iraq and Afghanistan can root out all of the millions of Jihadists out there. Never mind the Trillions of dollars that is costs. A change in foreign policy is the only way to cure it. Otherwise we will be fighting with them until the end of time. Our current policy of fighting the bad guys with our hands tied behind our backs is not the way that is going to end terrorism. There are far too many of them and they are multiplying like rabbits. The only answer is to give them somebody else to hate instead of us.
Shall I assume that you are in favor of violating the Constitution to keep us safe by not answering my questions?
Doublebass;
I did offer you an answer, but you didn't receive it. Just because you declare certain actions as "unconstitutional"..doesn't mean they are .. How often do we hear everybody and his back fence neighbor declare some action as unconstitutional ? Still, these accusations must be searched out in the courts, up to and including the SCOTUS ! Remember also, the constitution also places "provide for common defense" as a top priority !
You say a war must be officially declared, otherwise we are simply invading another nation's soveriegn territory. According to the most Libertarian candidate (RP)in a recent interview, using a spec ops team in a judicious way may become necessary. Jimster heard the same interview;
"I just hear Ron Paul speak, he named off the part of the constitution that he would agree with concerning this, a small number of men sent on special ops missions to strike, he also said it would have cost much less than having our soldiers killed by the thousands over 10 years deployed looking for bad guys. I had to agree with him on this."
So, is Ron Paul saying that violating the constitution "by just a little bit" is acceptable ? I think we know the answer. We know what a man is called who only liues once or twice a week..and a woman who sells her honor once or twice a month is. There is no such thing as violating the constitution "a little bit". I certainly can agree that where a small number of spec ops can accomplish the job..let them do it, rather than commmit large forces. This is exactly what Donald Rumsfeld was developing when he was relieved.
I am not in disagreement with Ron Paul in this however, since such activities are covered by providing for the common defense... just as our leaders are doing when they seek to eliminate WMD aimed at being used upon the US.
I do agree that whatever forces the US commits, should be backed by all the supplies and support needed to do the job as quickly and efficently as the can...and that without political interference. War should be a "no holds barred" event where the active enemy is concerned. I agree with most of what you say about being serious about war..avoid if possible, but once entered into..no hesitations.
Encapsulating; If we are to claim "constitutional purity" we cannot violate it by even a "little bit". But then we are faced by a situation like Afghanistan and the Pakis.. both being two-faced and harboring our enemies. With the Pakis already possessing nuclear weapons and subject at any time being taken over by radical Islamofacists, what is our next move ? Do we declare war on Pakistan, or wait until they have furnished nuclear weapons to groups who use them on several of our major centers ? Remember, our borders are still very porous and there is strong evidence that such groups are already here...
Do we leave them alone and unhindered in the middle east...only to continue to plot, plan and put into motion, still more 9/11s ?
