Are You Getting Scared? - Page 6 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

Botnst · #76 11-20-2004, 12:59 AM

In the constitution it says that the Congress has the power to declare war and that the President is CINC. The Constitution says nothing about generals and such. Can't get much more civilian than that.

Zeitgeist · #77 11-20-2004, 01:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

Say for example there's a man in a box without windows. He suddenly finds himself thrown against the floor with great violence. After a time, he adjusts and it seems that stability is reached. Then suddenly he starts floating upward and suddenly he careens toward the ceiling. He finds himself flattend against the ceiling and then slowly struggles to his feet.

The hapless man things that maybe there is a machine outside of his box, like a giant magnet, pulling him this way or that. Or maybe somebody has his box on a bungie.

How can this man know the truth of his circumstances without having special knowledge of what's going-on outside of his closed box?

Dude, you need to start thinking outside the box.

dolebludger · #78 11-20-2004, 02:47 PM

Botnst:

I agree with your statements about Congress and the President having the right to initiate war. And much of this post is about HOW that right is exercized. IMO, the Generals should be closely consulted. Adolf Hitler didn't. George Bush didn't. Enough said.

Thanks,
Richard

Joe Bauers · #79 11-20-2004, 03:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by webwench

Of course I wouldn't, because then we'd be talking about my homeland

But if North Korea had the power and the motive to take us out, well, there wouldn't be much I could say to stop it!

This is why I added that caveat that I'm not arguing morality or rightness, I'm just answering that question of'who gave you the right?'

In any case, I think there is room for idealism in this country, but that it should not be dictated or even swayed by what everyone else in the world thinks we as a country should do. Our decisionmaking isn't happening in a democracy in which every other nation out there has a vote. Internally, I think we've become so tied up with partisan bickering and finger-pointing that we have for the moment forgotten about even the possibility of developing some sort of national consensus or moral code that we can use to guide our decisions, and that is unfortunate.

Leaving aside the fact that morality is unlikely to ever be a major consideration when it comes to career politicians making international-policy decisions (see? my internal cynic simply will not shut up!), I'd like to see people and politicians discuss the circumstances under which waging war is acceptable to us. Genocide? Political oppression? Murder of dissidents? Our own financial interests? Defense against violent actions? Defense against the threat of violent actions? Defense against the capability of another nation to threaten violent actions? Which causes suffice, and which do not?

My internal cynic asks, if this conversation hasn't been had by now, why and how would it happen now?

Well, I do think that we still have to live in this world, and if you believe that what other people in the world think about our actions is irrelevant, then I guess you have subscribed to the Bush doctrine ("You're either with us or against us.") I agree that the rest of the world should not dictate our actions, but we should engage in such actions, I believe, in heavy consultation with other countries. There should be dialogue; there should be diplomacy. Under G. W. Bush, diplomacy has pretty much been non-existent, Colin Powell serving as basically window dressing when Bush needs a moderate image now and then (as when he put on that dog and pony show at the U.N. to justify the Iraq war).

We should lead by example. If, for example, we think it would be wrong for a North Korea to start a war based on the doctrine of pre-emption, we ought to abide by that rule ourselves. If we think we are justified in enforcing U.N. resolutions (one of our many and often changing rationales for the Iraq war), we ought to not be hypocrites and violate the U.N. charter in doing so.

I agree that a conversation about the conditions under which we, as a people, think war would be justified is long overdue. Even our (alleged) elected representatives in Congress barely discussed Iraq before giving Bush carte blanche. Is it too late for such a conversation to ever take place? Your cynicism is probably not misplaced, but I still hold out hope.

Joe B.

Botnst · #80 11-20-2004, 04:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dolebludger

Botnst:

I agree with your statements about Congress and the President having the right to initiate war. And much of this post is about HOW that right is exercized. IMO, the Generals should be closely consulted. Adolf Hitler didn't. George Bush didn't. Enough said.

Thanks,
Richard

according to Franks and others, there was close discussion. I have not read his book yet, but I intend to. I wouldn't call him a sycophant, would you?

My younger brother served as an infantry officer (captain) under Shinseki when Shinseki was a colonel. Brother greatly admired the man. From what I understand, Shinseki was deeply involved, too. I don't think Shinseki is a shrinking violet, either.

The finest senior officers take a stand and fight for it in consultation with civilian leadership. But when the order is given, its the civilians who give the orders.

Nobody ever considered Rumsfeld (himself a former officer), timid.

So you get a bunch of hard-headed, brilliant, intelligent people together and they fuss about what to do. Then the CINC makes a decision as is his right and duty under the constitution. At that point, he speaks for the USA and the generals obey.

If the generals are honorable, they will either follow orders to the best of their ability or they will retire in silence. Like the spy agencies, the Pentagon must not inject itself into politics. That is the first step on the road to military dictatorship--when they think they know more than the civilians and set about to prove it. Remember the lesson of MacArthur?

dolebludger · #81 11-20-2004, 09:25 PM

Botnst:

I'm afraid you have me confused with "peaceniks." MacArthur, as I recall, was fired for wanting to go after and into China, but only after millions of screaming Chineese troops came over the North Korean border and attacked our troops. I don't think I disagree much with MacArthur here, as he was not advocating a "first strike, pre-emptive" sort of war. Rather, the Chineese "fired the first shots." Military science has different rules when our troops have been fired upon than when they have not. Of course, when we are fired upon, the rule is "cut them off and kill them." However, the more cautionary rules I cited above apply when, as with Iraq, the "enemy" has fired NO shots.

Thanks,
Richard

moparmike · #82 11-20-2004, 09:44 PM

China attacked us because MacArthur got overzealous in his pushing to the NK border and entered China.

Botnst · #83 11-20-2004, 09:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dolebludger

Botnst:

I'm afraid you have me confused with "peaceniks." MacArthur, as I recall, was fired for wanting to go after and into China, but only after millions of screaming Chineese troops came over the North Korean border and attacked our troops. I don't think I disagree much with MacArthur here, as he was not advocating a "first strike, pre-emptive" sort of war. Rather, the Chineese "fired the first shots." Military science has different rules when our troops have been fired upon than when they have not. Of course, when we are fired upon, the rule is "cut them off and kill them." However, the more cautionary rules I cited above apply when, as with Iraq, the "enemy" has fired NO shots.

Thanks,
Richard

Truman gave MacArthur a direct order NOT to pursue the Chinese into China. That was a political, not military decision. MacArthur ignored the order and pursued the Chinese into China. That was a military decision.

In our government the political decision of the president always must be supreme. MacArthur forgot that and was fired.

From Geo Washington convincing his officers NOT to march on Congress, even though Congress had treated them all badly, set the precedent, codified in teh constitution, acted upon by Lincoln, and solidified by Truman. Civil politics trumps military plans.

Botnst · #84 11-20-2004, 10:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dolebludger

Botnst:

I'm afraid you have me confused with "peaceniks." MacArthur, as I recall, was fired for wanting to go after and into China, but only after millions of screaming Chineese troops came over the North Korean border and attacked our troops. I don't think I disagree much with MacArthur here, as he was not advocating a "first strike, pre-emptive" sort of war. Rather, the Chineese "fired the first shots." Military science has different rules when our troops have been fired upon than when they have not. Of course, when we are fired upon, the rule is "cut them off and kill them." However, the more cautionary rules I cited above apply when, as with Iraq, the "enemy" has fired NO shots.

Thanks,
Richard

Iraq repeatedly violated the GW I ceasefire agreement by targeting and firing at coalition aircraft. In truth, the military hostilities since GW I never ceased, they just entered a reduced phase.

KirkVining · #85 11-20-2004, 11:46 PM

Ah! The newest rational. "Fired on coalition aircraft". Perhaps you can cite some dates and incidents. If memory serves me well, we've already had this argument, and it was found he stopped doing it in the mid-90s after we bombed the crap out of him.

I don't even know why you guys keep trying to argue this as if we actually had a case for invading this guy - we never did. The US Air Force and the UN weapon's inspectors had him tied up and beat him like a drum. Why don't you simply admit it for what it was, an oil grab?

GermanStar · #86 11-21-2004, 12:05 AM

I'm not sure they ever actually fired on unwelcome foreign aircraft flying within their air space -- they may have only locked their radar on...

KirkVining · #87 11-21-2004, 12:28 AM

like I said, I'm working from memory here but we had this exact same argument a few monthys ago. We divided the country into three zones, a north and south zone, were no fly zones. The central zone allowed flying by Iraqi craft, but we reseved the right to "patrol" that area as well. Saddam tested the limits a couple of times, resulting in us using his radar stations for Wild Weasel target practice. Once he actually flew some aircraft near the northern zone, and we shot them down. He fired a missile at a spy plane in the central zone, and we flattened the missile site. By 1996 or so, he got tired of having all his **** blown up and quit doing it. Anyone who ever thought that loser had anything that could match the US Air Force to the point we needed a ground invasion doesn't know the facts. He was a punching bag.

dolebludger · #88 11-21-2004, 12:51 PM

Face it, folks, the firings from Iraq on US aircraft were rather "old news" when the invasion was decided upon. I still contend that according to accepted principles of military science (such as taught at the War Colleges), there was insufficient grounds for a "first shot" pre-emptive invasion of Iraq.

But this thread which I started about being just a little scared of our administration was not just about the Iraq was. Bad as it is, a single, isolated "mistake" like this would not be enough to scare me about the direction and intent of a National Administration. Re-read my initial post, and you will see the pattern of behavior that worries me.

Thanks,
Richard

mikemover · #89 11-21-2004, 01:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dolebludger

But this thread which I started about being just a little scared of our administration was not just about the Iraq was. Bad as it is, a single, isolated "mistake" like this would not be enough to scare me about the direction and intent of a National Administration. Re-read my initial post, and you will see the pattern of behavior that worries me.

Thanks,
Richard

I don't share your "the Nazis are coming!" view of the administration, but regardless....His term is over in 4 years.

During the previous administration, a lot of conservatives thought Bill Clinton was a complete disaster and was going to be the "end of America as we know it", but he wasn't....his term ended, and now he is nothing more than just another ex-president.....with a damned ugly library building in Arkansas named after him.

Don't get your underwear so bunched-up over it....In four years, we'll all have another guy in office to argue about.

Mike

Zeitgeist · #90 11-21-2004, 01:12 PM

LINO: Libertarian In Name Only