# Army misuses DVDs (?) **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [January 3, 2005, 2:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/army-misuses-dvds/282834 "2005-01-03T14:51:46Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 6\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2005, 3:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/army-misuses-dvds/282834/41 "2005-01-04T15:38:16Z")
> [@Musicat](#): > > The 9/11 attack served as an excuse; a president was forced to show the public he was doing _something,_ even if it didn’t relate to the problem at hand… If the resources hadn’t been so readily available, Afghanistan wouldn’t have been invaded. Was the U.S. made safer because of it? Have all the terrorists been liquidated? _Exactly my point._ WTF? Do you really think the US is LESS safe because we kicked UBL out of Afghanistan? You really think that with 3,000 Americans dead, we should have rejected miltiary force and opened negotiations with the man who killed them? You were content with letting the Taliban continue to oppress women and girls, enforce a draconian system of injustice? Should we have done the same thing after Pearl Harbor, too? > [@](#): > > **Ravenman:** Congress did not DECLARE war. It seems the style nowdays to just let the president wage war without declaring it formally, which gives him more power than ever… They [the Founding Fathers]didn’t forsee the loophole that is now being used of waging war without declaring it. Yes, Congress authorized the use of military force. You may think of that as a new-fangled, second-rate replacement for a declaration of war, but you are wrong. In fact, Congressional resolutions authorizing the use of force predate ANY declaration of war by the United States: The Protection of Coasts and Commerce Act of 1789, the Protection of Commerce Act of 1789, and the Protection of the Commerce and Seamen of the United States Against Tripolean Cruisers Act of 1802 ALL predate the first declaration of war under the Constitution, which didn’t happen until 1812. You are factually wrong on this question: the Founding Fathers themselves, in fact, voted for and approved use of force authorizations in place of declarations of war. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2005, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/army-misuses-dvds/282834/42 "2005-01-04T17:12:22Z")
> [@D\_Odds](#): > > most of the marketing weenie I’ve met are the Spawn of Satan, and thus cannot be atheist Well, I suppose the positions could be reconciled by arguing that Satan is a rebel against nobody in particular – a sort of cosmic Goth-wannabe, if you will. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2005, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/army-misuses-dvds/282834/43 "2005-01-04T17:52:51Z")
> [@Musicat](#): > > As far as Afghanistan 2001, good example. _Of something we had no business doing._ The 9/11 attack served as an excuse; a president was forced to show the public he was doing _something,_ even if it didn’t relate to the problem at hand. Which is exactly my point. If the resources hadn’t been so readily available, Afghanistan wouldn’t have been invaded. Was the U.S. made safer because of it? Have all the terrorists been liquidated? _Exactly my point._ Explain to me, please, how invading Afghanistan had “nothing” to do with 9/11. > [@](#): > > **Ravenman:** Congress did not DECLARE war. It seems the style nowdays to just let the president wage war without declaring it formally, which gives him more power than ever. It’s just boys with toys, but they are pretty big toys. The victims don’t go home with just a black eye, they go home very dead. And so do the bullies sometimes. I find your “boys with toys” comments sexist and insulting. Also, stupid, but that’s in line with everything else you’ve posted, so I’ll let that one pass. > [@](#): > > _But we wouldn’t be in this mess if the pres didn’t have the resources to invade in the first place._ Give boys their toys and they will find excuses to use them. Let’s add “repetitive” to the above complaints. > [@](#): > > Nothing? Maybe that’s too all-encompasing. A “desperate defense”? Depends on your definitions. Should the U.S. military be primarily a defense outfit? Absolutely. What constitutes “defense”? Ah, there’s the rub. In the 1960’s, invading Vietnam was justified by the domino theory – if we didn’t, the dirty Commies would be in Washington the next morning. Was this theory correct? Well, we lost the war, and the commies didn’t invade. Somalia? Bosnia? Grenada? Korea? Were we defending our country or just flexing imperialist muscles? Flexing imperialist muscles? So, Somalia, Bosnia, Grenada, and Korea are all colonies of the United States now? Neat! I had no idea! > [@](#): > > If you can show that Somalia, etc. was necessary to prevent the Somalians, etc. from invading New York, then I will agree that a large military is required. Are there any instances in which US military intervention overseas is ever appropriate, in your world view? What about WWII? It’s highly unlikely, after all, that Germany would have posed a serious threat to US soil. I mean, sure, the Holocaust and all that, but that wasn’t a threat to _America_, any more than the genocide in Bosnia was a threat to America. Who cares if people are being butchered by their own governments, if they’re just a bunch of foreigners, right? > [@](#): > > If you can’t, then our military is too big, too costly, and provides too many incentives for a president to play schoolyard bully. > > It seems like the U.S. refuses to learn from history, and unlike the supposed moral stance of “we only do what is right,” cannot see that this point of view is one shared by many, even our enemies. God cannot be on all sides at once. Can I just state, for the record, that you absolutely suck at analogies? ---
**Author:** ![Tuckerfan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/eada6e/32.png) [@Tuckerfan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tuckerfan)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2005, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/army-misuses-dvds/282834/44 "2005-01-04T22:22:50Z")
> [@Musicat](#): > > I’ll give you Berlin 1948. No, wait, I won’t – it made no sense militaristically and can hardly be justified as “defense” of the U.S. It was really a leftover from WWII, anyway. Of course you won’t, because then you’d be forced to admit that you’ve been talking out of your ass this whole time, and you obviously lack the reproductive organs to be able to admit when you don’t know the flying fuck what you’re talking about. The operation made _perfect_ sense militarily because it kept a group of well educated individuals as our Allies and made us look better than the Soviets in the world’s eyes since we didn’t try to starve out the population of a city like they did. It was also accomplished without violence, and thus, _was the perfect military operation._ > [@](#): > > As far as Afghanistan 2001, good example. _Of something we had no business doing._ The 9/11 attack served as an excuse; a president was forced to show the public he was doing _something,_ even if it didn’t relate to the problem at hand. Which is exactly my point. If the resources hadn’t been so readily available, Afghanistan wouldn’t have been invaded. Was the U.S. made safer because of it? Have all the terrorists been liquidated? _Exactly my point._ And exactly what would you have done? We had every business in the world being in Afghanistan after 9/11, in fact, as history shows us, we _never_ should have abandoned them after the Soviets pulled out. > [@](#): > > _But we wouldn’t be in this mess if the pres didn’t have the resources to invade in the first place._ Give boys their toys and they will find excuses to use them. Nothing? Maybe that’s too all-encompasing. A “desperate defense”? Depends on your definitions. Should the U.S. military be primarily a defense outfit? Absolutely. What constitutes “defense”? Ah, there’s the rub. In the 1960’s, invading Vietnam was justified by the domino theory – if we didn’t, the dirty Commies would be in Washington the next morning. Was this theory correct? Well, we lost the war, and the commies didn’t invade. Somalia? Bosnia? Grenada? Korea? Were we defending our country or just flexing imperialist muscles? Somalia we blew, Grenada was unnecessary. Bosnia, well, I haven’t heard about them rounding folks up, putting them in camps and starving people to death lately. Damn, look at that, Yankee Imperialism stopped genocide. How is that a bad thing? Korea, bloody, awful mess, yet today, South Korea is rapidly emerging as one of the economic powerhouses of Asia. They have the largest shipyards in the world, and they have a modicum of democracy. Again, it’s that damned Yankee Imperialism again at work. Shame on us. Better we should have left the whole thing alone so that they can starve like the North Koreans are doing, while living in fear of their paranoid dictator. > [@](#): > > If you can show that Somalia, etc. was necessary to prevent the Somalians, etc. from invading New York, then I will agree that a large military is required. If you can’t, then our military is too big, too costly, and provides too many incentives for a president to play schoolyard bully. Well, let’s see here, the collapsed and disarrayed nature of Afghanistan is what allowed Osama to operate freely enough that he was able to send agents to the US who then hijacked some planes which they then promptly flew into buildings. Until it happened, damn few of us here or anywhere would have predicted that it would happen, so the simple truth is: _We don’t know when a corrupt state is going to bite us on the ass, but we **do know** that when it happens, it can be pretty horrific._ > [@](#): > > It seems like the U.S. refuses to learn from history, and unlike the supposed moral stance of “we only do what is right,” cannot see that this point of view is one shared by many, even our enemies. God cannot be on all sides at once. You’re showing an awful lot of unwillingness to learn from history in this thread yourself. Yeah, we’ve botched the shit of Iraq and Afghanistan, but you know what? _We can’t simply cut and run._ It’s too late for that. We pull out of those states now, and it’s going to result in a clusterfuck so bad, it’ll make us ever going in there look like Clinton getting a blowjob in office. Osama and his cronies get hold of the oil in Iraq (and they will, if we pull out before that place is stable), and they’ll have a nearly limitless supply of cash with which to fund their operations. You want Madrid style bombings in every major city in the world? You’ll get 'em. Don’t fool yourself into thinking that Osama’s only wanting to get the US out of the Middle East. Don’t swallow the line that he hates our freedoms. The simple fact of the matter is he’s a nutbag, and as history has shown us, nutbags can’t be satified until they’re either controlling everything or they’re dead. Frankly, I’d much rather have Osama dead. Which would you prefer? ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2005, 2:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/army-misuses-dvds/282834/45 "2005-01-05T02:42:47Z")
> [@D\_Odds](#): > > Why 1968? Why not 1960? Or do only Republican presidents have war agendas? [Nitpick] Lyndon Johnson, a Democrat, was President during all of 1968. Dwight Eisenhower, a Republican, was President during all of 1960. [/Nitpick] ---
**Author:** ![D\_Odds](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/d_odds/32/2882_2.png) [@D\_Odds](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/D_Odds)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2005, 1:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/army-misuses-dvds/282834/46 "2005-01-05T13:54:37Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > [Nitpick] > Lyndon Johnson, a Democrat, was President during all of 1968. Dwight Eisenhower, a Republican, was President during all of 1960. > [/Nitpick] I knew that. I was going by when they were elected. I had to look up the dates, as my knowledge of history doesn’t always connect the dates accurately to the events. Most people will say President G.W. Bush was President from 2000-2008, when he actually takes and leaves office in 2001 and 2009, respectively. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/army-misuses-dvds/282834.md?page=2)