He won’t have to go east or west. All he has to do is nuke Isreal. Once the umbrellas go up - all of this will be ancient history. Get my drift?
Sorry 'bout the mispost. I shouldn’t get into this stuff when I’m working. but…
Ahmadinejad might be crazy, but not crazy enough to think he can do that and live.
Our leaders, OTOH, just might be crazy/stupid enough to think they can attack Iran and have the story end happily – even though experts who have wargamed a U.S. airstrike on Iran – not an invasion, just an airstrike – failed to come up with any way to keep even that from turning into a general regional war. (I hope everyone in this thread, even you and Don26, would agree a general regional war is something to be avoided at all costs.)
One very important issue I haven’t seen addressed in this thread: If Bush wants a larger military force, will he get it? Wouldn’t he need Congress to authorize it? And would the new Dem-controlled Congress go along?
Yes. The president is Commander In Chief of whatever military the Congress chooses to provide. Congress can even tie a restriction on appropriations to prevent their use for any additional troops in Iraq.
Of course Congress listens to the president’s input as to what size military force the US needs, but the final say is up to them.
If you’d been in charge, the United States would have left Nazi Germany alone and invaded Ireland.
US Constitution, Article I, Sec. 8, Congress shall have the power 12. To raise and support armies …, 13. To provide and maintain a navy., 14. To make rules for the government an regulation of the land and naval forces., 15. To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions.
And as to the power to specify how money shall be spent. Article I, Sec. 9., 7. No money shall be drawn from the Treasury but in consequence of appropriations made by law …
What! We’re supposed to suppress insurrections? WTF? I mean, we are a friggin’ insurrection! It was that reactionary bitch Al Hamilton, betcha…
Yes, well, you know, there’s more than one kind . . .
As BrainGlutton said, there are varietiew of insurrections.
There’s the good kind, i.e. the American Revolution, and the bad kind, i.e. those we oppose.
WHAT??? Hitler carried out the Holocaust, leading to the deaths of about 12 million people by murder and tens of millions of others in WWII. Ahmadinejad denied the Holocaust happened. How on Earth could Ahmadinejad possibly be worse? He’s not even the leader of a government, he’s basically a figurehead and he’s about to be dealt an electoral defeat.
Don26… hey, you aren’t that Don, are you? … you’re a long way from reality. Something like 80 or 90 percent of Americans supported this war and no “wussies” were going to prevent the use of overwhelming force. This war was a fool’s errand from the beginning; it just took a few years of the inevitable failures for most of the population to figure it out.
IANAJudge, but I interpret that to mean INTERNAL insurrections and invasions to the USA, not threats to the Sultanate of Swat or Lower Slobbovia.
If I am wrong, that wording would provide justification for just about any military exercise you can imagine. Considering their recent history, I can’t believe the Founders had that in mind.
If we can equate his thinking with that of western thinkers, sure! It’s just that people who are wanting to direct policy in one way or another have been strapping bombs to themselves and trotting off to meet virgins in the afterlife. An act of martyrdom for the islamic world on a grand scale can’t be excluded from possibility.
Leaders of said movement never “carry the ball”. They “watch from the bleachers”. :rolleyes:
Poor argument.
i’m not a lawyer either, but I believe that the original intent was the the militia was to handle serious threats to domestic tranquility such as invasion or internal disturbance.
Wiki has a long article on the legislative history of the militia (National Guard and Naval Militia). Up intil WWI there was no question about using the militia in foreign wars. The only one we had was the Spanish American War and that seems to have been carried on with the regulars and volunteers.
The National Defense Act of 1916 allowed the National Guard to be incorporated into the Army of The United States during time of war or other serious national emergency. Thus, as part of the army the constitutional restriction to insurrection and invasion no longer seems to apply since they are no longer “militia” but are army personnel.
Guys I think we need to treat Don26 and his opinions with a bit more respect.
He is tirelessly serving our country. Sacraficing and risking life and limb for our freedom. He posts here between raids, briefings, debriefings, PT, drills, and whatever other manner of tedium and danger our boys are exposed to during this war. I can imagine at times he still smells of cordite, sweat and the Iraqi soil when he posts to us. He must wipe the blood of his brothers in arms from his brow and the blood of evil-doers from his hands lest he bloody the keyboard.
See, he is not only advocating peace through strength, he is living it out.
Right?
:dubious: 
If we can equate his thinking with that of western thinkers, sure!
Same argument.
I’m not going to debate that our current troop strengths are sufficient or insufficient. If you send five police cars to break up a rowdy demonstration and the result is an even bigger demonstration, you don’t call off the operation and let meyhem ensue. At some point, the only resolution is to stabilize the situation (sending in a S.W.A.T.) so that some sense of order can created and that the neighbors can get some sleep. Justice, if there is any to be had, is a secondary concern.
Although not IMPOSSIBLE, the possibility of a grand scale martyrdom by Islam at large is so improbable that it’s virtually impossible. If you’re just talking about every Al-Quida sleeper cell in the world simultaneously jumps up and does it, that’s more probable, but not by much. I’d say it’s not “possible” because if you and everyone else that thinks as you do are dead, how do you know if you’re successful?
This also denotes that you’re partially responsible for the demonstration or at least its causes. If that weren’t the case, you’d have no reason to go and break it up, right?
Justice is NEVER a secondary concern. It is a primary concern and should always be treated as such. The rights you’re willing to give away in order to give yourself the thin veil of “security” are also my rights. You DON’T give away my rights. Not without a fight, at least.
Also, it’s worth noting that a “demonstration” and “insurgency and/or civil war” are two completely different animals.
Certainly, you can’t have missed my point?
Negotiating while under fire is akin to building a house in a hurricane. It can be done, but it’s a bit tricky and dangerous.
Just as it is my right and that of my family’s to be secure. It is also the right of every Iraqi to feel secure from the threat of reprisal killings or simply go to work and feed their families, which they cannot do whilst cars (and noisy neighbors) are exploding along their city streets.
Once some semblance of calm/“order” exists, parties can engage one another in civil debate. That is not a cultural antonym - it is the prefered state of existance for all peace-loving people.
:dubious: You know, another solution might come out of listening to the demonstrators’ demands.