You left out ill-conceived and incompetently executed. Also, clusterfuckriffic.
I deliberately avoided that example - though I thought of it.
Is there a part of that quote that is wrong or misleading? Or are you just one of these retards who “supports the troops” regardless of reality?
Giving you the benefit of the doubt that this answer was more than just trolling, and understanding that reading the whole thread is just beyond the reading ability of some, I will attempt to answer your snark.
I know that yes, it is true that the members of the armed forces volunteered, but the way I read his statement was that they volunteered so we get to do whatever we want to them and it is their own fault if it comes out badly, and people burying their loved ones don’t feel anywhere near as badly as the guy who “envies their adventure.”
To be able to kill, soldiers often seem to need to dehumanize the enemy in their heads. It seems that the Vice President and his cohorts did that with the military entrusted to them.
So I just poked through the first page again wondering what the fuck you figured I missed. Care to explain? Seems to me my first impression was bang on. Your “read” of Cheney’s statement doesn’t mean too much to me.
Your plan wouldn’t work. Do you think the Iraq war Authorization passed through Congress as an aggressive war? You might want to read the AUMF.
When was the last time the US engaged in what it called an aggressive war?
If you want to limit the actions of certain troops so they can’t operate outside the US, then you’d just have a bigger military to perform that function. It would be a huge waste of money.
The question of whether a given war was aggresive and consequently barred defense force personnel from serving would be a one for a Court, not a politician. It would come up the first time a solider observed his duty to refuse an illegal order.
You think an administration would chance a court finding that their President had launched a war of aggression? No way. And would anyone come to congress with a budget proposing expanded ‘offense spending’?
Of course the proposal would limit foreign policy. That’s the beauty of it.
It would be cheaper and just as effective to have a regular military, under the Commander-in-Chief, and use that just as we do now. If we need a defensive army, we could just transfer divisions to the defensive part and use it then. That way we aren’t wasting money on a military we don’t use.
Nor does your notion of the courts ordering the US not to use the defensive army in wars of aggression make any sense. Suppose Bush wanted to use the defensive army to invade Afghanistan, to defend against al Qaeda. Somebody in the defensive army says No. He goes to court, and the court tells him he has to go. What do we do then?
Or, suppose instead of submitting the AUMF to Congress, Bush submits it to the courts. They sign off on it just like Congress did. How have we gained anything?
Regards,
Shodan
That would require an amendment to the constitution, which delegates the power to declare war to Congress. Congress would never pass such an amendment.
Way. But it would be a terrible idea to put the defense of the country in the hands of the SCOTUS. Cases can take years to adjudicate.
I’m sure they wouldn’t. 
A few questions:
-
Was the invasion of Afghanistan an offensive or defensive action?
-
How would the training differ between the offensive and defensive branches of the military? A counterattack is part of a defensive strategy, after all. The entire Pacific War in WW II can certainly be considered as defensive.
-
Do you think the Supreme Court would really stop a popular offensive war sold as a defensive one? Even if doing so would put a lot of troops in even more severe danger. As Mr. Dooley said, “the Constitution may not follow the flag, but the Supreme Court follows the election returns.”
Not to defend Bush or Cheney, but you’ve got the National Guard all wrong.
The National Guard in peacetime is under the direct command of the governor of whatever state that the unit happens to be in. As such, it’s basically what the “Militia” used to be- citizen soldiers who are citizens first, soldiers second. But, like in the Civil War, these militia units are called up into Federal service, and come under the command of the Army/Air Force. Generally speaking, state governments don’t have a lot of call to use large scale force to solve problems, so the NG is primarily used as a disaster-relief and/or law enforcement type force, due to the relatively large numbers, clear command structure and self-sufficient equipment. (who else besides the active-duty forces could put 1000 men into a devastated city with a clear chain of command and feed/supply them in a matter of days?)
In the interest of commonality in case the units get Federalized, the Army/Air Force tends to subsidize their equipment to a great degree, lest some poor or otherwise uninterested State neglect their NG units and/or equip them with stuff that doesn’t play well with the rest of the Army and other states’ NG units.
And… anyone who joins the National Guard thinking that it’s always going to be 1 weekend a month & 2 weeks a year, is deluded.
Historically, NG units have been federalized for every major war in the 20th century save Vietnam, and also peacekeeping missions such as Haiti, Bosnia and Kosovo.
And, more interestingly, some Active divisions used to have round-out NG brigades, or in other words, the division was at about 2/3 strength active, 1/3 NG.
All this points to a NG job being more of a true soldiering job than just a weekend thing, and I’m somewhat skeptical that anyone but the very most slow recruits wouldn’t realize this.
That probably comes as close to explaining US wars of the last 50 years as anything could.
It was their official slogan. Until the Iraq occupation, it was on all the television, radio and print ads. If people were deluded into believing it, it was our own government that duped them and nobody else. :rolleyes: