Previous 11 - 20 Next
Spot on. Without a declaration, government can change the terms of the war, the purpose of the war, change the goals of a war, change the length of a war. That is too much power for the president to have, it doesn't matter what party they are from.
DSMike, lets get past the name calling. I think you misunderstand my position either because you are jumping to conclusions or I did not make myself clear. Beheading children, oppressing religious minorities, forcing people to convert are all deplorable things. I believe these people ought to die. But how? Today's government doesn't like small, short lived military campaigns to take out a group of people and then leave. We like long military occupations where we get bogged down in countries far away to rebuild them in our image. We have unrealistic goals. The result is loss of precious life and treasure. And in the end, our prolonged involvement breeds resentment against the United States. It gives them an incentive to recruit more terrorists. We end up encouraging the very thing we are fighting. Nothing, and I mean nothing, is a greater catalyst for terrorism than prolonged military occupation by a foreign country.
Spoken like a true propagandist. Use generalizations and blanket statements, check. Dehumanized the enemy, check. Now its easier to go kill people. Use some facts and reasoning in your argument and I would love to discuss.
In response to:

Is ISIS 'An Existential Threat'?

Anonymous908 Wrote: Aug 12, 2014 5:56 PM
A warning to fellow TH readers. Do not believe the propaganda about ISIS, Iran, or Russia being an existential threat. It is not "conservative" to wrap ourselves in the flag, pound our chests, and rush into more wars. Doing so results in loss of life, loss of treasure, and loss of international stability. Such approaches are likely to leave us with as many enemies we had before the conflict. On the contrary, it is conservative to reflect on our national values, consider the possible consequences of any action we take, and consider the condition of our country.
In response to:

Is ISIS 'An Existential Threat'?

Anonymous908 Wrote: Aug 12, 2014 5:40 PM
About that redline with Syria. Obama made that threat before the investigation into who was responsible was even finished. Essentially, he was making a open threat to a sovereign nation without even knowing they were the guilty party. Lets se aside the fact that the investigation was not able to find ANY solid proof that Assad was responsible, and further more, expressed that there is reason, indeed, to doubt the official story that Assad was behind the chemical weapons. It was at this time that Senators and Congressman saw an incredible spike in phone calls to their office to weigh in on this issue. The phone calls from regular citizens were overwhelmingly AGAINST taking military into Syria. I read that some districts had phone calls with the ratio of 1 person supporting military action in Syria for every 200 people against taking military action. You think the Iraq war was unpopular? Syria would have blown that out of the water. Even the majority of my republican friends thought this was a horrible idea. Obama was set on taking action in Syria. It was the overwhelming opposition from American citizens that kept him from pursuing this plan. For as much as I criticize Obama, he was right in not taking military into Syria.
Good read. It is important to be reminded of the real definition of a conservative. Neither Bush, McCain, or Graham can be considered a conservative. And when it comes to foreign policy they are a good example of what the opposite of conservatism is.
thanks for being relevant
In response to:

Is ISIS 'An Existential Threat'?

Anonymous908 Wrote: Aug 12, 2014 12:26 PM
Not every threat deserves to be attacked. What you are endorsing is an aggressive policy whereby WE initiate an attack (in other words, start of pick a fight) on anybody who could potentially hurt us. Who are the big players in the world? China, Russia, Japan, UK, etc. Should we attack any of these countries because they are powerful? NO, how ridiculous. With that logic, the whole world would have the right to attack us because we are the biggest kid on the playground.
In response to:

Is ISIS 'An Existential Threat'?

Anonymous908 Wrote: Aug 12, 2014 11:28 AM
No, ISIS is not at the same point the Nazi's were. Trying to make comparison's to World War II makes you look foolish and is the oldest trick in the book to try and garner support for war. 'Just call our enemies Nazi's, then American's will rise up and attack'.
Gaza is a locked in, 45 mile stretch of land with walls around it. People cannot come and go as they please. It is essentially a giant prison. They are bombed so regularly that their infrastructure (important for electricity, water, transportation, etc) is pitiful. This keeps the population in Gaza permanently oppressed and in poverty. This has been ongoing for some time, now. I do not point this out to justify the actions of Hamas (I believe they are despicable), or to blame Israel for the whole problem. However, I argue that Israel's treatment of the Gaza strip virtually guarantees unending conflict. I cannot imagine fighters in Gaza laying down their arms until Israel allows Gaza to be free. Keeping a people group permanently in poverty conditions is a great way to encourage moderate Muslims to join the ranks of the militants.
AIPAC, Bush, Clinton, and Obama disagree with you. Well done.
Previous 11 - 20 Next