Pelosi Pre-emptive Surrender Disorder (PPSD)

[RadioPatrol]

Originally Posted by Kerad

I understand Presidential prerogative for USAF airstrikes, naval launches, etc.


Iran is separate..and should be treated as separate.

Yes and if Bush decides to use one of those USAF Air Strikes in Iran, maybe on that Nuke program to get there attention and let them know to but out, he does not need go crawling to NP begging for permission.

[Kerad (Premo)]

Originally Posted by RadioPatrol

Yes and if Bush decides to use one of those USAF Air Strikes in Iran, maybe on that Nuke program to get there attention and let them know to but out, he does not need go crawling to NP begging for permission.

Yeah....okay.

Actually, President Bush has used up all of his "trust me" points. The President who cried "Wolf" has zero credibility. We trusted him before, and he was wrong about EVERYTHING about Iraq.

We need something more. His credit is shot.

[Severa]

Originally Posted by Kerad

Are you picking a fight where there isn't one? I said "we".

Not as in "Wheeee!!!!!!" Or "Nintendo Wii". Just "we".

I understand Presidential prerogative for USAF airstrikes, naval launches, etc.

But when an "Operation" lasts longer than W.W.II....something isn't quite right.

Iran is separate..and should be treated as separate.

Not a fight. Just pointing out a fact. How often do I get into these pissing matches around here? Not much.
I will say I think trying to compare current operations to something that started when my parents (ages 62 and 66) weren't even born is a bit of a stretch. But that's just my opinion.

[Kerad (Premo)]

Originally Posted by Severa

Not a fight. Just pointing out a fact. How often do I get into these pissing matches around here? Not much.
I will say I think trying to compare current operations to something that started when my parents (ages 62 and 66) weren't even born is a bit of a stretch. But that's just my opinion.

Okay. So..in your opinion, when would you suggest the term "Operation" is inadequate?

I suggest 12 months tops...although I really think the term "Operation" is burnt at 3 months.

4 years?!?! That's a full blown WAR, by any standard. Do you disagree?

[RadioPatrol]

the war was over in weeks or months ..... whats going on now is not a war, but a sectarian violence mess ...... how to get out and leave a stable gov is the issue

this UCLA Collage Grad had a clue:

Wow, What Understanding of the Iraq Problem ......

What Shame he is gone ......... RIP

[MMDad (Premo)]

Originally Posted by Kerad

.

But when an "Operation" lasts longer than W.W.II....something isn't quite right.

When Iraq lasts longer than Vietnam you might have a point. Until then, the only point is that our legislative branch is so focused on re-election that they will not declare war. That would mean accountability, and that is not acceptable to them.

In all honesty, we should never engage in war without a declaration of war from our congress. Unfortunately, congress has proven that they have not had the courage to declare war since their declaration following December 7, 1941. Should every president since then have adopted this cowardly policy? I think not.

Originally Posted by Kerad

Yeah....okay.

Actually, President Bush has used up all of his "trust me" points. The President who cried "Wolf" has zero credibility. We trusted him before, and he was wrong about EVERYTHING about Iraq.

We need something more. His credit is shot.

What was Bush wrong about? He sid there were WMDs because we knew Hussein had them. There was zero evidence that they were destroyed, so where did they go? The fact that Hussein did have WMDs and most likely had them flown to Syria ahead of the US invasion does not mean that Hussein never had them. Oh... mayabe it was when he said that Hussein had something to do with 9/11, except he, aand no one in his administration, ever said that. What they did say was that there were connections to Al Quada and other terrorist groups, but the only time a Hussein/9/11 connection was made was when Tim Russert mentioned it to Cheney, and Cheney said there was none.

What's so sad is that the Dems just don't realize that no war in recorded history has ever been wo by killing all your enemies. They've all been won by destroying your enemy's will to fight. You do that by convincing them that there is no chance that they can win. If they field 100 tanks, we'll counter with 1,000... if they field 1,000 troops, we'll field 10,000, and so on. Our troops can never win with bullets. They need a forceful political position from the US Government that tells the enemy they have no way to win. Instead we have half the government cheering on the enemy and telling them everyday that they should keep on fighting because we're the ones who have lost the will to fight.

[Kerad (Premo)]

Originally Posted by MMDad

When Iraq lasts longer than Vietnam you might have a point. Until then, the only point is that our legislative branch is so focused on re-election that they will not declare war. That would mean accountability, and that is not acceptable to them.

In all honesty, we should never engage in war without a declaration of war from our congress. Unfortunately, congress has proven that they have not had the courage to declare war since their declaration following December 7, 1941. Should every president since then have adopted this cowardly policy? I think not.

Well, then you're saying the Constitution is inadequate? It must be, if it is so easily circumvented.

Waging war is not up to just the Presidential administration of the moment. 4 years is NOT an "operation, and I am sure the moniker "Iraqi Freedom" will become the laughing stock of history. "Operation Iraqi Destruction" is more fitting.

At best, if you want to ignore the obvious...our country is being led by the Keystone Cops and nobody on the "right" side of this website seems to be disturbed by it.

[RadioPatrol]

Originally Posted by Bruzilla

What was Bush wrong about? He sid there were WMDs because we knew Hussein had them. There was zero evidence that they were destroyed, so where did they go? The fact that Hussein did have WMDs and most likely had them flown to Syria ahead of the US invasion does not mean that Hussein never had them. Oh... mayabe it was when he said that Hussein had something to do with 9/11, except he, aand no one in his administration, ever said that. What they did say was that there were connections to Al Quada and other terrorist groups, but the only time a Hussein/9/11 connection was made was when Tim Russert mentioned it to Cheney, and Cheney said there was none.

What's so sad is that the Dems just don't realize that no war in recorded history has ever been wo by killing all your enemies. They've all been won by destroying your enemy's will to fight. You do that by convincing them that there is no chance that they can win. If they field 100 tanks, we'll counter with 1,000... if they field 1,000 troops, we'll field 10,000, and so on. Our troops can never win with bullets. They need a forceful political position from the US Government that tells the enemy they have no way to win. Instead we have half the government cheering on the enemy and telling them everyday that they should keep on fighting because we're the ones who have lost the will to fight.

War is a continuation of politics by other means. - Clauswitz

A good line from The Untouchables: "If he brings a knife, you bring a gun, if he sends one of your to the hospital, you send one his to the morgue, That's the Chicago Way" Sean Connery to Kevin Kostner

[Kerad (Premo)]

Originally Posted by Bruzilla

What was Bush wrong about? He sid there were WMDs because we knew Hussein had them. There was zero evidence that they were destroyed, so where did they go? The fact that Hussein did have WMDs and most likely had them flown to Syria ahead of the US invasion does not mean that Hussein never had them. Oh... mayabe it was when he said that Hussein had something to do with 9/11, except he, aand no one in his administration, ever said that. What they did say was that there were connections to Al Quada and other terrorist groups, but the only time a Hussein/9/11 connection was made was when Tim Russert mentioned it to Cheney, and Cheney said there was none.

What's so sad is that the Dems just don't realize that no war in recorded history has ever been wo by killing all your enemies. They've all been won by destroying your enemy's will to fight. You do that by convincing them that there is no chance that they can win. If they field 100 tanks, we'll counter with 1,000... if they field 1,000 troops, we'll field 10,000, and so on. Our troops can never win with bullets. They need a forceful political position from the US Government that tells the enemy they have no way to win. Instead we have half the government cheering on the enemy and telling them everyday that they should keep on fighting because we're the ones who have lost the will to fight.

Bruzilla....I admire your fire. But, re-read that first paragraph. Do some research..and then come back saying the exact same thing. If you come back with the same claims...

Then I will rip into you.