In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Salzo, the Congressional Declaration of War has onlybeen used 5 times in our history. Lincoln was not the first as there was wars before the the Civil War that did not involve a Declaration of War (example war against Paraquay). See attached website. This article is very informative on the Declaration of War. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1991/BJL.htm
"Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, not liberty to purchase power."
Benjamin Franklin, 1785
Thanks for a good read Blackie. It is interesting how the general mentions several times how a declaration of war is prohibitive in most wars, because it requires popular support from the people-and the people would not popularly support these wars, so a declaration of war is a hindrance to anyone wanting to get a war off the ground. So the people should be taken out of the equation alltogether-makes things a lot easier. Unfortunately, the whole reason the founders intended CONGRESS to delclare war, was for just that reason-war should not be easy. The people should decide on issues of war.
"Waiting tables is what you know, making cheese is what I know-lets stick with what we know!"
-Jimmy the cheese man
quote:Originally posted by salzo
Unfortunately, the whole reason the founders intended CONGRESS to delclare war, was for just that reason-war should not be easy. The people should decide on issues of war.
I think this is a good point Salzo. I generally agree that the people should decide issues of war.
I gotta say, however, that I would have supported the Iraq war even if Gore had declared it. I know he would have been slammed for it by some Reps, but I truly think it was a just venture.
quote:Originally posted by babybear
"? Show me a photo of a jumbo jet sticking out of the pentagon, you know the REST of a 300' plane that 'burrowed" 60 ' in? Got a bunch more, but probably will be ignored on these.
> Democrats, Republicans and Texans
>
> Situational Issue:
>
> You're walking down a deserted street with
> your wife and two small
> children. Suddenly, a dangerous looking man
> with a huge knife comes around
> the corner, locks eyes with you, screams
> obscenities, raises the knife, and
> charges. You are carrying a Glock .40 and you
> are an expert shot. You have
> mere seconds before he reaches you and your
> family.
>
> What do you do?
>
> Democrat's Answer:
>
> Well, that's not enough information to answer
> the question! Does the man
> look poor or oppressed? Have I ever done
> anything to him that would inspire
> him to attack? Could we run away? What does my
> wife think? What about the
> kids? Could I possibly swing the gun like a
> club and knock the knife out
> of his hand? What does the law say about this
> situation? Does the Glock
> have an appropriate safety built into it? Why
> am I carrying a loaded gun
> and what kind of message does this send to
> society and my children? Is it
> possible he'd be happy with just killing me?
> Does he definitely want to kill
> me or would he just be content to wound me? If
> I were to grab his knees and
> hold on, could my family get away while he was
> stabbing me? This is all so
> confusing! I need to debate this with some
> friends for a few days to try to
> come to a conclusion.
>
> Republican's Answer:
>
> BANG!
>
> Texan's Answer:
>
> BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG!
> BANG!
> click...
>
> (sounds of reloading).
> Wife: "Sweetheart, he looks like he's still moving, what do you kids
think?"
> Son: "Mom's right Dad, I saw it too..."
> BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG!
> BANG!
> click...
> Daughter: "Nice group, Daddy! Were those the
> Winchester Silver Tips?"
>
If your shooting stance is good, you're probably not moving fast enough or using cover correctly
FrOg: quote:He was a threat. Don't pollute the truth by making it seem that we jumped into Iraq because we didn't like them; NEGOTIATIONS FAILED.
Actually, the Iraqis were making overtures to the UN and the US but were rebuffed. My understanding that the Iraqis were trying to allow the UN inspectors come in without restrictions, but the Bush Administration (too far along with its invasion plans) saidd, in effect, "forget about it."
So, I'm not polluting the truth (whatever that is, BTW), just trying to convey the entire spectrum of the events in the rush to war by the Administration. [}:)]
Hypocrisy is the homage paid by vice to virtue.
Don't assume malice for what stupidity can explain.
According to most of the posters here, a Democrat would not even be carrying a handgun. There are likely more armed Democrats than you might want us to believe. Lots of working men and women are hunters and believe in the 2nd Amendment as much as anyone else.
I agree, Woodshermit. I always thought I was Dem., but now I don't know what the H--- I am! I'm totally pro gun and pro choice. Guess I'm just out in never-never land. I don't think we whould have invaded the way we did, but I DO thin Saddam was a threat. My hang-up is I thought we should have nailed Osama before anything else.
If your shooting stance is good, you're probably not moving fast enough or using cover correctly
quote:Originally posted by HAIRY
Actually, the Iraqis were making overtures to the UN and the US but were rebuffed. My understanding that the Iraqis were trying to allow the UN inspectors come in without restrictions, but the Bush Administration (too far along with its invasion plans) saidd, in effect, "forget about it."
If the Iraqi's had allowed inspectors without restrictions, we wouldn't be in this situation. As often demonstrated, Saddam mouthed, "Please send in inspectors" to take the heat off, then he wouldn't allow them access to certain sites, and would end up kicking them out completely a few weeks later. How many times do you fall for that and consider yourself a thinking adult?
Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.
It was simply a matter of time till that trick no longer worked.
Also, the mistake in Viet Nam was not letting us finish what would have been a 60 day war. Don't deny the democrats roll in that.
North Korea attacke South Korea. In doing so, we lost soldiers who were there. It wasn't an attack on America.
Point was/is, if you hold your hero's to the same standard that you hold Bush to, they don't measure up. Pure double standard. But what's new about that.
One last time, I will tell you and the other Bush whackers, I only agree with 70% of what Bush stands for (down from 80%), but that's a heck of a lot better than the 20% of Kerry.
I respect Bush (maybe not 100%, but still respect) and don't respect Kerry at all. At least I'm honest enough to give the man credit for what he has done right. You folks deny or lie for pure political reasons. That makes you no better than the people you attack. All I ask is to be honest, and don't live in a dream world that Kerry won't come after your guns as soon as he's in office, and tax the heck out of you while he's doing it. If you don't believe that, you are one of those in that dream world.
I know you will disagree, and I know I can never change your mind, but you need to do a real gut check of what the democratic party and Kerry stand for. If you did, I don't think you would agree with their platform the way you claim.
Then again, maybe you do.
PS, Sorry for the delay getting back to you, I've been away. I'll try to find the link to the other articles I read that confirmed the same thing. It will be sometime this weekend.
FrOg: I agree with you that Saddam was a pain in the *ss to the UN inspection teams but nonetheless the policy of the "no fly zone" and the embargo on Iraq did keep him in check. It was the neo-cons desire to have a "regime change" and they began those plans in 1997. The Bush administration used the tragedy of 9/11 as a cover to invade Iraq, feeding upon the fears of the US public. Even the Brits got caught up in the feeding frenzy with the "Saddam has missiles that can hit England in 15 minutes." That, too, like the WMD, has been proven to be absolutely false.
As mentioned over and over, 9/11 and Al Quida were not of Saddam's doing (he probably enjoyed it, tho) but the Bush propaganda machine was able to fool some of the people some of the time. I hold Bush, Chaney, Armitage, Rumsfeld, et al., responsible for the deaths of our American troops for their reckless use of American military power. [}:)]
Hypocrisy is the homage paid by vice to virtue.
Don't assume malice for what stupidity can explain.
"Also, the mistake in Viet Nam was not letting us finish what would have been a 60 day war. Don't deny the democrats roll in that."
60 days? As in 60 days to win it or 60 days to pack up and leave?
"North Korea attacke South Korea. In doing so, we lost soldiers who were there. It wasn't an attack on America."
I'm sorry, but in my opinion, when you kill an American soldier, you've just attacked America. I'm sorry you don't feel that way, but maybe we just have different standards.
"Point was/is, if you hold your hero's to the same standard that you hold Bush to, they don't measure up. Pure double standard. But what's new about that."
How? You call Vietnam a politician's screw-up from the beginning and I agree. I'm also calling Iraq a politician's screw up. Where's the double standard?
"One last time, I will tell you and the other Bush whackers, I only agree with 70% of what Bush stands for (down from 80%), but that's a heck of a lot better than the 20% of Kerry.
I respect Bush (maybe not 100%, but still respect) and don't respect Kerry at all. At least I'm honest enough to give the man credit for what he has done right. You folks deny or lie for pure political reasons. That makes you no better than the people you attack. All I ask is to be honest, and don't live in a dream world that Kerry won't come after your guns as soon as he's in office, and tax the heck out of you while he's doing it. If you don't believe that, you are one of those in that dream world.
I know you will disagree, and I know I can never change your mind, but you need to do a real gut check of what the democratic party and Kerry stand for. If you did, I don't think you would agree with their platform the way you claim.
Then again, maybe you do."
Like you said, I don't agree with them 100%, but I know Bush what Bush has done and I don't like it. He's short-changing our veterans and compromising our national security for his own selfish goals (I refer to his redeployment of troops from Afghanistan to Iraq).
"PS, Sorry for the delay getting back to you, I've been away. I'll try to find the link to the other articles I read that confirmed the same thing. It will be sometime this weekend."
Hey, I'll live with the delay. Good, honest, intelligent debate is worth waiting for.
We agree on more than you realize, and I too agree that if you attack an American soldier that you attack America. However, when you attack American civilians on American soil, you taken it up a notch. Know what I mean!
Viet Nam was a huge mistake in that the South was just a corrupt as the North, and we let politicians run the military. It was at most a -ay war, and I hold many politicians accountable for the huge loss of American lives. Most of them were democrats. I don't think Iraq was, I believe that it was a necessary preemptive stick that was required for not only our safety in the future, but, most of the free world.
I know you don't like Bush, as is your right, but I think you are off base when you say he's doing things with our military for "personal" reasons. That is past silliness for me.
I don't buy any of the arguments I read in earlier replies that we don't have to worry about Kerry as long as the republicans have the House. Two years into his term that may change, and even if it doesn't the politicians "bargain" their votes to get what they want. Kerry in office is a real danger. I hope clearer minds will see this before it's too late.
Liberman was the only democrat in the race that was not a flaming liberal, and you see what happened to him.
Comments
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1991/BJL.htm
"Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, not liberty to purchase power."
Benjamin Franklin, 1785
"Waiting tables is what you know, making cheese is what I know-lets stick with what we know!"
-Jimmy the cheese man
Unfortunately, the whole reason the founders intended CONGRESS to delclare war, was for just that reason-war should not be easy. The people should decide on issues of war.
I think this is a good point Salzo. I generally agree that the people should decide issues of war.
I gotta say, however, that I would have supported the Iraq war even if Gore had declared it. I know he would have been slammed for it by some Reps, but I truly think it was a just venture.
Frog
GO NAVY, BEAT ARMY
"Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, not liberty to purchase power."
Benjamin Franklin, 1785
"? Show me a photo of a jumbo jet sticking out of the pentagon, you know the REST of a 300' plane that 'burrowed" 60 ' in? Got a bunch more, but probably will be ignored on these.
Are you reffering to this babybear?[url][/url]http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/pentagon/slides.html
Muggster
>
> Situational Issue:
>
> You're walking down a deserted street with
> your wife and two small
> children. Suddenly, a dangerous looking man
> with a huge knife comes around
> the corner, locks eyes with you, screams
> obscenities, raises the knife, and
> charges. You are carrying a Glock .40 and you
> are an expert shot. You have
> mere seconds before he reaches you and your
> family.
>
> What do you do?
>
> Democrat's Answer:
>
> Well, that's not enough information to answer
> the question! Does the man
> look poor or oppressed? Have I ever done
> anything to him that would inspire
> him to attack? Could we run away? What does my
> wife think? What about the
> kids? Could I possibly swing the gun like a
> club and knock the knife out
> of his hand? What does the law say about this
> situation? Does the Glock
> have an appropriate safety built into it? Why
> am I carrying a loaded gun
> and what kind of message does this send to
> society and my children? Is it
> possible he'd be happy with just killing me?
> Does he definitely want to kill
> me or would he just be content to wound me? If
> I were to grab his knees and
> hold on, could my family get away while he was
> stabbing me? This is all so
> confusing! I need to debate this with some
> friends for a few days to try to
> come to a conclusion.
>
> Republican's Answer:
>
> BANG!
>
> Texan's Answer:
>
> BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG!
> BANG!
> click...
>
> (sounds of reloading).
> Wife: "Sweetheart, he looks like he's still moving, what do you kids
think?"
> Son: "Mom's right Dad, I saw it too..."
> BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG!
> BANG!
> click...
> Daughter: "Nice group, Daddy! Were those the
> Winchester Silver Tips?"
>
If your shooting stance is good, you're probably not moving fast enough or using cover correctly
Actually, the Iraqis were making overtures to the UN and the US but were rebuffed. My understanding that the Iraqis were trying to allow the UN inspectors come in without restrictions, but the Bush Administration (too far along with its invasion plans) saidd, in effect, "forget about it."
So, I'm not polluting the truth (whatever that is, BTW), just trying to convey the entire spectrum of the events in the rush to war by the Administration. [}:)]
Hypocrisy is the homage paid by vice to virtue.
Don't assume malice for what stupidity can explain.
If your shooting stance is good, you're probably not moving fast enough or using cover correctly
Actually, the Iraqis were making overtures to the UN and the US but were rebuffed. My understanding that the Iraqis were trying to allow the UN inspectors come in without restrictions, but the Bush Administration (too far along with its invasion plans) saidd, in effect, "forget about it."
If the Iraqi's had allowed inspectors without restrictions, we wouldn't be in this situation. As often demonstrated, Saddam mouthed, "Please send in inspectors" to take the heat off, then he wouldn't allow them access to certain sites, and would end up kicking them out completely a few weeks later. How many times do you fall for that and consider yourself a thinking adult?
Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.
It was simply a matter of time till that trick no longer worked.
Frog
GO NAVY, BEAT ARMY
Read this,
http://www.tupbiosystems.com/articles/sudan_bin_laden.html
Also, the mistake in Viet Nam was not letting us finish what would have been a 60 day war. Don't deny the democrats roll in that.
North Korea attacke South Korea. In doing so, we lost soldiers who were there. It wasn't an attack on America.
Point was/is, if you hold your hero's to the same standard that you hold Bush to, they don't measure up. Pure double standard. But what's new about that.
One last time, I will tell you and the other Bush whackers, I only agree with 70% of what Bush stands for (down from 80%), but that's a heck of a lot better than the 20% of Kerry.
I respect Bush (maybe not 100%, but still respect) and don't respect Kerry at all. At least I'm honest enough to give the man credit for what he has done right. You folks deny or lie for pure political reasons. That makes you no better than the people you attack. All I ask is to be honest, and don't live in a dream world that Kerry won't come after your guns as soon as he's in office, and tax the heck out of you while he's doing it. If you don't believe that, you are one of those in that dream world.
I know you will disagree, and I know I can never change your mind, but you need to do a real gut check of what the democratic party and Kerry stand for. If you did, I don't think you would agree with their platform the way you claim.
Then again, maybe you do.
PS, Sorry for the delay getting back to you, I've been away. I'll try to find the link to the other articles I read that confirmed the same thing. It will be sometime this weekend.
How you doin'!
As mentioned over and over, 9/11 and Al Quida were not of Saddam's doing (he probably enjoyed it, tho) but the Bush propaganda machine was able to fool some of the people some of the time. I hold Bush, Chaney, Armitage, Rumsfeld, et al., responsible for the deaths of our American troops for their reckless use of American military power. [}:)]
Hypocrisy is the homage paid by vice to virtue.
Don't assume malice for what stupidity can explain.
60 days? As in 60 days to win it or 60 days to pack up and leave?
"North Korea attacke South Korea. In doing so, we lost soldiers who were there. It wasn't an attack on America."
I'm sorry, but in my opinion, when you kill an American soldier, you've just attacked America. I'm sorry you don't feel that way, but maybe we just have different standards.
"Point was/is, if you hold your hero's to the same standard that you hold Bush to, they don't measure up. Pure double standard. But what's new about that."
How? You call Vietnam a politician's screw-up from the beginning and I agree. I'm also calling Iraq a politician's screw up. Where's the double standard?
"One last time, I will tell you and the other Bush whackers, I only agree with 70% of what Bush stands for (down from 80%), but that's a heck of a lot better than the 20% of Kerry.
I respect Bush (maybe not 100%, but still respect) and don't respect Kerry at all. At least I'm honest enough to give the man credit for what he has done right. You folks deny or lie for pure political reasons. That makes you no better than the people you attack. All I ask is to be honest, and don't live in a dream world that Kerry won't come after your guns as soon as he's in office, and tax the heck out of you while he's doing it. If you don't believe that, you are one of those in that dream world.
I know you will disagree, and I know I can never change your mind, but you need to do a real gut check of what the democratic party and Kerry stand for. If you did, I don't think you would agree with their platform the way you claim.
Then again, maybe you do."
Like you said, I don't agree with them 100%, but I know Bush what Bush has done and I don't like it. He's short-changing our veterans and compromising our national security for his own selfish goals (I refer to his redeployment of troops from Afghanistan to Iraq).
"PS, Sorry for the delay getting back to you, I've been away. I'll try to find the link to the other articles I read that confirmed the same thing. It will be sometime this weekend."
Hey, I'll live with the delay. Good, honest, intelligent debate is worth waiting for.
We agree on more than you realize, and I too agree that if you attack an American soldier that you attack America. However, when you attack American civilians on American soil, you taken it up a notch. Know what I mean!
Viet Nam was a huge mistake in that the South was just a corrupt as the North, and we let politicians run the military. It was at most a -ay war, and I hold many politicians accountable for the huge loss of American lives. Most of them were democrats. I don't think Iraq was, I believe that it was a necessary preemptive stick that was required for not only our safety in the future, but, most of the free world.
I know you don't like Bush, as is your right, but I think you are off base when you say he's doing things with our military for "personal" reasons. That is past silliness for me.
I don't buy any of the arguments I read in earlier replies that we don't have to worry about Kerry as long as the republicans have the House. Two years into his term that may change, and even if it doesn't the politicians "bargain" their votes to get what they want. Kerry in office is a real danger. I hope clearer minds will see this before it's too late.
Liberman was the only democrat in the race that was not a flaming liberal, and you see what happened to him.
How you doin'!