American Legion Declares War

[LowerCaseRepublican]

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/08/25/1342217

 

The American Legion has voted at its national convention to target peace activists and the antiwar movement. The group boasts nearly 3 million members. The group's national commander called for an end to all "public protests" and what he called "media events" against the war, even though they are protected by the Bill of Rights. Thomas Cadmus told the convention "The American Legion will stand against anyone and any group that would demoralize our troops, or worse, endanger their lives by encouraging terrorists to continue their cowardly attacks against freedom-loving peoples. The delegates voted to use whatever means necessary to "ensure the united backing of the American people to support our troops and the global war on terrorism."

 

But in 1999 they were against military deployment to Yugoslavia. Mr. President, the United States Armed Forces should never be committed to wartime operations unless the following conditions are

fulfilled:

 

That there be a clear statement by the President of why it is in our vital national interests to be engaged in hostilities;

 

Guidelines be established for the mission, including a clear exit strategy;

 

That there be support of the mission by the U.S. Congress and the American people; and

 

That it be made clear that U.S. Forces will be commanded only by U.S.

officers whom we acknowledge are superior military leaders.

It is the opinion of The American Legion, which I am sure is shared by the majority of Americans, that three of the above listed conditions have not been met in the current joint operation with NATO ("Operation Allied Force'').

 

In no case should America commit its Armed Forces in the absence of clearly defined objectives agreed upon by the U.S. Congress in accordance with Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution of the United States.

 

Scary though that they are going to use "any means necessary" to stop Constitutionally protected protests. But we need to protect and let freedom flower!

[JUGGERNAUT]

Nice effort to bridge their statement in 1999 with that of today. However I will add what you will not in order to resolve what you are crafting as hypocrisy:

 

That there be a clear statement by the President of why it is in our vital national interests to be engaged in hostilities;

 

ANSWER:

The people we fight in Iraq share the same cause as the people who attacked us on 9/11. The war on terror is an ideological war. It is of national interest to us because of 9/11.

 

Guidelines be established for the mission, including a clear exit strategy;

ANSWER:

There is a clear exit strategy: When the Iraqi goverment is capable of enforcing laws we will leave.

 

That there be support of the mission by the U.S. Congress and the American people; and

ANSWER:

The U.S. Congress supported the war in Iraq. It still does. The opinion of the American people is best represented by the officials they elect. It's when they must act on their own accord to express their opinion.

Edited August 26, 2005 by JUGGERNAUT

[Steff]

God bless you Apu... God bless you... :banghead

[Texsox]

Freedom of speech allows us to support our leaders in sending troops into harms way whenever and where ever they want. It does not allow us to criticize those leaders for sending troops into harms way whenever and where ever they want.

Gee, how many times does Rush have to teach you that?

[JUGGERNAUT]

I'm being a bit of a debater today but I'll slide in my personal opinion on these issues:

 

1) I was against the war in Iraq: Wasn't willing to pay the price. I didn't care enough about the Iraqi people to liberate them. Preferred to back the Kurds as best we can & let them do the fighting. Didn't care much for the Sunni's or the Shiites.

 

Today I realize now what's done is done. Back out now & our word is s*** to our allies. Our loyalty to Iraq will ultimately pay off for other troublesome regions in the world & the impending war against chinese-capitalism which is soon to follow.

 

2) I am pro-choice. But I am not pro-abortion. I draw the line at physical health.

A woman should have a right to an abortion up to a time of fetus viability outside the womb. At that point only when a woman's physical health is severely compromised (long term consequences or risk of death) should an abortion be allowed.

 

3) On the issue of war protests & flag burning. I'm a big advocate of free speech so I say yes. They should be allowed. Where I differ probably with some of you is how the they should be regulated as it pertains to media coverage. Anything higher than TVPG is considered to have objectionable content that is not suitable for younger viewers. I would consider flag burning & war protests in that category. Thus media coverage of such things should be rated TV14 or higher.

Edited August 26, 2005 by JUGGERNAUT

[LowerCaseRepublican]

Nice effort to bridge their statement in 1999 with that of today.  However I will add what you will not in order to resolve what you are crafting as hypocrisy:

 

That there be a clear statement by the President of why it is in our vital national interests to be engaged in hostilities;

 

ANSWER:

The people we fight in Iraq share the same cause as the people who attacked us on 9/11. The war on terror is an ideological war.  It is of national interest to us because of 9/11.

 

Guidelines be established for the mission, including a clear exit strategy;

ANSWER:

There is a clear exit strategy: When the Iraqi goverment is capable of enforcing laws we will leave. 

 

That there be support of the mission by the U.S. Congress and the American people; and

ANSWER:

The U.S. Congress supported the war in Iraq.  It still does.  The opinion of the American people is best represented by the officials they elect.  It's when they must act on their own accord to express their opinion.

 

The country of Iraq can hardly be said in a blanket statement to believe in the same ideology as the people who attacked us on 9/11. Especially since there are more Saudis and Pakistanis in AQ (and not to mention Saudi Arabia being the hotbed of Wahabbi fundamentalism) but they are somehow our allies in this.

 

Many of the people fighting the occupation simply don't want a hand-picked government chosen by the United States. It isn't an "ideological war". It is a "We don't want to have a foreign country dictate to us how to do our s***" concept. I mean, who the f*** is America to be the global nanny for everybody? The Founders didn't conceive of the nation in such a way and saw long term foreign entanglements as antithetical to the Republic.

 

There is no national interest for us to go into Iraq. Iraq was not involved in the perpetration of the 9/11 attacks and there is no basis for the United States to have gone there -- in clear violation of the Nuremburg Tribunal.

 

As for the cause and case for war -- it has been weapons of mass destruction (which we said we knew where they were, had satellite surveillance on them but then could never find after we got there) to weapons of mass destruction programs to weapons of mass destruction related program activities to now "liberating the people of Iraq". So there was no "clear statement" as for the need of the troops to be there. It simply changed as each claim the administration made was debunked as being bulls***.

 

There are no guidelines for the mission. Ask Nuke, the post-war plan was not done at all and there is no clear exit strategy for the United States in place. All we get are platitudes and "Well, maybes". There is no defined strategy in place.

 

Congress did support the war in Iraq. However, many that initially were for the war (Hagel, Walter Jones, etc. etc. etc) have come out saying they were deceived and played for fools by the now-bulls*** claims of the Bush administration. And if the opinion of the American people is best represented in the politicians elected -- then why do over 1/2 of voting age Americans stay home at the polls? Please, it is just another episode of "Choose your Jell-O Spined Impotent Aristocrat". Politicians do not best represent Americans or America. It is merely choosing between the evils of two lessers.

 

Your arguments change like the wind (i.e. your posts in the past of "We should listen to the majority rules!" and now when that doesn't work for you due to the fact of most Americans being opposed to the war, you say that the majority opinion never matters) It is really amusing to me -- kinda reminds me of the CPUSA whenever Russia would change the party line and all the comrades fell into queue.

[YASNY]

Your arguments change like the wind

 

This is a particularly common occurance around SL&P.

[Texsox]

This is a particularly common occurance around SL&P.

 

Ain't that the truth.

[YASNY]

Ain't that the truth.   

 

I'm a master of stating the obvious.

[Texsox]

I'm a master of stating the obvious.

 

better than being one of the master.d.baters

[JUGGERNAUT]

Your arguments change like the wind

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

My arguments evolve due to your response. This is the essence of debate: point, counter-point. I have never stated as an absolute that majority rules. There are inalienable rights ordained by our creator that no man can argue away. That is why they are inalienable & not subject to the musings of mankind.

 

As far as the majority is concerned I have always advocated that action speaks louder than words. The best measure of their will is when they have to act on their own accord either by vote or correspondence with elected officials. This applies to the federal, state, & local governments including school boards.

 

As for the war, as far as acts of Congress go they still support the war. That's the majority opinion in Congress. It was after 9/11 & it still is. The majority of voters can express their opinion on the war in 2006 by nature of who they elect to Congress. At that time we will see whether the liberal anti-war rhetoric has resonated to a change in voting patterns.

 

We are not at war with Iraq. We are at war with terrorists who threaten the safety of the public & the security of the government there. That's the problem with liberals in general. They often look at things from the perspective they want to see rather than all the perspectives they should see.

 

Polls are useful data but they are usually jaded by the nature of the questions asked.

The most influential polls are those that ask whether a position will result in a voting change. Short of that Congress is most influenced by lobbyist groups & correspondence with influential voters.

Edited August 27, 2005 by JUGGERNAUT

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

This is a particularly common occurance around SL&P.

 

 

Nothing like a flip-flopper huh?

 

HAHA

[Heads22]

Bah....I thought "flip-flopper" had died.