We won the War, and nobody noticed

fear of shiz · Profuse Pontificator

We won the War, and nobody noticed

Mahonri · Senior Bucketkeeper

Shiz wrote: "Meanwhile, the other side in this war are among the worst people in global politics: Baathists, the Nazis of the middle east; Sunni fundamentalists, the chief opponents of progress in Islam's struggle with modernity; and the government of Iran."

You failed to add, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Barak Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Dingy Harry and the Democrat Party of the USA. They are also on the other side of the war.

With friends at home like those folks, who needs enemies?

This country is in deep doo doo and we have wannabees getting ready to consult lawyers!

HELP!!!!

LoudmouthMormon · Profuse Pontificator

It's good to see someone with a couple of brain cells to rub together, talking optimism. But I'm not willing to conceede "The country has ceased to be a threat to the world or its region" just yet. There is still rampant widespread corruption reaching to high levels in the fledgeling government. Iran could certainly take advantage of this situation. There is still violence and Al Qaeda. There are many tenuous temporary alliances formed between local militias and coalition forces - we don't know how well the militias will get along with the Iraqi govt when we stop driving down city streets on combat patrol.

My opinion is one of cautious optimism. In WWII, the was was won by the time the Battle of the Bulge began to be fought. But few people recognized it at the time, and there still remained a bunch of killing to do. There are many positive signs that Iraq's battle of the bulge is over, and we won. But I don't think the victory is set in stone yet.

LM

Janey · Senior Member

Interesting article, shiz. Thanks for linking.

*forwards link to military family members*

Organist · Senior Member

Of course we won the war, as evidenced by the lack of fighting and dying in Iraq. That stable government is the envy of the region and the world. American troops are coming home in droves. Anything you've heard contrary is just a big conspiracy to try and discredit president Bush.

-- Edited by Organist at 10:14, 2007-10-12

Pt314 · Senior Member

Hopefully Turkey and Iran won't mess it up.

TitusTodd · Senior Member

But I'm not willing to conceede "The country has ceased to be a threat to the world or its region" just yet. There is still rampant widespread corruption reaching to high levels in the fledgeling government. Iran could certainly take advantage of this situation. There is still violence and Al Qaeda.

Sure, Al Qaeda and Iran are still threats to the region but Iraq itself is not. Al Qaeda and Iran are outside entities and are not Iraq though they are causing problems for us and Iraq in Iraq.

-- Edited by TitusTodd at 12:38, 2007-10-15

lundbaek · Profuse Pontificator

I'm glad somebody else here picked up on Mitt Romney's response in a recent debate to the question if he would need to seek authorization from Congress to attack Iran. "You sit down with your attorneys and they tell you what you have to do, but obviously the President of the United States has to do what's in the best interest of the United States to protect us against a potential threat. The President did that as he was planning on moving into Iraq and received the authorization of Congress." WRONG

The president did not get proper authorization from Congress. The US Constitution requires that the Congress meet, discuss the issue, voet on the issue, and then formally declare war. Congress did not do that. Congress does not have the right to give that decision to the president, which is what it actually did. This is a serious violation of the Constitution, as it puts the decision to make war in the hands of the president.

Asked if he needed authorization from Congress, Romney said further: " You know, we're going to let the lawyers sort our what he needed to do and what he didn't need to do." WRONG AGAIN

If the lawyers knew as much about the Constitution as Latter Day Saints are supposed to know about it (D&C 98: 4-7) they should tell the president to insist that Congress do its job properly.

The moderator then turned to Ron Paul with the same question. Paul replied: "Absolutely. The idea of going and talkiing to attorneys absolutely baffles me. Why don't we just open up the Constitution and read it."

Congressman Paul might have added "and befriend it" as LDSs are told to do in D&C 98, which means a lot more than just reading it.

I believe the last time Congress declared war was after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour and the Philippines in December 1941.

And under no circumstances does the Constitution permit the president to declare war as the result of a resolution of an unelected foreign body, including one established under the leadership of the Soviet Russian M.V. Molotov and the proven American communist Alger Hiss.

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

You may have a point there lundbaek, concerning congress declaring war...

But, to declare war, you have to also have a recognized legal entity to declare war against, yes?

Has the United States recognized the legitimacy of the government of any nation (or it has gone to war against since WWII? I don't know. Interesting question though.

TitusTodd · Senior Member

Sure, require a Declaration of War from Congress would have avoided many conflicts, perhaps to our detriment. I'm not going to debate the requirement of such a declaration for all military actions being as debatable as it is.

arbilad · Head Chef

Cat Herder wrote:

You may have a point there lundbaek, concerning congress declaring war...

But, to declare war, you have to also have a recognized legal entity to declare war against, yes?

Does it? The Congress has, in times past, declared war on such abstract concepts as poverty.

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

arbilad wrote:

Cat Herder wrote:

You may have a point there lundbaek, concerning congress declaring war...

But, to declare war, you have to also have a recognized legal entity to declare war against, yes?

Does it? The Congress has, in times past, declared war on such abstract concepts as poverty.

And what did Congress do once they declared "war" to actually fight it (or the other abstract concepts)? Raise taxes and create bureacracy...

I don't recall them telling the Commander in Chief to use the military to go out and fight all those with incomes under the poverty level.

LoudmouthMormon · Profuse Pontificator

Huh - Michael Yon makes a rather strong claim:

Iraq is on the mend, al Qaeda is on the run, and the civil war has abated to a point where the term "civil war" no longer applies.
He was the first legitimate voice to mention civil war. He's written about the good and bad of what goes on over there. His claim packs weight.

My cautious optimism grows less cautious.

LM