• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Donald Trump Calls Obama ‘Founder of ISIS’ and Says It Honors Him

Dittohead not! said:
Exactly, and except for providing full support with all of the military equipment and men that are needed.

And, they shouldn't send troops off to war without first declaring war. That's a way of assuring that the country, not just the military, is at war, and of following the Constitution as well.

And, they shouldn't send troops off to war at all unless there is no other choice.
Click to expand...

Not much to disagree with here.

There is some gray area specific to sending troops, as there are certain situations where it's not into combat, rescue / relief missions, for example. If the military is required to provide security for some region, that really isn't war, but could possibly, potentially escalate into combat operations, which would be what then?
 
eohrnberger said:
Not much to disagree with here.

There is some gray area specific to sending troops, as there are certain situations where it's not into combat, rescue / relief missions, for example. If the military is required to provide security for some region, that really isn't war, but could possibly, potentially escalate into combat operations, which would be what then?
Click to expand...

Relief missions in times of natural disasters? Sure. Helping our fellow man is a good thing to do.

If there is no war, what would the military be providing security against?
 
Dittohead not! said:
Relief missions in times of natural disasters? Sure. Helping our fellow man is a good thing to do.

If there is no war, what would the military be providing security against?
Click to expand...
Wow....kind of off into the utopian blather aren't you? Talk about disconnected from reality.

Sent from my LGLS991 using Tapatalk
 
j-mac said:
Wow....kind of off into the utopian blather aren't you? Talk about disconnected from reality.

Sent from my LGLS991 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Not sure what that means.
Are you against sending troops to help out when there's a natural disaster? Is that what's disconnected from reality?
 
Dittohead not! said:
Relief missions in times of natural disasters? Sure. Helping our fellow man is a good thing to do.

If there is no war, what would the military be providing security against?
Click to expand...

I don't think that it's all black and white here.

An aggressor who raids others, allies for example, without declaring war, the US military could / might be called on to help ensure security, and in that role, might also be attacked.
 
eohrnberger said:
I also seem to recall that the air campaign targets were chosen in DC by the president and his administration rather than the military leaders.

Vietnam military engagement was so screwed up by the politicians, that DC forgot that Vietnam was what? 12 hours offset from DC, and ordered bombing missions in DC time, in the middle of the day in Vietnam, the least desirable timing.

Politicians should leave the making or war to the military, with the exception of end goals of the conflict.
Click to expand...

Um, no. Truman stepping in to stop MacArthur from using an atomic bomb during the Korean War is a prime example of why the Commander-in-Chief must be able to step in and tell the generals "no, you're going too far".

I quite agree that the C-in-C and the suits in Washington must keep out of tactical decisions as much as practicable...but OTOH, there's a lot of politically strategic concerns that the C-in-C would know about, that the generals might not be able to take into consideration. Before you tell me I'm full of it, I strongly recommend you read Winston Churchill's history of WWII, that you might get an idea of the crucial strategic decisions that must be faced on a level higher than that of the generals.
 
eohrnberger said:
I don't think that it's all black and white here.

An aggressor who raids others, allies for example, without declaring war, the US military could / might be called on to help ensure security, and in that role, might also be attacked.
Click to expand...

In that case, we need to declare war on the aggressor and put an end to their undeclared war once and for all. No more half way wars should be fought. We tend to lose when we're not in it to win.

Look at the war in Kuwait as an example. No, we didn't declare war as we should, but we did go in it to win, and we did. Contrast that with Iraq or Vietnam, wars fought half way and lost.
 
Dittohead not! said:
In that case, we need to declare war on the aggressor and put an end to their undeclared war once and for all. No more half way wars should be fought. We tend to lose when we're not in it to win.

Look at the war in Kuwait as an example. No, we didn't declare war as we should, but we did go in it to win, and we did. Contrast that with Iraq or Vietnam, wars fought half way and lost.
Click to expand...

In both of these cases it depends a lot on who the C in C is.
 
eohrnberger said:
In both of these cases it depends a lot on who the C in C is.
Click to expand...

Yes, and on who is advising him.
I don't blame Iraq on Bush so much as on the PNAC guys who were advising him. Same with Johnson. It wasn't him so much as it was the people who were sure that the "domino theory" was correct.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
Um, no. Truman stepping in to stop MacArthur from using an atomic bomb during the Korean War is a prime example of why the Commander-in-Chief must be able to step in and tell the generals "no, you're going too far".

I quite agree that the C-in-C and the suits in Washington must keep out of tactical decisions as much as practicable...but OTOH, there's a lot of politically strategic concerns that the C-in-C would know about, that the generals might not be able to take into consideration. Before you tell me I'm full of it, I strongly recommend you read Winston Churchill's history of WWII, that you might get an idea of the crucial strategic decisions that must be faced on a level higher than that of the generals.
Click to expand...

I think that we are more on the same page on this than not. I was specifically referring to the tactical aspects, which the politicians should stay out of.
 
eohrnberger said:
I think that we are more on the same page on this than not. I was specifically referring to the tactical aspects, which the politicians should stay out of.
Click to expand...

Yeah, you're probably right. When it comes to Churchill, I'm actually listening to his books downloaded from audible.com - I just finished the second of his WWII history books - they're real eye-openers, with a lot of information that I'd never heard of before. One thing that makes me glad that I never had to operate at that level is the amount of care he had to take to consider the personality of those he had to deal with, and how he sometimes had to stroke their pride in order to get what he wanted. Just thinking about having to do that day in and day out makes me shudder and want to go take a shower with LOTS of soap.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
Yeah, you're probably right. When it comes to Churchill, I'm actually listening to his books downloaded from audible.com - I just finished the second of his WWII history books - they're real eye-openers, with a lot of information that I'd never heard of before. One thing that makes me glad that I never had to operate at that level is the amount of care he had to take to consider the personality of those he had to deal with, and how he sometimes had to stroke their pride in order to get what he wanted. Just thinking about having to do that day in and day out makes me shudder and want to go take a shower with LOTS of soap.
Click to expand...

Part of being a good leader to recognize what the team needs, and providing that for them.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Not sure what that means.
Are you against sending troops to help out when there's a natural disaster? Is that what's disconnected from reality?
Click to expand...

It was more to do with the "if there were no war..." comment, but you are smart enough to have known that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom