Lamenting over what once was a happy place (Coverts)

In an attempt to "divert" the thread back in its original direction:

We should follow constitutional protocol when going to war. It is there for a reason. If we are legitimately attacked, it is the job of Congress to declare war. We then fight the war, win it and come home. War should be efficient, decisive and rare. However, when Congress shirks its duty and just gives the administration whatever it wants with no real oversight or meaningful debate, wars are never-ending, wasteful, and political. Our so-called wars have become a perpetual drain on our economy and liberty.

I agree with this sentiment, as far as it goes, especially the part I highlighted in bold. No one should ever be asked to lay down his or her life in an undeclared war. If it is important enough to fight, then it should be a declared war, and you cowboy up and declare the war or stay home. But...

What to do about troublesome developments around the world that have the verifiable potential to harm our interests? For example, Iran and Russia are friendly. Regardless of who looked into whose soul and could work with them, Mr. Putin (or one of his minions) could provide, intentionally or not, Iran with the missile capability to reach, say, New York or LA. With that capability and nuclear warheads, in the hands of a man like Ahmadinejad, how do we prevent a nuclear strike on our homeland? A culture that produces people willing to blow themselves up to become a martyr certainly won't worry about a mundane idea like Mutually Assured Destruction.

So what to do? And I ask this question looking for real answers, because I don't know what I would do if I were in charge of this country.

And I'm sorry for using the word "homeland." It was the best word I could think of for that particular sentence.

American soil worked until we got homeland-ized.

I say, we accept the risk, because to do otherwise leads us to where we are now: undeclared wars. We can't have it both ways. The world has never been risk-free, and it ain't ever gonna be risk-free.

And, being here in Ukraine, and tlaking to folks here, trust me: Putin wants a nuclear-armed Iran with missiles as little as we do. I've asked many Ukrainian Russian around my age mostly: What do you think of Putin? Best leader we've ever had .. by far.

I return: But, what about all his hard-lining with the West. I get a roll of the eyes. "Don't you know that he must appease the Old Guard? They do NOT like all the democratic reforms, and they didn't just go away." Hmmm....

And, remember Viktor Yushchenko being poisoned? Those damned Russians, right? Not according to Ukrainians. Seems, they've an Old Guard in Ukraine too. Why am I bringing this up?

I think A-job and the rest do care about getting their asses blown away. I think we get fed these formulas by our own government and press.

I think we have to live with the risk of a nuclear-armed Iran. The other option is ... what HWSAHCBN here at CCC, i.e. Ron Paul, was talkin' about.

I think A-job and the rest do care about getting their asses blown away. I think we get fed these formulas by our own government and press

I will concede the possibility that Ahmadinijad may care about getting his backside blown to Kingdom Come. But that doesn't change the culture there, and no amount of force-feeding from our own government and our own press can change the fact that many, many people from that culture do kill themselves in suicide bombings. Surely you are not saying that suicide bombings are a fantasy cooked up by our government and the press? That would mean that NBC, ABC, and CBS were in cahoots with every President for at least the last thirty years (Reagan? Both Bushes? Don't make me laugh).

No, the culture over there is why I'm worried about Iran getting a nuke. Not Ahmadinijad himself. He's just a dickhead with too much power (sort of like our current President).

No, I'm not suggesting suicide bombers are fantasy.

But, if you are going to lose sleep over the possibillity that an American city (or a European city, or Japanese, or a Russian city) might get nuked, then you may as well swallow the idea of undeclared wars that go on endlessly, or, I guess, fo on until we kill all the terrorists, or, perhaps, until we frighten all the suicide bombers into finding something else to do in their spare time.

I don't know. There has to be some kind of a balance between fighting undeclared wars and lassaiz-faire. I don't know what that is, but it has to be out there somewhere.

Owen 16 wrote:I don't know. There has to be some kind of a balance between fighting undeclared wars and lassaiz-faire. I don't know what that is, but it has to be out there somewhere.

New Zealand
Costa Rica
Switzerland

These nations are:

1.)beautiful
2.)highly educated population. (100% literacy rate in Costa Rica)
3.)rich in natural resources
4.)not at war with anyone

They also aren't being attacked by terrorists!

There's your balance.

Out of respect to Paul's desires to stay on topic, I have moved this discussion of our feelings (Mostly mine) about Coverts over to here, and left the rest of the "HWSAHCBN on this forum: The Trouble With Unconstitutional Wars" thread at it's original spot.

I hope that's okay with everybody!