Comments on: Unveiling the Obama Doctrine Tracking U.S. politics Wed, 16 Nov 2016 03:39:51 +0000 hourly 1 By: Benny_Acosta Tue, 15 Dec 2009 16:04:14 +0000 War is a means to a end. Those in power and in command of fighting forces will use those forces to get what they want. War happens when communication breaks down, or when one or both parties are hostile towards each other for emotional reasons.

Iraq was about oil. Afghanistan is no different. Bin Laden is no longer on the agenda. The taliban only need to be gotten rid of because they will not negotiate deals with us. They are not concerned with doing business with the US so they have to go. As a predominantly Christian nation, we should remove the log from our own political eye so that we can see clearly enough to remove the specs from the eyes of those we deal with.

When we as a nation learn to care for our own fellow citizens then we can talk about “human rights” in other countries. Then we can talk about the “liberation” of people in suffering. Just because we treat our citizens like well fed cattle it doesn’t mean we are any better than countries that treat their people like poorly fed cattle.

War is a waste of life, money, and time. Especially when there is so much work to be done.

By: defcon86 Sun, 13 Dec 2009 08:42:21 +0000 War is a viable alternative, or it wouldn’t be so well established as a means of protecting the interests of a nation.

It is not a remedy of last resort, but an option available among others. The only remedy of last resort is known as capitulation. And history has proven capitulation to be a poor remedy for those who rely on it.

The constitution gives the government the ability to control and maintain a military force and to use that military force to protect the interests of the nation.

And even if it did not, the source of military power of the nation itself is established with the declaration of independence:

“And that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do.”

In essence, the ability to declare and conduct war is one of the defining rights that make a nation a sovereign one.

And never, in the history of warfare, has it ever been believed the the military power of a nation ends at its borders. A war, by its definition, involves an attack by one nation over the borders of another.

By: eddieblack Sat, 12 Dec 2009 17:16:20 +0000 Anon86, war is never a viable alternative. It is the remedy of last resort. I am curious. Where does it say in the Constitution that we can use the military to enforce our will or our protect our international interests? No such argument exists in the Federalist papers. Hamilton and Jay seemed more concerned about making it difficult for the commander and chief to initiate hostilities outside of our borders. The situation with Russia and Georgia is similar to the drug wars on our Mexican border. I see no comparison with Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan. I just see oil.

By: Anon86 Sat, 12 Dec 2009 03:43:39 +0000 War is simply the conduct of politics through other means. It is the manner by which a nation enforces its rights, will or interests against another nation. Or to prevent such rights, will or interest being imposed on them.

It is the government which determines the rights, will and interests of the state. The people vote for the government. The military fight for the government.

Negotiation is held as the alternative to war: that two parties in conflict can reach some form of accord to avoid the tragic and expensive effects which war brings.

But war must still remain a viable alternative. If there was no threat of war when negotiation fails, then no nation would feel the need to negotiate. War, in essence, reminds people why negotiation should be taken seriously.

Obama should realise that in issues involving terror or rogue nations such as Iran, war must always remain a possibility. Or negotiation with those enemies will mean nothing.

What enemy would negotiate with a superpower that seems unwilling to enforce interests with force? There would be no need. War may breed hate and defiance. But pacifism and weakness only breeds contempt.

Even Russia realised, with its decaying power and military, that a failure to act in Georgia would be a terrible blow. So they fought, even when it caused an international outrage and complete lack of support from its own allies.

The manner in which Obama confronts Iran will soon indicate the doctrine of his administration.

Depending on his choice, it will either be a disappointment to a anti-war idealist minority, or a disappointment to the rest who expect their nation to enforce its interests.

By: eddieblack Fri, 11 Dec 2009 14:50:14 +0000 Both Jefferson and Franklin stated “War is folly”. Washington stated in his farewell address that we should cherish public debt. He went on to say “In the event of an unavoidable war use debt to prosecute it to a successful conclusion. Then once the war is over pay that debt down as rapidly as possible”. He never said anything about a “just war”.

While nations may or may not sign the Geneva convention all modern warfare brings injustice to civilians. The destruction of homes, cities and societies cannot be avoided. Civilians are at best made refugees and subject to all forms of degrading treatment. The unlucky are maimed or killed. There will be more civilian casualties than military personnel.

Wars are fought because rulers who have the power to wage war care not that a negotiated settlement is far less costly in treasure and blood. They merely covet that which there foe possesses. All wars are fought over resources.