To get around all the things you need in place to start a war, is to not declare war but call it something else. That is what Presidents both Dem and Republican have done, starting with Vietnam, desert storm, Iraq, iran , Afganistan, panama, grenada, Serbia. They call it an operation, UN resolution, ocupation, ect ect.... Just don't call it war and you don't have to deal with Congress. They are the ones who can declare war, not the president.
@luftwaffle to your 2nd comment [cont]: It's true that there is an element of civpro in COIN doctrine, but this (again) is not the mission. It's a strategy to achieve the primary goals. Conversely the goal of MAPRO is explicitly the protection of civilians from mass atrocities. I should be clear here that the use of force is one option of many and should be used only as a very last resort where it can actually be successful. The U.S. would certainly not be "policing" the world as you suggest.
@luftwaffle to your 1st comment [cont]: As I stated clearly in my original post the military mission to protect civilians from mass atrocities is in our national interest and that this is separate from the objective of ousting a dictator. I also never argued that ousting dictators should be something that the U.S. is involved in, let alone pursuing through military means. To your 2nd comment: The U.S. isn't in Afghanistan to protect civilians. That's not the mission and shouldn't be conflated...
@luftwaffle to your 1st comment [cont]: The National Defense University has been doing get work in this area. The Genocide Prevention Task Force co-chaired by former Secretary of Defense William Cohen (a republican) came out with a report that clearly underscored that preventing and responding to mass atrocities was in the national interest. The Pentagon is working on a program called Mass Atrocity Prevention and Response Operations (MAPRO) b/c developing civpro doctrine is a national interest.
@luftwaffle to your 1st comment: I should have cited more than Congress and WH, but will all due respect to Congress there are Senators who know what they're talking about from both sides of the aisle that get that civilian protect (civpro) is in U.S. national interests. Additional to them is a whole host of bipartisan supporters, including military experts, military officers, former diplomats, think tank wonks, non-governmental organizations, etc...
5. Exhausted all available options: The U.S. government had no other choice but to move forward on the no-fly zone given the pending massacre in Benghazi. In fact, they delayed SO long that they almost missed the window to save lives. The U.S. and international community had taken action to implement other options, but Qaddafi continued to massacre civilians. Military action was the last resort.
4. Clear military mission: Protection of civilians through a no-fly zone and "no-drive" zone is the military mission. The U.S. Administration has been clear that other goals (i.e.: Qaddafi removed from power) would NOT be achieved militarily. They've been clear on this point.
@albearangel "Protection of civilians" isn't something that has an end to it, which is precisely why we're stuck in Afghanistan after 10 years. A more reasonable goal would be "utterly destroy regime's military until they surrender," but that would elevate the tone of our intervention to a point that most people would disagree with. "Protect civilians" sounds better but it's a mask to what's really going on (using expensive ordinance to blow things up)
3. Costs and Consequences Considered: These were weighed with what analysts overwhelmingly saw to be a pending massacre in Benghazi. It was evident as well that the U.S. would limit costs through burden sharing and shortly thereafter transitioning our responsibilities to other nations.
2. Public support: Look at polling data from just before and just after the no-fly zone, particularly polling questions that acknowledged the protection of civilians (mission) and multilateral nature of the no-fly zone. CNN poll in late March found that 70% of Americans supported military action in Libya.
1. Compelling national interest: Congress and the White House have been clear that preventing and responding to mass atrocities is in the U.S. national interest (see: S.Con.Res.71, National Security Strategy, QDDR, QDR).
@albearangel Just because the Congress and the White House say it's in our national interest does not make it so. You've taken an extremely wide interpretation of "national interest." Ousting a foreign dictator has nothing to do with the United States. If it did, we'd be in a constant state of war. Oh wait, we already are, and it's killing us. American taxpayers should not be responsible for policing the world, they should be spending their money how they wish to spend it.
The reasoning presented for the "kinetic Military Action" are wholly moral are they not? ["Responsibility To Protect?]. The rebuttal being, that many of the "Rebels" are influenced by Osama Bin Laden, some actually Al Qaeda, and a few Gitmo-detainees that were released as well
Given the way things are going in Egypt, with the Muslim Brotherhood, [& the way they went in Iran] The chief immorality being Nature of Islamic "Democracy"
'give me the strength to shoot Jews from my wheelchair' -Qaradawi
What does our Constitution say about war? Our Founders divided war into two separate powers: Congress was given the power to declare war and the president was given the power to wage war. What that means is that under our system of government, the president cannot legally wage war against another nation in the absence of a declaration of war against that nation from Congress.
Due to its simplicity I question the reasoning that because congress was not consulted there is not public support. Representatives do not equitably reflect their constituencies on all topics, and it cannot be contended that they were elected on the basis of possible middle east combustion. The Government is distinct if not wholly separate from the Entire Populace.
And just to quibble; one could say a humanitarian mission could raise our profile in the ME which is of 'National Interest'.
Good video, and one I'd never expect from Cato. I thought the main libertarian principle on war was "No war is justified unless its objective is to exterminate the Jews."
If the "Rebels" or whomever they are start hurting innocent civilians, will we bomb them too? If this is about the slaughter of innocents, we can't pick sides, now can we.
The Nobel Peace Prize winner went to war without the authorization of Congress. Even Bush lied to Congress to go to war in Iraq.
Moreover, this is NOT a humanitarian effort by NATO. Perhaps, for the first time since WWII, our European "allies" showed some balls. But it was to protect their oil interests. They supported the US in the first gulf war and opposed us in the second. Both decisions were based on protecting their oil flow and interests.
I don't think the "public support" point should be included (although I agree with the others) because *sometimes* the general public supports things that are wrong and opposes policies that are the right thing to do. As an aside, I wonder like Boaz does, whatever happened to the anti-war movement? Where's Code Pink?
@UTubekookdetector "because *sometimes* the public is in error."? Wowzer! So, in our decision-making process, we should include the implausibility of third and fourth class conditions as determinative of a positive conclusion—good-golly-miss-molly, you sure did go t'the gov'ment schools a lot, . . .
But, more practically, there's not time in ten lifetimes to test that modality for you—those of whole mind decide concerning outcomes, in the logic inherent to likelihood of occurrence—thimk! man.
PHIL: Dang, I hit a nerve there didn't I son? Here's an example I think even you can understand. Market speculators aren't responsible for the current (and previous) price swings in oil. If 65% of the public supported a crackdown on speculators it shouldn't be done, despite public support of it. You're off on a meandering rant, making a mountain out of a molehill when my point was crystal clear.
@UTubekookdetector Sure I understand, and of greatest moment that, your insistence upon tangential matters do not set aside the fundamental logical weakness in which you live, but to see objectively you are quite unable—and, most probably because, you suffer from the blindness which desire for money, causes.
Nor are you able to discern the organic connection between the public and the speculators which they would like to crack down on; hence, your weak reasoning, but which would fit in right wel
. . . . would fit in right well with Ben Bernanke's.
Market speculators are responsible, even as the buying public is, though from different directions: I'm not at all sure that, you can apprehend of the facts that, as the foot bone is connected to the heel bone, and the heel bone is connected to the leg, until we get to the head bone, similarly, in part, the public keeps the price high, but what they do to produce their obesity; and that, to whatever extent they are so able, the public specul
. . . . the public speculates in small things, and for mere desire for money, the largest group of them also, would have their shiploads of oil anchored off-shore; and of the relevance of the principle in law and in life that, you can't complain (as the public loves to do) about a benefit in which you participate and receive of the benefits.
But you, you would have to be able to conceptualize those things into a single construct and then, compare that with the rightness or wrongness of bailing
. . . . wrongness of bailing out Lee Iaccoca's Chrysler as a pre-courser to what is now more lately done, and all in the vein of acting as parent to the general public, . . . and if otherwise, "Why, they might hurt their selves.", and, GM and some banks would have passed through bankruptcy, been parted out, and the nation would have benefited.
Of course, your point which was to have been grounded in misapprehension of common logic was crystal clear; and you would deny the general public the free
. . . . public the freedom to fail—or any members of it, who make bad choices, and through failure would be set back, to learn, and the larger public to see the mistakes and move on in evolving knowledge.
Also—except in furtherance of play as in marriage—to have cast the aspersion concerning a "rant" is always signal to weak powers of thought.
Your expressions in protection of the public—and in opposition to the reason for the USA constitution, make you sound so much like a government worker.
And, whatever power of reason of a child, or of a college professor, or anyone else, as the ability to conceptualize and realize worthy things, I consider to be no mere molehill, . . .
But for most of this, I would quite despair of your apprehension and comprehension; I get the idea that, for a long time, your life has been dedicated in another direction, . . .
@UTubekookdetector Further, for your example and related things, you may find it helpful to consider speculators and the buying public as a team, working together in a sort of animosity to produce a kind of spontaneous combustion in various areas of the economy, . . .
And if I haven't been crystal clear for you, have the courage to let failure take it's course, looking for the exception, when failure should be prevented, but in all, for the improvement to the whole, which failure only, can provi
PHIL: I'll explain a final time. I wouldn't have bombed Libya with or without Congressional approval, whether public support was 30, 50 or 90%, period. It's not a vital interest. Using that reasoning, we'd be bombing Syria & Yemen too. I would stand on principle, I would not be a finger-in-the-air populist trying to figure out which way the political winds are blowing. Better to be hated for who you are than loved for who you aren't. Most of your rant isn't even germane.
@UTubekookdetector Nor, would I have done so—them people been a'fightin' long before there was even a 'merica, an' they get real excited when they think some one new'll join 'em; and, our people fell for it jus' like bait; I guess them Tom Cruise missles are 1mil.
The relevance of my rant stems from your thought of fear of some public failure or whatnot, . . .
And your rant? I feel sure that, it's germane—even though I cannot just now see the trace—to something, . . .
Federalist 69 President’s authority would be nominally the same with that of the King of Great Britain, but in substance much inferior to it. It would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces, as first general and admiral of the confederacy; while that of the British king extends to the declaring of war and to the raising and regulating of fleets and armies; all which by the constitution under consideration would appertain to the legislature
the real reason all these countries went to war against muammer gadaffi is BP or British Petroleum .....eventhough BP produces 2% of the world's output of oil but their stake in libya is 15% of their total produce....Its clear as water there are people dying in yemen,bahrain and in other parts of the african continent...why isnt the Us government using force over there...Answer - "OIL"
@SeppLainer the chances are that some individual( Read "Puppet" ) who is pro-western and pro-imperialist will be elected to run the country for example like Mr.Maliki of iraq and Mr.Karzai of afghanistan, who are doing an exceptional job with regards to the vested interests of the corporate world,PEACE
Spending a tiny amount of blood and treasure to CRUSH a current enemy while CREATING a future friend and ally could be well worth it! Indeed, we probably need to do this to MANY dictatorships worldwide!!
@PureLiberalFire Who the fck are you? Obama killing US soldiers at record pace in Afghanistan. Liberal Double Standard. I am sure they will be our friends. GOOD GRIEF
@PureLiberalFire But its not your blood so it is easy to kill. When the people freak out and they will you will be in the corner like a scared rabbit. Hopefully someone will tell you a small amount of blood is no big deal. IDIOT
@PureLiberalFire 36,000 DEAD Mexicans in their war and they asked for help. 20X the dead in Indonesia, 5x dead in Syria, 2x dead in YEMEN. You are full of shit and you will see soon. OBAMA hates YOU and hates AMERICA. He will send troops to Israel soon and I will be going to support ISRAEL and will be shooting at my own people. Hopefully you will be represented there
@numberoneclutchfan Bush is gone dickhead. He is pushing oil price up from his ranch inbetween visiting soldiers, something Obama hates. OBAMA killing civilians in five countries. Troops home by end of 2009. What a sucker you are. WEAK as well for mentioning Bush
@numberoneclutchfan: "Now can you make one of these for the Bush adventurisms into Iraq and Afghanistan?"
Hmmm, yeah, both of which were authorized by Congress INCLUDING Hillary Clinton! Moreover, BOTH “adventurisms” his-worship Obama is clearly bent on furthering. Do make some reasonable attempt to stay in-line with the facts, unless of course FACTS are pesky little things that get in the way of your political agenda.
To get around all the things you need in place to start a war, is to not declare war but call it something else. That is what Presidents both Dem and Republican have done, starting with Vietnam, desert storm, Iraq, iran , Afganistan, panama, grenada, Serbia. They call it an operation, UN resolution, ocupation, ect ect.... Just don't call it war and you don't have to deal with Congress. They are the ones who can declare war, not the president.
flubno 3 months ago
@luftwaffle to your 2nd comment [cont]: It's true that there is an element of civpro in COIN doctrine, but this (again) is not the mission. It's a strategy to achieve the primary goals. Conversely the goal of MAPRO is explicitly the protection of civilians from mass atrocities. I should be clear here that the use of force is one option of many and should be used only as a very last resort where it can actually be successful. The U.S. would certainly not be "policing" the world as you suggest.
albearangel 7 months ago
@luftwaffle to your 1st comment [cont]: As I stated clearly in my original post the military mission to protect civilians from mass atrocities is in our national interest and that this is separate from the objective of ousting a dictator. I also never argued that ousting dictators should be something that the U.S. is involved in, let alone pursuing through military means. To your 2nd comment: The U.S. isn't in Afghanistan to protect civilians. That's not the mission and shouldn't be conflated...
albearangel 7 months ago
@luftwaffle to your 1st comment [cont]: The National Defense University has been doing get work in this area. The Genocide Prevention Task Force co-chaired by former Secretary of Defense William Cohen (a republican) came out with a report that clearly underscored that preventing and responding to mass atrocities was in the national interest. The Pentagon is working on a program called Mass Atrocity Prevention and Response Operations (MAPRO) b/c developing civpro doctrine is a national interest.
albearangel 7 months ago
@luftwaffle to your 1st comment: I should have cited more than Congress and WH, but will all due respect to Congress there are Senators who know what they're talking about from both sides of the aisle that get that civilian protect (civpro) is in U.S. national interests. Additional to them is a whole host of bipartisan supporters, including military experts, military officers, former diplomats, think tank wonks, non-governmental organizations, etc...
albearangel 7 months ago
5. Exhausted all available options: The U.S. government had no other choice but to move forward on the no-fly zone given the pending massacre in Benghazi. In fact, they delayed SO long that they almost missed the window to save lives. The U.S. and international community had taken action to implement other options, but Qaddafi continued to massacre civilians. Military action was the last resort.
albearangel 7 months ago
4. Clear military mission: Protection of civilians through a no-fly zone and "no-drive" zone is the military mission. The U.S. Administration has been clear that other goals (i.e.: Qaddafi removed from power) would NOT be achieved militarily. They've been clear on this point.
albearangel 7 months ago
@albearangel "Protection of civilians" isn't something that has an end to it, which is precisely why we're stuck in Afghanistan after 10 years. A more reasonable goal would be "utterly destroy regime's military until they surrender," but that would elevate the tone of our intervention to a point that most people would disagree with. "Protect civilians" sounds better but it's a mask to what's really going on (using expensive ordinance to blow things up)
luftwaffle 7 months ago
3. Costs and Consequences Considered: These were weighed with what analysts overwhelmingly saw to be a pending massacre in Benghazi. It was evident as well that the U.S. would limit costs through burden sharing and shortly thereafter transitioning our responsibilities to other nations.
albearangel 7 months ago
2. Public support: Look at polling data from just before and just after the no-fly zone, particularly polling questions that acknowledged the protection of civilians (mission) and multilateral nature of the no-fly zone. CNN poll in late March found that 70% of Americans supported military action in Libya.
albearangel 7 months ago
Very faulty reasoning.
1. Compelling national interest: Congress and the White House have been clear that preventing and responding to mass atrocities is in the U.S. national interest (see: S.Con.Res.71, National Security Strategy, QDDR, QDR).
albearangel 7 months ago
@albearangel Just because the Congress and the White House say it's in our national interest does not make it so. You've taken an extremely wide interpretation of "national interest." Ousting a foreign dictator has nothing to do with the United States. If it did, we'd be in a constant state of war. Oh wait, we already are, and it's killing us. American taxpayers should not be responsible for policing the world, they should be spending their money how they wish to spend it.
luftwaffle 7 months ago
The reasoning presented for the "kinetic Military Action" are wholly moral are they not? ["Responsibility To Protect?]. The rebuttal being, that many of the "Rebels" are influenced by Osama Bin Laden, some actually Al Qaeda, and a few Gitmo-detainees that were released as well
Given the way things are going in Egypt, with the Muslim Brotherhood, [& the way they went in Iran] The chief immorality being Nature of Islamic "Democracy"
'give me the strength to shoot Jews from my wheelchair' -Qaradawi
asderathos 11 months ago
@UBSCARED
What does our Constitution say about war? Our Founders divided war into two separate powers: Congress was given the power to declare war and the president was given the power to wage war. What that means is that under our system of government, the president cannot legally wage war against another nation in the absence of a declaration of war against that nation from Congress.
ThisAintKyle 11 months ago
@ThisAintKyle FYI, in case you were wondering what the constitution had to say about the whole thing...
ThisAintKyle 11 months ago
@UBSCARED Traditional Policy is distinct from Law; CATO does not argue that it is an Illegal War, but an unjustifiable one.
asderathos 11 months ago
Due to its simplicity I question the reasoning that because congress was not consulted there is not public support. Representatives do not equitably reflect their constituencies on all topics, and it cannot be contended that they were elected on the basis of possible middle east combustion. The Government is distinct if not wholly separate from the Entire Populace.
And just to quibble; one could say a humanitarian mission could raise our profile in the ME which is of 'National Interest'.
asderathos 11 months ago
We will get dragged into conflicts?
This hasn't happened already?
We're still funding military bases in friggin GERMANY. Why do we need military bases there? Who the hell knows.
jrsub3 11 months ago
Good video, and one I'd never expect from Cato. I thought the main libertarian principle on war was "No war is justified unless its objective is to exterminate the Jews."
joedoufu 11 months ago
If the "Rebels" or whomever they are start hurting innocent civilians, will we bomb them too? If this is about the slaughter of innocents, we can't pick sides, now can we.
Moonteeth62 11 months ago
These 5 rules sound like Just War principles to me.
Montfortracing 11 months ago
Obama is a puppet. He made no decision. His job is to deliver a pretty speech to the uneducated public and the misguided left wing media.
Bush was really, really bad. Obama is way worse than Bush. Their policies are the same, but Obama seems to be Bush on steroids.
666sigma 11 months ago
The Nobel Peace Prize winner went to war without the authorization of Congress. Even Bush lied to Congress to go to war in Iraq.
Moreover, this is NOT a humanitarian effort by NATO. Perhaps, for the first time since WWII, our European "allies" showed some balls. But it was to protect their oil interests. They supported the US in the first gulf war and opposed us in the second. Both decisions were based on protecting their oil flow and interests.
America should leave the Middle East period.
666sigma 11 months ago
I don't think the "public support" point should be included (although I agree with the others) because *sometimes* the general public supports things that are wrong and opposes policies that are the right thing to do. As an aside, I wonder like Boaz does, whatever happened to the anti-war movement? Where's Code Pink?
UTubekookdetector 11 months ago
@UTubekookdetector "because *sometimes* the public is in error."? Wowzer! So, in our decision-making process, we should include the implausibility of third and fourth class conditions as determinative of a positive conclusion—good-golly-miss-molly, you sure did go t'the gov'ment schools a lot, . . .
But, more practically, there's not time in ten lifetimes to test that modality for you—those of whole mind decide concerning outcomes, in the logic inherent to likelihood of occurrence—thimk! man.
phillipgaley 11 months ago
PHIL: Dang, I hit a nerve there didn't I son? Here's an example I think even you can understand. Market speculators aren't responsible for the current (and previous) price swings in oil. If 65% of the public supported a crackdown on speculators it shouldn't be done, despite public support of it. You're off on a meandering rant, making a mountain out of a molehill when my point was crystal clear.
UTubekookdetector 11 months ago
@UTubekookdetector Sure I understand, and of greatest moment that, your insistence upon tangential matters do not set aside the fundamental logical weakness in which you live, but to see objectively you are quite unable—and, most probably because, you suffer from the blindness which desire for money, causes.
Nor are you able to discern the organic connection between the public and the speculators which they would like to crack down on; hence, your weak reasoning, but which would fit in right wel
phillipgaley 11 months ago
. . . . would fit in right well with Ben Bernanke's.
Market speculators are responsible, even as the buying public is, though from different directions: I'm not at all sure that, you can apprehend of the facts that, as the foot bone is connected to the heel bone, and the heel bone is connected to the leg, until we get to the head bone, similarly, in part, the public keeps the price high, but what they do to produce their obesity; and that, to whatever extent they are so able, the public specul
phillipgaley 11 months ago
. . . . the public speculates in small things, and for mere desire for money, the largest group of them also, would have their shiploads of oil anchored off-shore; and of the relevance of the principle in law and in life that, you can't complain (as the public loves to do) about a benefit in which you participate and receive of the benefits.
But you, you would have to be able to conceptualize those things into a single construct and then, compare that with the rightness or wrongness of bailing
phillipgaley 11 months ago
. . . . wrongness of bailing out Lee Iaccoca's Chrysler as a pre-courser to what is now more lately done, and all in the vein of acting as parent to the general public, . . . and if otherwise, "Why, they might hurt their selves.", and, GM and some banks would have passed through bankruptcy, been parted out, and the nation would have benefited.
Of course, your point which was to have been grounded in misapprehension of common logic was crystal clear; and you would deny the general public the free
phillipgaley 11 months ago
. . . . public the freedom to fail—or any members of it, who make bad choices, and through failure would be set back, to learn, and the larger public to see the mistakes and move on in evolving knowledge.
Also—except in furtherance of play as in marriage—to have cast the aspersion concerning a "rant" is always signal to weak powers of thought.
Your expressions in protection of the public—and in opposition to the reason for the USA constitution, make you sound so much like a government worker.
phillipgaley 11 months ago
And, whatever power of reason of a child, or of a college professor, or anyone else, as the ability to conceptualize and realize worthy things, I consider to be no mere molehill, . . .
But for most of this, I would quite despair of your apprehension and comprehension; I get the idea that, for a long time, your life has been dedicated in another direction, . . .
phillipgaley 11 months ago
@UTubekookdetector Further, for your example and related things, you may find it helpful to consider speculators and the buying public as a team, working together in a sort of animosity to produce a kind of spontaneous combustion in various areas of the economy, . . .
And if I haven't been crystal clear for you, have the courage to let failure take it's course, looking for the exception, when failure should be prevented, but in all, for the improvement to the whole, which failure only, can provi
phillipgaley 11 months ago
PHIL: I'll explain a final time. I wouldn't have bombed Libya with or without Congressional approval, whether public support was 30, 50 or 90%, period. It's not a vital interest. Using that reasoning, we'd be bombing Syria & Yemen too. I would stand on principle, I would not be a finger-in-the-air populist trying to figure out which way the political winds are blowing. Better to be hated for who you are than loved for who you aren't. Most of your rant isn't even germane.
UTubekookdetector 11 months ago
@UTubekookdetector Nor, would I have done so—them people been a'fightin' long before there was even a 'merica, an' they get real excited when they think some one new'll join 'em; and, our people fell for it jus' like bait; I guess them Tom Cruise missles are 1mil.
The relevance of my rant stems from your thought of fear of some public failure or whatnot, . . .
And your rant? I feel sure that, it's germane—even though I cannot just now see the trace—to something, . . .
Keep on a'truckin', . . .
phillipgaley 11 months ago
Federalist 69 President’s authority would be nominally the same with that of the King of Great Britain, but in substance much inferior to it. It would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces, as first general and admiral of the confederacy; while that of the British king extends to the declaring of war and to the raising and regulating of fleets and armies; all which by the constitution under consideration would appertain to the legislature
Daniel44125 11 months ago
good video
a4finger 11 months ago
Bush's foreign policy + Carter's leadership
Thorbie 11 months ago 11
@Thorbie More like Buchanan leadershit...
TheConservatveLibral 11 months ago
the real reason all these countries went to war against muammer gadaffi is BP or British Petroleum .....eventhough BP produces 2% of the world's output of oil but their stake in libya is 15% of their total produce....Its clear as water there are people dying in yemen,bahrain and in other parts of the african continent...why isnt the Us government using force over there...Answer - "OIL"
rock0236 11 months ago
@rock0236
Sounds like Iran in 1953...
SeppLainer 11 months ago
@SeppLainer the chances are that some individual( Read "Puppet" ) who is pro-western and pro-imperialist will be elected to run the country for example like Mr.Maliki of iraq and Mr.Karzai of afghanistan, who are doing an exceptional job with regards to the vested interests of the corporate world,PEACE
rock0236 11 months ago
@rock0236
Which is what they did in Iran in 1953.
SeppLainer 11 months ago
thumbs up
yougiberishtube 11 months ago
Five more rules for going to war:
(1) Win.
(2) Win.
(3) Win.
(4) Win.
(5) Radically liberalize the defeated nation-state -- so no more wars will take place.
PureLiberalFire 11 months ago
Boots will be on the ground soon. Thousands of US Troops will die to place a NEW dictator in that OBAMA likes and prays with
PatriotWatchUSA 11 months ago
Powell is ALL for Obamas Actions. JUST ASK HIM. Powell is a traitor to the American People
PatriotWatchUSA 11 months ago
Spending a tiny amount of blood and treasure to CRUSH a current enemy while CREATING a future friend and ally could be well worth it! Indeed, we probably need to do this to MANY dictatorships worldwide!!
PureLiberalFire 11 months ago
@PureLiberalFire Who the fck are you? Obama killing US soldiers at record pace in Afghanistan. Liberal Double Standard. I am sure they will be our friends. GOOD GRIEF
PatriotWatchUSA 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@PatriotWatchUSA I'm a fuckin' genius, that's who! Watch my videos and see! ;-)
PureLiberalFire 11 months ago
@PureLiberalFire I hear enough liberal lies all day long b you and Obama. I wouldn't waste my time spitting in your face
PatriotWatchUSA 11 months ago
@PatriotWatchUSA I'm a CLASSICAL LIBERAL -- the diametric opposite of a conservative or "liberal," of you or your identical twin Obama.
PureLiberalFire 11 months ago
@PureLiberalFire But its not your blood so it is easy to kill. When the people freak out and they will you will be in the corner like a scared rabbit. Hopefully someone will tell you a small amount of blood is no big deal. IDIOT
PatriotWatchUSA 11 months ago
@PatriotWatchUSA Doing NOTHING probably would have resulted in a MASSACRE.
PureLiberalFire 11 months ago
@PureLiberalFire 36,000 DEAD Mexicans in their war and they asked for help. 20X the dead in Indonesia, 5x dead in Syria, 2x dead in YEMEN. You are full of shit and you will see soon. OBAMA hates YOU and hates AMERICA. He will send troops to Israel soon and I will be going to support ISRAEL and will be shooting at my own people. Hopefully you will be represented there
PatriotWatchUSA 11 months ago
@PatriotWatchUSA Wha? You're incoherent.
PureLiberalFire 11 months ago
Comment removed
maximuslaurius 11 months ago
@maximuslaurius They didn't. They were against the Iraq war. Don't confuse Cato with the Heritage Foundation.
Kenro200x 11 months ago
@Kenro200x
you are right, silly me :)
Cato is libertarian. For some reason I always get them mixed up. Extra homework for me!
maximuslaurius 11 months ago
@maximuslaurius Did you listen to what he said? Obviously not or you missed the whole video
PatriotWatchUSA 11 months ago
Great job, Cato!
Now can you make one of these for the Bush adventurisms into Iraq and Afghanistan?
(not to mention Pakistan, et al)
numberoneclutchfan 11 months ago
@numberoneclutchfan Bush is gone dickhead. He is pushing oil price up from his ranch inbetween visiting soldiers, something Obama hates. OBAMA killing civilians in five countries. Troops home by end of 2009. What a sucker you are. WEAK as well for mentioning Bush
PatriotWatchUSA 11 months ago
@numberoneclutchfan: "Now can you make one of these for the Bush adventurisms into Iraq and Afghanistan?"
Hmmm, yeah, both of which were authorized by Congress INCLUDING Hillary Clinton! Moreover, BOTH “adventurisms” his-worship Obama is clearly bent on furthering. Do make some reasonable attempt to stay in-line with the facts, unless of course FACTS are pesky little things that get in the way of your political agenda.
...Whacked ideological Kool-aid, notwithstanding.
PoliticallyBlazed 11 months ago
1. you must be a natural born citizen of the united states.
2. you need at least 1 Iraqi, afghan or arab target..
3. sell weapons to the respective country.
4. make the right propaganda. meaning, you need to make sure every news station tells the exact same story. make them look evil.
5. remember, the president is always right.
Liqu1d16 11 months ago 18
Comment removed
Liqu1d16 11 months ago