Yes, I can relate to that. :)

because terrorists can fly planes into buildings.... they take out the roots of it, it cannot grow...i agree, it's a war we probably can't win, but sometimes sheer force is the only way to get a point across.

get across at what cost

they should use the tactics of the terrorist to fight the terrorist

sniper could take out osama

a seal team could extract him (oh yeah thats what they did from a country we do not have a fighting force in)

why are they not sending troops into the country that actually did harbor the mastermind of 9-11

why are they NOT CUTTING OFF THE MILLIONS OF $$$$$ THEY SEND THEM

why are they not making the point with them

The Military Oath

The Commissioning Oath

"I, _____ , having been appointed an officer in the (Service) of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God." (DA Form 71, 1 August 1959, for officers.)

The Enlistment Oath

"I, _____, do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).

did congress ever ratify the war in Afghanistan

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Over 60,000 dead in undeclared wars
Congress did not declare war on Vietnam, Grenada, Lebanon, Somalia, Haiti, Panama, Serbia, or Bosnia either. But U.S. military personnel killed people in those countries and/or were killed in those countries during military actions—acts of war. Over 60,000 U.S. military personnel have died in undeclared wars (not counting Korea and Desert Storm) since World War II.

The Korean War and Desert Storm in Kuwait in 1991 were military actions pursued with a U.N. mandate.

The last time Congress declared war was December 8, 1941, the day after the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor and declared war on the United States.

----=-
No Vietnam, Iraq, or Afghanistan
If we only went to war after Congress declared it, we would never have gone to war in Vietnam, Grenada, Lebanon, Somalia, Haiti, Panama, Afghanistan, or Iraq. We would be better off if we had not gone to war in any of those countries. There has been some punitive satisfaction as a result of killing or capturing some big shots and their associates, but neither Afghanistan nor Iraq was going to harm the U.S. in any significant way had we left Saddam Hussein and the Taliban in power.

-------
No declaration, no war
My modest proposal? Stop going to war unless Congress declares war. Wars are extremely expensive in terms of both human cost and money. And when we get into them without declarations by Congress, we generally have regretted it. I agree with the comments Senator Robert Byrd made on the subject at http://muse.jhu.edu/cgi-bin/access.cgi?uri=/journals/mediterranean_quarterly/v014/14.3byrd.html.

Another way to state my modest proposal would be, abide by the Constitution. It is not, after all, a list of suggestions.

--------

http://www.johntreed.com/declarationofwar.html

----------------------------------------------------------------------
yes they agreed to thne money

but without a declaration of war they were/are uncostitutional after a short period of time

so in actualality by fighting in undeclared war situations they are breaking their oath imo

Wow sometimes its probably best to not even post our assupmtions..

I live in a cummuniy that is pretty much made up of Army , navy and RAAF.
obivously this is australia, but i think if any of the men or women who are a part of them read this, they would be pretty disgusted, yep thats an assumption i am making after a couple of them where here and i asked them what they assumed.

There responses wheredisgust, sorry but these people when they signed on the dotted line did it witht he knowledge that they would have to stand up for our country if asked, they take pride in our land and are prepared to defend it with their lives. They make sacrifices everyday, whether its leaving their family or just doing duty at night, my son in law is called out for major disaster and any time that they are needed they pack up and off they go,

none of them assumed when they signed up that they wouldnt have to stand up for our country,


I know that this is not really what your post was about, but it just seems pretty poor taste, and leaves a yucky feeling for anyone that has family in the armed forces

just a clarification

i support the troops but do not support the way they are being abused

they sign up to protect their country that is an honorable thing

those that are elected to office abuse the troops by putting them in harms way for unjust reasons and for their own political gain

they send them into other countries to be killed and wounded for what purpose

if it was because plane were flown into buildings---how come we are not attacking pakistan---proof positive they were harboring the mastermind of the event

why is it they still get aid money from the united states

so no its not truly about 9-11 or pakistan would be invaded

but hey what do i know

thats my point,, its an ASSUMPTION That every enlisted person is doing ANYTHING (whether that anything is that they are all protecting our rights or that they arent}

some are there protecting rights, NOT ALL are automatically there protecting rights..

the flip side assumption, everyone is enlisted because they want to protect 'my' rights

people are enlisted very young, ID propose that few of them have a CLUE of what they are doing except that they are going to be working, or learning a skill, or having their college paid

Id also propose MANY MANY arent joining because of how much they care about 'my' or anyone elses rights

I could likewise say any CIVILIAN working in a community who sells a candy bar or pencil to a soldier, therefore SUPPORTING their needs, is necessarily and by extension, 'protecting my rights'

but I Think thats nonsense and far reaching, just like being employed by the military automatically means ones intent or desire has anything to do with anyone elses rights..or that their job will at anytime require them to if it is not a time of war,,,

ITs odd that people are so hesitant to admit this,,but to each their own

respectfully, not everyone

my brother is retired naval captain and naval diver


and he is a logical man, not lead so much by emotion and cliche ideals

he is also now a doctor

and just like all who sign on to the medical profession, dont necessarukt give a damn so much about patients as they do their paycheck

or all teachers dont necessarily give a damn about students

all servicemen and all servicewomen do not necessarily give a damn about politics, let alone 'rights'

these are jobs, people sign on to them for numbers of reasons that dont all involve patriotism or love of country or even love of neighbor

I support our troops too hon, as I have stated my eldest brother was career military

I just dont support the idealistic notion that being enlisted automatically makes one patriotic or automatically means they care or are trying to protect my rights,, it doesnt even automatically mean they will be called to protect my rights

and just like we purchase vehicles knowing we MAY get into an accident, few of us purchase them eXPECTING it to happen

this is true of being called to protect america too, when it comes to the troops

MANY MANY Dont truly believe they will ever be called into danger, regardless of the papers they sign as teenagers and young adults

my job is 'necessary' too, does that mean I am protecting your rights?

typical of a civilian... did you spit on the soldiers when they came back too?

no, your just complaining and starting crap...

i totally agree with mightymoe.
now then,
everyone that enlists in the military goes through basic training. they are all taught as if they are all going to the front line. after basic training some go to schools for further training and some go to school for further combat training. everyone of those enlisted could be sent to a front line at some point if that is what was needed

Maybe ya'll should just slug it out. First one to die loses.

Jeezus people.

Just cause you may not necessarily agree with a perspective is no reason to jump her like a pack of rabid chihuahuas.

(Don't get me wrong...there ARE some douche bags spewing hatred around here that could use a good a$$ kicking...Harmony ain't one of em)

I know this concept will never register with some people but you you don't HAVE to comment on posts you don't agree with. I wasn't going to....cause I don't necessarily agree. But, I don't just sit back and let people gang up on someone if I don't think it's right. Harmony has the right to her opinion....I served, my brother served and my Dad served...to protect the right of people to say what they wanna say.

But, if b!tching is your thing....have at it.

Thanks Krupa. (and don't get smart with me now)
I can't really voice my entire opinion on the subject because I don't think anyone who has responded so far would be interested or would tolerate or respect my point of view.

But I will say, that I am interested in msharmony 's opinion and respect her views, whether I agree with her or not. I don't approve of the language and tone that is being used in some of the responses to her opinion. That's all I want to say.

Yes I fully agree with you regarding the Military! I lived for more than 30 years near an AFB and military personnel were family friends - regardless of their particular "job" within the Military, they join from a sense of duty to serve the United States. They stand up for our rights everyday, and everyday some dies for our rights

as far as welfare, it is more complex question I think - what I will agree to is that no assumptions should be made about the recipients tho I think it is safe to assume that the system, tho well intended, is flawed.

just my .02

the soldiers who came back from FIGHTING,,,? nope sure didnt

didnt spit on the enlisted cashier either, nor the civilian cashier

nor do I believe either is 'fighting' to 'protect my rights' in the sense of those who actually have their lives on the line in BATTLE or in command positions,,,,

Im not complaining

Im pointing out how peoples choice of careers in our culture leads others to make BROAD ASSUMPTIONS About their intentions or their character,,,,

ie, those without jobs are undoubtedly seen at the bottom of the 'worthy' and 'american' standards

while those who sign a paper of enlistment are automatically seen as caring about my 'rights', let alone 'fighting' for them

all people are not the same in ANY CHOICE of career, or in the reasons why they dont have a career

I think its sad that we continue to lump them together anyway,,,,