Rnc

acrylics

acrylics

Member
Originally Posted by oscardeuce
http:///forum/post/2753277
Originally Posted by acrylics
http:///forum/post/2753221
In Jacobson v Mass (1904) the Court wrote that "the Preamble indicates the general purpose for which the people ordained and established the Constitution" and went on to point out that "[the Preamble] has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the Government..." .
If we took the argument many have made about promoting the "general welfare" (in modern context) to the extreme, this would be a Marxist state.
The Constitution really is not a document to empower the gov't. It is the opposite, it defines and LIMITS the power. It specifically states the powers granted, and then goes even farther to state that if it is not specifically enumerated as a power of the feds, then that power falls to the states.
We still have ended up with the type of gov't the Founders were fighting.
I'm uncertain as to the point of you response here, debating SCOTUS here or?? I didn't say anything contrary to you on this, in fact I quite agree with you. If I'm misinterpreting something, please do let me know.
And just to point out, as stated in the 10th Amendment, if powers are not specifically given to feds, then that power goes to the states or the people, must not forget the people ;)
 
rylan1

rylan1

Active Member
Originally Posted by 1journeyman
http:///forum/post/2753714
"developed by the military to locate, target and kill leaders of al Qaeda in Iraq and other insurgent leaders..."
Rylan, does this mean you admit Al Qaeda is in Iraq?
I never said they weren't... what I said is that they were not there before we got there... and that the battlefield should have been afghanistan and pakistan... where they are based and resurging. Those responsible for 9/11 and the leaders are there.
 
rylan1

rylan1

Active Member

Originally Posted by 1knight164
http:///forum/post/2753913
The Al Anbar Awakening succeeded in pushing Al Qaida out of the big cities, primarily Ramadi. However, it did not rid Al Anbar Province of Al Qaida. Al Qaida just went to do their dirty deeds in other cities like Amariya just south of Fallujah and 30 miles west of Baghdad, where 300 Al Qaida attacked the city in March 07 in an attempt to kill one of those Anbar Salvation Council members. The Iraqi's took care of them with help from US air support. And Al Karmah where in Feb, a Marine Ch-46 was shot down and in March where 100 Al Qaida attacked the city.
Keep in mind that the Awakening started in Sep 06 and as Journeyman said it only happened with the assurance that we weren't going to cut and run (ie post Desert Storm). Al Qaida made a mistake and killed a prominent sheik and hid his bodies for 3-days which pissed-off all the Iraqi's and needed our help to clean up their cities.
Multi-national forces had enough forces on the ground to keep the now secure cities secured, but they didn't have enough to go after Al Qaida where they ran to, East, West, North, and South of the Ramadi area. The Surge was necessary to hunt them down and was highly successful. Surge operations went into full swing June 07 with counter-insurgency operations that could not have happened without the surge in troop numbers. Operations include those mentioned in Woodward's book.
As part of the surge, I know we went to places north of Baghdad where we knew the bad guys were running to rearm and regroup, but just didn't have the manpower to hunt them down. Surge operations wiped out all those hideouts and captured tons of caches and bomb making materials.
I would say that the surge wouldn't have worked without the Anbar Awakening, but I would also say that the Anbar Awakening wouldn't have been successful without the surge. The bad guys would've regrouped, re-armed, and continued to attack.
The Awakening came before the Surge, and McCain wants to take all the credit... I am not saying the Surge did not help... and I believe Obama has said that... the point of the my argument and the posting of the article... which was not intended to be an argument or a postion but as an interesting piece of information... the article claims that the Surge or manpower that you mentioned was not responsible for "As part of the surge, I know we went to places north of Baghdad where we knew the bad guys were running to rearm and regroup, but just didn't have the manpower to hunt them down. Surge operations wiped out all those hideouts and captured tons of caches and bomb making materials."
But that this new technology or method was...
 
1journeyman

1journeyman

Active Member
Originally Posted by Rylan1
http:///forum/post/2754431
I never said they weren't... what I said is that they were not there before we got there... and that the battlefield should have been afghanistan and pakistan... where they are based and resurging. Those responsible for 9/11 and the leaders are there.
Your candidate of choice said "I would always reserve the right to go in and strike against al Qaeda if they were in Iraq,' ..."
I just wanted to know if you differed in your opinion with Obama on this. Obama made it clear he didn't believe Al Qaeda has an operational base in Iraq.
 
rylan1

rylan1

Active Member
Originally Posted by 1journeyman
http:///forum/post/2754454
Your candidate of choice said "I would always reserve the right to go in and strike against al Qaeda if they were in Iraq,' ..."
I just wanted to know if you differed in your opinion with Obama on this. Obama made it clear he didn't believe Al Qaeda has an operational base in Iraq.
I am for an attack against Al Qaeda if we have credible intelligence saying they have a base in Iraq, Pakistan, Egypt, Mexico, Canada, and even if they are hiding in the Appalachian Mountains. But remember we were not in Iraq to find Al Qaeda, are mission has now changed because they are no longer able to sell WMD's... The tensions that sparked with terrorists/insurgents/militias were not accounted for on the onset of the war.. there was no plan to deal w/ the aftermath... unless this was their whole reason on being there in the 1st place... Regardless we were not prepared ... and we can site the lack of a significant troop presence to begin with in addtion to the troops who were there were not adequetly supplied with essentials like body armor.
 
1knight164

1knight164

Member

Originally Posted by Rylan1
http:///forum/post/2754435
The Awakening came before the Surge, and McCain wants to take all the credit... I am not saying the Surge did not help... and I believe Obama has said that... the point of the my argument and the posting of the article... which was not intended to be an argument or a postion but as an interesting piece of information... the article claims that the Surge or manpower that you mentioned was not responsible for "As part of the surge, I know we went to places north of Baghdad where we knew the bad guys were running to rearm and regroup, but just didn't have the manpower to hunt them down. Surge operations wiped out all those hideouts and captured tons of caches and bomb making materials."
But that this new technology or method was...
Fair enough. If I sounded like I was attacking you, my apologies. I was attempting to discount Woodwards opinions. He's entitled to his own opinions.
Here's one from a General (Odierno) who was there:
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Nat...ity/hl1068.cfm
It's a long read but he does identify that things were changing because of cooperation from the Iraqis (the awakening) but "Establishing security for the population was a prerequisite for further progress. It was essential. And to make a decisive impact, we needed more combat power and a change in approach."
Take what you want from this article, but McCain said the surge worked, which it did. It did what it was intended to do. Should he have given some credit to "The Awakening"? Maybe. But the argument between McCain and Obama was about the success of the "surge", not the awakening.
And the "techniques and operations" that you mentioned were words from National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley who was disputing Woodwards claims that the surge was not the primary responsibility in decline in violence.
"It was the surge that provided more resources and a security context to support newly developed techniques and operations," Hadley wrote.
BTW, did you hear that Obama has purged, or "updated", his web site of critiques of the surge?
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/poli...itique_of.html
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
Originally Posted by Rylan1
http:///forum/post/2754468
I am for an attack against Al Qaeda if we have credible intelligence saying they have a base in Iraq, Pakistan, Egypt, Mexico, Canada, and even if they are hiding in the Appalachian Mountains. But remember we were not in Iraq to find Al Qaeda, are mission has now changed because they are no longer able to sell WMD's... The tensions that sparked with terrorists/insurgents/militias were not accounted for on the onset of the war.. there was no plan to deal w/ the aftermath... unless this was their whole reason on being there in the 1st place... Regardless we were not prepared ... and we can site the lack of a significant troop presence to begin with in addtion to the troops who were there were not adequetly supplied with essentials like body armor.
Pakistan is a nuclear power AND in danger of having a fundamentalist takeover of the government. If we were to take any significant military action in their country without permission it risks allowing the fundamentalists to take over. Unless we had information Al Qeada had a WMD factory in that country the risks outweigh the benefits of such a strike.
 
1knight164

1knight164

Member
Originally Posted by Rylan1
http:///forum/post/2754468
I am for an attack against Al Qaeda if we have credible intelligence saying they have a base in Iraq, Pakistan, Egypt, Mexico, Canada, and even if they are hiding in the Appalachian Mountains. But remember we were not in Iraq to find Al Qaeda, are mission has now changed because they are no longer able to sell WMD's... The tensions that sparked with terrorists/insurgents/militias were not accounted for on the onset of the war.. there was no plan to deal w/ the aftermath... unless this was their whole reason on being there in the 1st place... Regardless we were not prepared ... and we can site the lack of a significant troop presence to begin with in addtion to the troops who were there were not adequetly supplied with essentials like body armor.
I'm for getting Al Qaeda wherever they are also. The problem with that is that they're worldwide and of different nationalities. How do you fight that? Those countries aren't just going to let you in with full military force and wage war amongst their population. Iraq was just one step in the War on Terrorism. I agree that we initially went into Iraq because of intelligence reports of WMD's (that many nations believed to be true) and also that we did not take into account the Fedayeen that surprised our military. Blame that on Clinton who paralyzed the CIA with drastic budget cuts. We didn't have the human intelligence in country to verify suspicions.
IMO, although we didn't go into Iraq looking for Al Qaeda, it did draw them into a fight where we could maneuver freely and kill or capture as many as we could, unlike Afhanistan where our movements are somewhat restricted and scrutinized by the government. Their numbers have thinned drastically and, with the capture or killing of high level operatives, we set Al Qaeda back in a way we couldn't have done trying to fight them one country at a time. Sometimes I wonder if that was the plan all along.
And your point about too small of an attacking force can be pointed to letting civilians run a war. Military leaders fought for more troops from the onset but got trumped by some civilian (no names mentioned) who was convinced that air power and technology would be more than enough to augment the small troop levels. Military leaders knew we had enough troops to succeed in the attack, but lacked the troops necessary to provide security, especially the borders. Anyway, he got fired. A little too late.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top