Do you see what I see?

Iam being honest when I say I just wanted a civil debate. Sorry I even posted here. SC ,JEFF and a few others here, you guys are awesome I will always remember the good times I have had here on the boards .........Don Smitty [idiot] ......... signing off.

Now before anyone jumps on me here I would just like to point something out that has been on my mind. Believe me I do not want to start a fight or offend anyone here but would just like to start a civil debate on a very important topic. Hear me out please.

After Sept 11th 2001 our CIA and almost every other major intelligence agency in the world including Russia, Great Britian and even China all said that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and possible ties to Osama BinLaden right. So for OBAMA to say that if he were a United States Senator he would have voted AGAINST useing force to get rid of Saddam is alarming to me. So in the future if he is elected President and he gets intell that says there is a high risk of an unstable dictator somewhere in the world who hates the USA and that dictator has ties to terrorist organizations and EVERY intelligence agency in the world tells him that the United States is at risk, that he will just sit there and do nothing? My friends that to me sounds like someone I would not trust with keeping my family safe. Now I know that the intell was wrong but at the time everyone was saying it wasn't. How could he say he would have voted NO after we were hit on 911. Didn't he think the threat was real. Again let's look at the facts here. Every intelligence agency in the world said Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and wanted to give those weapons to people who would have made 911 look small! If he becomes President and the CIA tells him that a country or terrorist organization has the possible means to obtain weapons of mass destruction from a dictaor that he will just sit by and not do anything about it? How could you say you would have voted NO. I don't ge it. Even Biden voted for it.

Presumably President Obama will not take us to war based on a forgery.

Point well taken DC, and let's hope if god forbid we have another war we allow the generals and admirals more latitude in making strategy.

.....and let's hope if god forbid we have another war we allow the generals and admirals more latitude in making strategy.

Amen to that. Let the Generals on the ground do the job!

Look, as former military, let me tell you that general staff officers make as many mistakes as politicians when it comes to waging warfare. As Red Foxx once said refering to military experience, "One time I retreated so far that i backed up into a general."

As Red Foxx once said refering to military experience, "One time I retreated so far that i backed up into a general."

The US Constitution specifies that the President is Commander and Chief of the Army and Navy, and militia when called into service of the federal government and, by inferrence, the CIC of the Air Force and Coast Guard. Thus, the Founding Fathers recognized the necessity of civilian control of the military. Wars are never fought in a political vacuum. That's a fact of life. There are strategic political considerations that accrue to any war that must be recognized.

And there are times when it is necessary for the civilian power to trump the military, such as in Korea when McArthur wantd to enlarge the war to bring China in, and Truman had to fire him. On the tactical side, however more attention should be paid to the people who specialize in their field.

No question about this. And there are times when it is necessary for the civilian power to trump the military, such as in Korea when McArthur wantd to enlarge the war to bring China in, and Truman had to fire him. On the tactical side, however more attention should be paid to the people who specialize in their field.

...but thank God we have a system of checks and balances in which the armed forces are really under civilian control.