Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

patrice

(47,992 posts)
9. He's Commannder and Chief of the ARMED FORCES, Not. A. King. Do you think just maybe
Sat May 19, 2012, 12:40 PM
May 2012

the Armed Forces would have had SOMETHING to say about "ending" the wars "the day he walked into office'?

You're assuming all of it would actually have ended and not gotten worse in some way that wasn't even on the radar yet. Yes, the same thing CAN be said about continuing on that course, but in either case the Armed Forces ARE involved not only in those hypothetical decisions about the future, but also about the Armed Forces past experiences this last decade at least.

NO ONE, Commander and Chief or not, orders the Armed Forces into savage LOSS situations, without regard for the military's own understandings of HOW to validate those losses in SOME form of a solution. They ARE, they MUST be, an authentic and powerful part of the decision making process.

And if you're wondering:

How does a peace-person occupy this position with any integrity?

Peace, MUST be a personal choice, otherwise it is not Peace. Coercion does not result in peace. It IS my Human Right to CHOOSE Peace for my own reasons. All of my moral integrity is based upon the FREEDOM to make that choice for myself. If I have a right to that Freedom to choose Peace, for moral reasons in my case, so must I also respect the free choices of others, though they differ from mine fundamentally. As long as these different persons are authentically free (a VERY high standard there for any and all of us), and CONSEQUENTLY honest about an authentic CHOICE (not just something that is called a choice), I am required as a cultivar of freedom and all of the salutary benefits thereof to respect that choice.

So, the military, the people who we hope authentically CHOSE to risk THEIR lives, SHOULD have nearly as much power as the Commander in Chief in determining the course from a recent past of horrific losses, not only to themselves but TO THE PEOPLE WHOM THEY WERE REQUIRED TO HURT, into a future that does NOT, in effect, turn its back on what happened to them and to the people of Iraq and say, kind of, "Oooopps, guess that didn't work. We'll just change horses here. Sorry!!"

And yeah, I know MANY of them, the armed forces, did NOT authentically choose. And certainly the people of Iraq did not choose, but to me, that makes it even that much much more incumbent upon those who DO have the choices, to try to bring SOMETHING constructive out of their suffering and deaths. I KNOW that's not the ideal world, but this IS what happened.

Well, since the 2009 budget was Bush's budget, we can throw that out MadHound May 2012 #1
But, to be fair to the President... kentuck May 2012 #2
Well, Obama could have ended the wars the day he walked into office MadHound May 2012 #3
Realistically... kentuck May 2012 #4
I agree, it would have taken a few months to get everybody home, MadHound May 2012 #22
He's Commannder and Chief of the ARMED FORCES, Not. A. King. Do you think just maybe patrice May 2012 #9
He is Commander in Chief, MadHound May 2012 #23
Your assumption about exactly how I am a pacifist is rather ... cliche. My responsibilities for patrice May 2012 #26
You have to remember that Bush put the wars off budget, Obama put them into the budget. shraby May 2012 #5
+1. NT. Mc Mike May 2012 #7
Crucial point that's almost never talked about... Surya Gayatri May 2012 #10
Republicans are getting a lot of mileage out of this issue... kentuck May 2012 #12
It's funny hearing cons take a shine to big government when it comes to defense Populist_Prole May 2012 #13
Amongst their own... kentuck May 2012 #14
"Bastards are more slippery than a greased eel and have an answer for everything." Surya Gayatri May 2012 #21
Bushitler charged everything to the ground and still awaits the rain to settle it. lonestarnot May 2012 #15
What budget? TBMASE May 2012 #16
Not so, as far as the debt is concerned. dems_rightnow May 2012 #24
Discretionary spending is down. Federal employment is down. cthulu2016 May 2012 #6
No doubt, the recession is responsible for most of the debt... kentuck May 2012 #8
+1! n/t Surya Gayatri May 2012 #11
Two main reasons: Historically low taxes and historically low revenues to blame ErikJ May 2012 #17
Ask Romney what the debt would be if he took over from W. and how he would have handled the Dustlawyer May 2012 #18
18. Ask Romney what the debt would be if he took over from W. and how he would have handled the countrygirl Aug 2012 #29
Obama takes ownership of everything. He's not running. He's solving. Zax2me May 2012 #19
Bumpersticker answer: Blame Bush tax cuts and Bush Recession. ErikJ May 2012 #20
NONE - the Constitution gives Congress the purse strings. SmileyRose May 2012 #25
Post removed Post removed Jul 2012 #27
Some charts and graphs - Bush 85% Obama 15% underpants Aug 2012 #28
Post removed Post removed Sep 2012 #30
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»How much total debt has B...»Reply #9