New Mars Forums

Why would someone write 'Ichabod' above the temple doorway? I keep on thinking about the Legend of Sleepy Hollow by Washington Irving.

It is interesting that you used the Berlin Wall analogy. What did it mean for the two Germanies when the Berlin Wall came down? Basically they eliminated that border, and one of the Germanies, a creation of Joseph Stalin, was absorbed into the other, and no one been guarding that imaginary border since. Now RobertDyck, you really have to ask yourself, do you really want the US/Canada Border to "disappear" like the one between East and West Germany? Wouldn't bother me in the least to be honest about it, but how would other Canadians feel about that? An international border means that the countries involved get to control it and regulate what and who passes through. If you don't like there to be an international border there, then fine remove it, but then someone's going to have to write a new Constitution to reflect this new geopolitical reality.

Protectionism protects producers, it doesn't do a thing for consumers, it just makes the things they buy more expensive. Producers are generally more organized than consumers, as the former is motivated to preserve their jobs, while the later is onloy motivated to save a few bucks. Politicians are often influenced more by producers than consumers. Producers by the way includes both the management and the labor unions. I think the labor unions would be more protectionist than the management as the later is always open to outsourcing into other countries where the labor is cheaper, profit can always be made in America or in some foreign country, it doesn't matter to the investors.

It is funny that you say, "1) American lumber companies want to eliminate competition." Is that something specific to only American lumber companies? I was wondering why you added that qualifier "American" rather than just saying, "Lumber companies want to reduce competition." I was wondering about that tendency of your to attribute negative qualities towards Americans specifically, as if it is only Americans that get greedy or want to protect their jobs. The truth is, if the Canadian companies were in America they would want the same thing American's do, namely reduced competition so they could earn more profits. The profit motive is universal regardless of one's nationality. Gasoline is more expensive in Canada for instance. What's wrong with a gasoline tanker truck, driving into Canada and selling gasoline to cars for a dollar less than a nearby Canadian gas station? Isn't that free market competition too. Canada has large oil reserves and it seems in spite of that gasoline in Canada is more expensive than it is in the USA, sounds to me that some people in Canada don't want the competition from people who pay lower gasoline taxes and therefore have a compedative advantage over Canadian gasoline stations. Yeah, why don't you go buy gasoline right out of a tanker truck with US license plates. Maybe he can't legally sell this gasoline to you in Canada, buy hey why should free commerce be impeded by regulation?

One thing I don't like about the left wing is their tendency to regulate every aspect of life, they tax and regulate everything they can get away with. Why for instance do police officers issue speeding tickets? Isn't getting killed enough deterrence? Why should people be more afrain of paying a fine and getting points off their driver's license than of getting killed on the highway. Some people want to regulate the use of electronic devices while crossing a street, they want to force your daughters to get innoculated for venerial disease when she is nine years old, the assumption being that all women will grow up to be prostitutes or loose women.

The thing about Venus is that even if you could live there, the trip would  be one-way, its gravity is nearly equal to Earth, so the cost of getting off of it would be nearly the same as getting off Earth. So any astronauts you send to live in the Areostats floating in Venus would be there for the rest of their lives unless rocket technology improves tremendously. If your going to have a manned presence around Venus, they might as well be in orbit, and they can control remote probes on the Surface and in the atmosphere. Venus is a waste or real estate unfortunately. Something may be done about it, but it would take a long time.

The problem with Veus is that its too close to the Sun. I recently read an article about a proposed gravity tug to divert an asteroid from hitting the Earth in 2030-something. A gravity tug would work on Venus also. The same mechanism used which dragged those extrasolar gas giants toward their stars might also be used to drag Venus away artificially. If you have a massive commet or asteroid make a close pass in front of Venus, the gravity will bend the path of that object toward Venus and pull Venus towards it. There would also be a tidal effect involved as the asteroid would pull on the nearest part of Venus more than more distant parts. It might be a good idea to park a number of massive asteroids in Orbit around Venus. The tidal effects would lower the asteroids in their orbits and also speed up Venus's rotation. The same effect might also be had by flinging the same asteroids and comets at Venus or extracting comets from the Kuiper belt and flinging them at Venus to be deflected in front of the planet by that planet's gravity. I think increasing the distance from the Sun to  140,000,000 km would be enough. The minimum distance of Earth is 147,085,800. We don't want the two planets getting too close!

Are you equating the Arab World with terrorism? I would like very much for the Arab world to reject terrorism totally, and without exception. They always say the Islam is a peaceful religion, so why don't they prove it, and stop objecting to us fighting terrorism. Don't they realize that Islamic terrorists drag there religion's reputation through the mud, and they leave an impression that Islam is a Terrorist Religion, and the majority of Muslims do nothing to fight that impression, and when they object to Americans and Israelis fighting terrorism, they leave the impression that they are on the side of terrorism, they should be on the fore front of the war on terrorism, not on the back benches. All the terrorists do to us is kill us, what they do to Islam is even worse, they give the impression to nonmuslims that Islam is an evil religion. If they don't like that reputation of Islam as the Terrorist Religion, they should dispell that notion by fighting it without exception.

As for the second part, yes indeed terrorism is my enemy, I would like to see it all abolished. I don't approve of bombing abortion clinics, I don't approve of the IRA, I don't approve of the PLO, or Hezbollah, or Iran, or anyone else who supports terrorism without exception. There are no good terrorists, there are no terrorists who are my friends, and lets not change the mean of terrorism or quibble about its definition, I know what it is, so don't try to obfuscate the issue by being vague about the definition. Terrorism is a tool of the weak against the strong, its not my fault they are weak, nor is it the fault of any of their victims. The objective of the strong is to wipe out terrorism and make it very dangerous to support a terrorist. We should hunt down the terrorists without mercy, and make terrorism a counter productive too that only brings devastation and retaliatory destruction down on their heads. There should be no negotiation with terrorists or their supporters, the objective should be simply to eliminate them.

How do you know the Democrats weren't just trying to get revenge for the impeachment of Bill Clinton, and George Bush just happened to be tha handy Republican target at the time? Its also not George Bush's fault that the voting was so close in 2000, George Bush was doing everything he could to get the election decided in his favor as were the Democrats doing to get it decided in their favor. I'm sure if George Bush had a choice, he would have been elected by a more comfortable unassailable magin, but he wasn't, so the Democrats begin the exercise of blaming George Bush for the circumstances he couldn't control. Just like in a trial, each side uses every advantage the law allows, everybody is self-interested. Where the Democrats go overboard is in their demonization of George Bush, they do everything they can to thwart George Bush, even if that hurts the United States, they want the US to lose the War in Iraq because of that, not because there is anything in particular about the war, but because it is George Bush's War and in that they want him to fail. So why can't you just be honest about that, instead of making up bogus excuses about why the war is wrong? Do you really care that much about Saddam Hussein?

Why what did he do in that time? if he was Robert Dole, you'd have the same problem with him because he is a Republican and you'd want revenge for what happened to Bill Clinton, or for him not ceding the results to Al Gore simply because he is the Democrat in the race, and the election results were close. if it was any Republican you could name, the Democrats would still want revenge, and he would fall within the crosshairs of the Democratic Party, its all about who wins, and that's all they care about. The Country is just the backdrop for the struggle between two Parties, and they want their party to Win and the Republicans to lose, and that's what its all about in their minds.

My point exactly, what could George Bush have done in one month that could have caused the economy to tank so quickly? George Bush can't raise taxes by himself, and he didn't. Actually it was less than one month as George Bush only became President on January 20th, so there was 11 days between his inauguration and February, I don't think the economy has ever been so responsive to any single leader of the United States. Most of the things we measure in the economy are lagging indicators. most of the statistics collected in February would have been for January, and for most of January Bill Clinton was President.

So you are saying there are some terrorists, you think the US ought to be friends with? Do you think terrorists might make valuable allies perhaps? Perhaps they would be great help in fighting the Mafia for instance. Terrorists are restrained by miranda rights, they can just kill people that the Government wants eliminated, is that what your thinking of?

You can always adjust your standard of proof high enough so it can't be proved according to those standards. How do you know aliens didn't replicate those 19 people down to the molecular level and then program them to fly those airplanes into buildings. No way could the US government prove that did not happen, so by someone's definition of "reasonable doubt" that could simply be an excuse not to hand over the terrorists. Also didn't the Taliban use terrorism against Afghan women, murdering them in fact if they showed too much skin or attended school or held certain jobs. I guess you are blind to injustice, and unsympathetic to someone bringing justice to some places if the motivations are wrong. If someone gives away money to the poor because he thinks the act will make him rich, you'd want him to stop right away and take back the money, because he acted with misguided motivations and his generosity was not heart felt, for example.

Why should it? Islam is a peaceful religion, I can't conceive of any peaceful religion having any sympathy for terrorists or any objection to anybody fighting this evil.

Simplistic reasoning. Why indeed should we have attacked Nazi Germany, since it was fighting communism, and that Ideology threatend to overthrow Capitalism and spread revolution to the west, the enemy of our enemy indeed. Just because two people are you enemy, doesn't mean that they are friends with each other, the same applies for nations. I don't give a squat for Shiites or Sunnis, they may be enemies of each other, but both have taken turns supporting terrorism against Americans, so I don't see the enemy of my enemy necessarily being my friend, their divisions are simply a weakness that can be exploited due to their advertion to working together. I don't understand the origin of their centuries old conflict either, it all seems to be about some trivia that happened long ago, and that serves as excuses for the leaders of one faction to gain power at the expense of another.

Thinly veiled excuses for opposing George Bush and rationalizations for opposing the War, I'm sure if it was Bill Clinton's baby, you wouldn't have a problem with it.
I admire alot about liberal goal, but lately they have been George Bush "Attack Happy". I would appreciate national health care, but not at the price of my country losing a War. Liberals don't realize how much of their important agenda they undermine by being George Bus attack Happy and anti-American. I am not one of the haves, in fact I am a "have not", but I am a patriotic American citizen, and I want my country to win its Wars no matter who's President. The liberals have lost me with all there America bashing and anti-Bush monomania, its not all about the power and who has it, its about what positive things they can do for the country, not in what ways they can sabotage the country to make George Bush look bad. I'd like to see more solutions coming from the Democrats and less National sabotage. If they have a better way to fight terrorists, lets hear it; if they don't, then I don't have a reason to vote for them. If they can't solve the nation's problems and can only criticise what's wrong then there is no reason for me to vote for them. At least the Republicans are trying to win and looking for ways to solve problems. The Democrats are simply looking for problems and they say that is sufficient reason for me to vote for them instead of the Republicans, I say it is not.

I can easily say, "We have not won the War in Iraq, so vote for me." I can say, "fighting the terrorists only makes them stronger, so I say don't fight the terrorists, and if elected I will not, so vote for me."

That's all the democrats do, they promise not to do something, and they figure not doing something is a job well done, well I disagree.

"The enemy who has just launched nuclear missiles at us. Quick, we have 30 minutes to develop the missile defense to intercept those warhead right now!"

If someone went up to the Navy Department in 1920 and said, "We need to build better defenses for Pearl Harbor, because on December 7, 1941, the Japanese are going to launch a surprise attack at 9 a.m. that Sunday morning, you have 20 years to get prepared, so you'd better get cracking." Is that guy going to be believed? If that guy could correctly foretell the future and correctly identify they enemy that is going to attack, would it have done any good in convincing the top brass? Likewise, if I were to correctly identify the enemy who was going to attack with nuclear missiles 20 years in the future, would it do any good in my argument with you? I think not.

If in 1920 somebody suggested that the US Army develop a new tank, and some General asked, "But who are we going to attack with it? ... You mean you don't know? Well if you can't identify the enemy we're going to face, then I can see no reason to spend the money to build a tank."

And no amount of R&D is ever going to improve its performance, so the whole thing is one giant waste of money!

The V2 rocket was a waste of money, it could never reach the moon, it couldn't even reach orbit, I don't know why the United States spent so much time and money studying them, surely we'd have nothing to learn from them that would be any use in the space race. Do you get the drift.

Do you expect the US government to whip something up that is the perfect defense for any amount of money? Those expectations you have are unrealistic, so any amount of money spend by the Defense Department for any reason is a waste of money for that reason. Those are seld-defeating arguments you are using.

You're in no position to predict the future. I'd think Id rather have a missile defense than your reassurances that those two countries are not going to attack.

The first fighter planes could barely fly, and were hardly very effective in destroying targets on the ground, waste of money eh? That money would have been better spent building an F16 right off the bat, that way we could save money developing all those intermediate stages toward the F16 which weren't as effective as an F16 fighter. Same argument you use for missile defense.

Who threatened to invade Iran and North Korea?
I don't think anyone threatened to invade either country. Besides if we did threaten, we'd lose our element of surprise if and when the time actually came to invade Iran or North Korea. We don't want the Iranian Army just sitting their waiting for our soldiers to come, do we?

I don't ever recall France or Germany ever offering to help us invade Iran or North Korea

What's the matter? Don't you believe in Patriotism?

"Oh no! Don't flush that Koran down the Toilet! Oh please, anything but that!"

There is no wall between the US and Canada.

Give us a reason not to require identification from Canadians and nonCanadians crossing the border into the US. If you cross the border and say your an American Citizen and you proceed into the voting booth to Vote for President, we can't just take your word for it. You might as well say its unfair to require identification before purchasing an alchoholic drink.

Ok, name a piece of Canadian territory that the US currently occupies.

Can't comment on something I know little about, but I know your just looking for something to complain about rather than a resolution to this problem, so I can't really say whether I trust you as an unbiased source of information. You obviously want to have something to complain about the US for. I on the other hand have no problem with Canada except for people like you who are always looking for something the US has done to complain about.

Hardly matters whether Canada is to blame or not, if Cattle move freely across the border, then the disease will spread more freely, its a simply physical fact, and borders are natural places to stop diseases from spreading. Preventing the spread of diseases is hardly about assigning guilt or blame, its about stopping the disease period!

Seems its more your obsession than mine, I just want my country to win, and I know a Congress is hardly an inspiring leadership for winning a war, and indeed winning a War doesn't seem to be their intention either. I want the War to end, I certainly don't want it to go on forever, but I haven't given up all hope of victory like the Democrats have so easily done. I have not given up all hope of victory so much that I want to sabotage all remaining chances of victory like the democrats are trying to do. In fact if the main complaint is the War's length rather than its casuality count, I would think adding more troops would be more likely to shorten the war than not adding troops, unless the Democrats think that the only way for the War to end is by the US losing it. I'm sorry, I'm not so down on the US as you Liberals are.

When your government thanks us for all our sacrifices in Iraq. Liberals in the West like to pretend that its two wars when its actually one. Say were chasing some terrorists and he crosses the border into Iraq. The liberals would say, "No we can't follow him, because that's the Iraq War, not the War on terrorism, so therefore Congress would tie our hands so we could not go after them.

Canada is a big boy, if it sends troops somewhere, that's because its in its best interest. Canadians have made sacrifices, and so have American troops, troops that have rarely received praise for their sacrifices. No, the press wants to make them all out like they were bullies that enjoy torturing people, that we go around flushing Korans down toilets, and that it is cruel and inhuman to do so. Oh and when someone shoots at us from a mosque, were not suppose to fire back lest we damage some sacred building, so our soldiers are then supposed to take bullets without firing back and we fail to do so, we're called occupiers.

So George Bush has failed to mention Canada, with all the bad blood that has gone on between our two countries, are you so surprised? The US Government views the War on Terror as one war, we don't seperate into quadrants and say there is one war here and another war there, the same terrorists move from place to place, so why shouldn't we?

If someone gut punches us and then helps us back up afterwards, we may forget to say thank you every once in a while. It is a minor thing, why do you want to make a tempest in a teapot? Our soldiers do what they do because it needs doing, we don't do it for praise from the World Community, we do it for our own security. There are bad guys out there that need to be eliminated, whether we receive praise for it or condemnation.

I wouldn't want the Church of Reverend Moon managing our ports either. The problem with Arabs, is they tend to wear their religions on their sleeves, or over their heads, or on their chins.

Here are the latest doings of those fools in Congress:

A pittance really, 55 million people died in World War II, yet we fought on to victory, and 3,100 is supposed to be a jaw dropping amount? Is it supposed to undermine the moral of this country and cause us to flee?

It depends on which soldier you are, are you the soldier out in the field in badly need of reinforcements, or are you the soldier out enjoying his vacation? You know what this can do is increase the number of US combat casualities, because those fighting won't be able to receive reinforcements, no matter how dire the circumstances, this piece of legislation seeks to deny the US Combat soldier the full support and backing of the US government when his life is on the line. It is easier for the enemy to kill American soldiers when Congress forces the Administration to send them out in small numbers so that they can more easily be killed.

So those are the people Jack Murtha really represents, the Islamic Republic of Iran. He wants Iran to get nuclear weapons, hand them out to terrorists, and blow up one of our major cities like New York, and the bloody accusing finger will point right back to Jack Murtha and the accomodating Congress, that allowed this bloodshed. Trying to prevent a short term slaughter of soldiers may lead to a more massive slaughter of civilians further down the road, if he refuses to let the President deploy troops flexibly in preventative wars now, we'll only get the more massive wars later. By taking power away from the President, Congress only confers responsibilty for US security onto themselves. Warfare is the realm of Generals, they have the proper training to fight and win wars, not Congress. IF Congress doesn't allow the generals to do their job, or so restricts their flexibility so that threats to national security cannot be addressed, then we're in big trouble and Congress is to blame.

I often wonder what recourse there could be if Congress elects to commit national suicide on our behalf. Maybe their are sections of this country that don't agree with Congress that the American Republic should die. If the blue states want to exercise their pacifist foreign policy, then maybe as a last resort, they should be allowed to do so seperately as an independent country.

Yes, it Democrat strategy to divide the War on Terrorism into quadrants, and then for Congress to speak up and say to our troops, you can go here, but you must provide safe havens for the terrorists here and here so they can recover from your efforts to fight them and recruit more suicide bombers, and we mustn't molest them in Iraq, cause that's a "quagmire".

So how are we supposed to win the War on terrorism of the Democrats keep on pealing off "no go" zones in which we can't fight them? "Oh its a quagmire here and a quagmire there, we can't send our soldiers into these places cause they'll just get bogged down." Sooner or later the the soldiers get stuck in one spot where congress will allow them to operate, they'll be effectively immobile, surrounded by "Quagmire zones", they won't be able to go after the terrorist bases, where the terrorists can plot and train in safety for their next terrorist attack on the United States.

One of these days, we'll see a mushroom cloud rising high over New York City, and that will be the end of the Democratic Party because the public will know that it was the democrats that insisted on allowing the Iranians to have a nuclear bomb and they prevented the Bush Administration from doing something about it, because they wouldn't release the funds due to their overarching "concern" for US Soldier's casualities.

If you don't like 3000 soldier casualities, how about a million civilians instead, that's our choice. You support Congress's tying the President's hands, that is what may just happen. If you don't trust our Generals to know what their doing on the War on Terrorism, go ahead, trust your congressman instead, but on your head be it.

Funny, I thought that's what the Democrats are doing with all their defeatism, they want the US to pull out so that the Iranians can move in and install their Islamic Theocracy, Now why are they doing that?

Is Iran a superpower? How many nuclear weapons does Iran have? Seems to me that it will be more like World War III if we attack Iran after it gets nuclear weapons than if we attack them to prevent them from getting nuclear weapons.

If Iran doesn't want World War III, perhaps it should consider not supplying weapons to terrorists who are killing US troops, I think that's extremely provocative. Poor Iranians, they have a government that's attacking US troops and it may start World War III, and in a World War III between Iran and the US, its going to be mostly Iranians that die. Now they can either die fighting to over throw their own government and installing an accountable democratic government, or they can die in much greater numbers fighting us in World War III, so which is it going to be, the US doesn't get to decide whether there is going to be a World War III, they do!

 
You mean they rise up as zombies after we kill them? I didn't know you believed in the undead!

Ha ha ha, what a joke! 
MTV is supposed to defeat them? That makes fighting for freedom and liberty rather cheap doesn't it? Too bad our founding fathers didn't have MTV, they could have driven off the British with it. How unimaginitve those silly Continentals must have been, they thought they had to shoot the British in order to defeat them.

That just doesn't work. Do you want to be the guy managing the liquor store? Many liquor stores got firebombed in Iraq and Afghanistan. Now if you got someone willing to do this and forfeit his life after the terrorists attack his store and execute him, then you end up with an empty burnt out store front. I tell you what, I'd rather be an soldier with a gun in his hand and an ability to defend himself that an unarmed liquor store owner who may be attacked and murdered while running his business. Theocracy is enforced with a gun, just like Communism was, if you try to do something like spread propaganda or try to undermine the religion the theocracy is based on, they will try to kill you. If they try to kill you, wouldn't you rather be a soldier with a gun in his hand than some hapless civilian? Soldiers can fight back civilians cannot!

 
A world war requires another superpower to fight. The closest thing to another superpower is China, and I don't see China getting involved and fighting on the side of Muslim terrorists, do you?

Yes, Congress is such a fountain of military genuises, how many of them have graduated from West Point? Do you know the number? Why do you think all are generals are so stupid and all our congressmen are so smart? Just because they're elected, does that make them tactical and military geniuses? Didn't seem to work for Lincoln when he got elected. I don't know the last time Congress leading troops won any of our wars, do you? Should we put each of the Congressment and Senators into general's uniforms and assign them troops to lead into battle, since they are so smart and all our career officers are morons?

I can answer that question myself, our generals are trained to deal with military situations, and they know better than any elected politicians, its up to the President to make sure the Generals leading the troops are good enough to get the job done, give them a decent chance and then if no progress is made to replace them. Congress should fund the troops or not, its not up to them to lead troops or to make military decisions for them, doing that will only get more troops killed. The generals are trained for this, they know better than the elected politicians how not to waste soldiers lives, and they know how to win battles. 3,000 deaths is nothing, if it takes 6 years to equal the casualities in a single day on 9/11, that isn't much for a whole war, why do you keep acting as if it is alot? We're not a small country, we have a population of 300,000,000, now what percentage is 3,000 out of 300,000,000?

I can do the math. In 6 years, we've lost 0.0001% of our population. Our population is growing at a rate that is much faster than that. To act as if 3,000 people over 6 years is a high casuality rate is to presume that our total population is much smaller than it is. Police officers die every year in greater numbers, as do fire fighters. There are more deaths due to smoking and drunken driving than there is due to the Iraq War, and as we have seen, we can lose as many civilian lives in a single day as we did over this entire War. That it took 6 years to exceed the number of casualities in the 9/11 attack really says something. Now whose lives are more valuable, is it the lives of our soldiers or the lives of the civilians that they are supposed to protect?

What if we pull out of Iraq, and the terrorists stage an attack killing 5,000 American civilians originating from Iraq which we abandoned. The soldiers only go where the politicians send them, if they go somewhere where they cannot protect the American people from the next attack, whose fault is that. If Congress prevents the President from doing his job and sending the troops where they are needed to protect the American people, whose fault is that?

You need cheap launch to get the process going, but you can lift greater mass from the moon with the same energy than you could from Earth. Do you think the Whole Solar System is going to be a giant mercantilist Empire where everything is made on Earth?

Let me just say, there is a reason the liberals are comparing the length of the Iraq War to that of World War II, and not the casuality rates. 3,000 people is not alot. If we were to retreat after losing 3,000 casualities, we wouldn't have won any of the major Wars. We would have succumed to the British during the Revolutionary War, we would have surrendered in the War of 1812, The Confederates would have defeated the Union forces after inflicting only 3,000 casualities in the first year. The Kaisar would have won World War II after the US sent its forces in and then quickly withdrew them after receiving 3,000 casualities in the trenches. The US would have capitulated to the Japanese shortly after Pearl Harbor and the 3,000th casuality was lost, the Korean War would have been a total win for the North. Need I go on. The USA wouldn't exist if we had such intollerance for casualities in a War, we would have been conquered and subjugated long ago. So your new standard for retreat is not a good one, and does not protect the American People, as the enemy only has to kill 3,000 soldiers and the white flag automatically goes up. We could have easily lost that amount in 9/11, we could have lost 50,000 in that single attack, so try to gain some perspective would you?

Also the Army needs a commander and Chief who can make decisions quickly with minimum debate. If you were a US soldier, would you want to receive your orders from Congress? Do you want Democrats and republicans debating on whether you are to receive aid or whether you can fight back while you are under attack by the enemy? The Legislature is not the Executive Branch, if you think we don't need an Executive Branch of Government, why don't you just say so now?

I guess from the poll above, the majority of people by a margin of 2 to 1 don't think the United States needs a President to run the Armed forces. All we need is Congress to vote to give orders the the generals to be carried out. Wouldn't it be wonderful to be a soldier in the army where the men giving out the orders are a bunch of politicians in the legislature, and they argue and tussle and your orders determining where you will be sent all depend on the outcome of the debates and the give and take in the Senate where pork barrel spending is doled out to various districts, and compromises made. So , if your a soldier in the Army and you are outnumbered and surrounded by enemy forces, you must make a request to Congress for reinforcements, and a hearing will be held about whether to allow for reenforcements, and while they are discussing it, more enemy forces are moving in and surrounding your position. Isn't it reassuring that the tactics used and the strategy employed would all be determined by political discussions and compromises, rather than by military necessity?

The reason we have a President is so that quick military decisions can be made without endless discussion in the Legislature. If you think the Legislature, any Legislature can do a better job than the President, then we don't need a President and thus all those Democrats who are running for President and simultaneously weakening the office of President as they do so are wasting their time.