Latest Breaking News

cstanleytech

(28,317 posts)

23. Check out this link

Reply to kenfrequed (Reply #22)

Mon Feb 13, 2012, 07:30 PM

Feb 2012

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_non-interventionism

Click here to purchase valentine hearts!

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

46 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Admiral Over Special Forces Pushes for a Freer Hand [View all] Judi Lynn Feb 2012 OP

This Is A Bad Idea 1ProudAtheist Feb 2012 #1

Totally disagree, the Obama doctrine is the way of the future. Kurska Feb 2012 #2

We tried that, it is partly what led to WWII and things like concentration camps. cstanleytech Feb 2012 #3

Uhm... kenfrequed Feb 2012 #22

Check out this link cstanleytech Feb 2012 #23

The request is only relevant to foreign policy because it's a result of the directives. The Doctor. Feb 2012 #4

Semi-covert US military presence - and action - in every country of the world? Brettongarcia Feb 2012 #12

totally agree. stay the hell out of other people's lives; and deaths. marasinghe Feb 2012 #6

Kosovo denbot Feb 2012 #20

Ron Paul posts on DU! Who knew? 24601 Feb 2012 #29

I think this is more of a chain of command issue Sgent Feb 2012 #5

More than that: let some little individual decide what nations to invade? Brettongarcia Feb 2012 #11

Dumb. They need to work with the rest of the military and the State Dept. TwilightGardener Feb 2012 #7

Hey Admiral, If you want a FREED Hand... Grassy Knoll Feb 2012 #8

No Commander in Chief should allow any subordinate autonomous deployment of force. denbot Feb 2012 #9

+1 n/t Marcel Feb 2012 #42

Foreign military deployment on a whim of an admiral, what can possibly go wrong here? Fool Count Feb 2012 #10

He'd better be making daily reports to: DNI/POTUS; Chiefs; Sen. Intel. Comm. Brettongarcia Feb 2012 #15

Combatant Commanders report directly to the Secretary of Defense 24601 Feb 2012 #28

Freer hand? Bohunk68 Feb 2012 #13

People think this is a wonderful thing? OnyxCollie Feb 2012 #24

Ah, turf wars! Those regional commanders don't like it when someone is operating in their theatre! MADem Feb 2012 #14

You couldn't be more wrong. Your place in the line of Presidential Succession 24601 Feb 2012 #30

Who is talking about presidential succession? Way to completely not understand my point. MADem Feb 2012 #35

This totally sucks dreamnightwind Feb 2012 #16

What he really wants is for the Commander in Chief to be unnecessary in the processes lunatica Feb 2012 #17

I love a good laugh - you're telling us that you didn't know that the SECDEF 24601 Feb 2012 #31

Your post is alphabet and word salad lunatica Feb 2012 #32

At people, never! At things that are said, absolutely! Let me know which terms 24601 Feb 2012 #38

What part of lunatica Feb 2012 #39

Silly me for believing you the 1st time. Sorry I mistook you for someone who 24601 Feb 2012 #40

Military organization and command are technical and legal in nature hack89 Feb 2012 #44

Oh please! lunatica Feb 2012 #45

"Slow motion military coup" is the kind of silliness that stems from ... hack89 Feb 2012 #46

I wonder if the unspoken proposal here is more reliance on the mercenary firms... Blue_Tires Feb 2012 #18

This is why military leaders need to be subordinate to accountable politicians. bemildred Feb 2012 #19

At least its been declassified, to be thrown out to the public for discussion Brettongarcia Feb 2012 #21

If McRaven's asking for this, OnyxCollie Feb 2012 #25

Past or future? It's timely to look at this now. It's offered up for public commentary, after all. Brettongarcia Feb 2012 #26

It's a trial balloon for the new normal. OnyxCollie Feb 2012 #27

It doesn't work. Tripod Feb 2012 #34

It worked in Libya. OnyxCollie Feb 2012 #36

Us has done this over,and over again. Tripod Feb 2012 #37

Who specifically made that claim? 24601 Feb 2012 #41

This is a good idea. n/t Tripod Feb 2012 #33

This is crossing the Rubicon. Citizen Worker Feb 2012 #43