Should we use tax dollars for defense?

Question

Should we use them for OFFENSE? Like when we invade another's country? I know it says in the constitution that the govt should be used for defense...but is it a stretch to call Iraq 'defense', when they never attacked us? I am not asking for justification for the war, I am asking if the constitution REALLY covers gov't using OFFENSE against another's country.

anyone1, your quote just very plainly said 'defend the constitution'. DEFEND.

Tom T, the question is on the constitution, not my views on war...sorry, but had to give you a thumbs down for not answering the question.

lol, you don't have to be inside the US to attack it...so yes, we could defend Michigan...and if they weren't the canadian army, we would use the police and not the military. Just like we should have after 9/11...

Answer 1

No it does not. The constitution states that we should use force when our freedoms have been compromised. Meaning that we should have used force to go after Osama which we all know has never taken place. We invaded a country on the offense which is against the constitution. We commited an act of war, which is very much not the American way.

As far as tax dollars for Defense, yes, that is what we pay them for, to help defend our freedoms. That is something I am sure that almost any citizen would have no trouble paying taxes for, at least I hope that is the case.

Answer 2

Well when the Germans bombed us at Pearl Harbor I guess that gave us a reason to enter World War II.

If you seriously want to look at the Constitution and tax law, there is a considerable debate as to if the income tax is legal...

However, the Commander in Chief (the President for those of you who went to public schools) has discretion over the the use of the military and the funding of said military falls on the congress equating for a constitutionally legal separation of powers making the whole thing legal as pie.

(the fruit kind, not the 3.154...)

Answer 3

It is actually a distinction without a difference.

You attack your enemies where they are. Sometimes your moves are offensive sometimes they are defensive. It all comes under the heading of Defense. Whether it was John Paul Jones attacking British Navy ships or Admiral Halsey taking out Japanese Carriers in the Pacific or The Marines in Tripoli or Dessert Storm. These things are done to defeat our enemies an protect (defend) our country.

Think about what you are suggesting. If a horde of terrorists sat on the Canadian side of the border and stared firing rockets into Michigan would we be wrong to attack those terrorist positions in Canada? According to you, it would be offense against anothers country.

We would not be attacking Canada. We would be attacking our enemy who happens to be in Canada. We have the right to defend ourselves. Right now we are fighting our enemies in Iraq. We are not at war with Iraq. In fact, the goal is to protect Iraqis from the enemy.

.

Answer 4

I think it's understood that offense is part of a good defense. We're an open society, and we can't ever protect ourselves perfectly, so we have to go on the offense sometimes. So if we accept the premise that Iraq posed a threat to us, then it would be acceptable to attack them. Though there is a question about whether Iraq posed a threat to us. I say yes.

Answer 5

You're right, Iraq didn't attack us, nor did they attack us when our forces kicked them out of Kuwait. Come to think of it, Bosnia, Granada, Korea and North Viet Nam didn't attack us either. Oh wait, neither did Germany in WWl or WWll. Now Japan, they attacked us, so are you saying that fighting the Japanese was the only war we should have fought?

Answer 6

LOL, you make it sound like we have a choice! ALL government money is our tax dollars at work. Offense or Defense, we still pay, and pay, and pay....

I agree that the best Defense is a strong Offense. Peace through superior firepower has always worked for us... look at the Cold War for example.

Answer 7

What other kind of dollars should we use .
The vital interests of the United States is all that is needed and we can show that to be the case in every action we take .
Sometimes the Defense goes off sides in the game and slams the Quarterback .
Yes the down is replayed and a penalty of 5 yards is imposed but that Quarterback knows you are coming and the fear of God you just put in him may rattle his game enough for you to win .

Answer 8

I'm okay with using tax dollars strictly for national defense of the soverignty of America. But I'm NOT okay with using tax dollars for the UN missions or for fighting wars for other nations, let alone pre-emptive wars.

Using tax dollars for UN missions (like Iraq, for example), especially if it is a prolonged mission is a waste of taxpayer money. Fighting wars for other countries (like Vietnam, Korea, etc.) are also a waste of taxpayer money. Pre-emptive wars are just plain foolish. To use another user's analogy, it is like slapping your neighbor pre-emptively because he looked like wanted to steal your car.

Answer 9

the constitution doesn't distinguish between offense and defense. political decision are left to the interpretation of the executive branch who swears to "uphold and defend the constitution against all enemies, both foreign and domestic"

Answer 10

It did In the Spanish American War, WW1 and 2 , so yeah the precedence is made and is considered Practice.