[DrTodd13]

BebopKid, on Aug 31 2007, 09:47 AM, said:

DrTodd13, on Aug 30 2007, 11:39 PM, said:

What I don't like is the seeming influence of the Zionist lobby that got Congress to remove the statement from one of the Iraq funding bills that Bush cannot attack Iran without express authorization from Congress.

Umm, this is misinformation.

The U.S. President must have authorization from Congress to go to war.

The U.S. President has the power to defend the U.S. in emergencies without authorization from Congress. A statement in a funding bill would not change this as the Constitution overrides.

I will also remind everyone that Congress authorized the invasion of Iraq, also. This was done to enforce U.N. resolutions that Iraq was not responding to.

No, you misunderstand. The Congress put something in a bill essentially reminding the President that the constitution gives Congress the power to declare war, not him. Due to pressure from Zionists, even this reminder of what the constitution says was removed from the bill.

[BebopKid]

Oops, sorry, I should have looked up the date. But I did say I love it when people don't know what they're talking about. I make myself happy all the time.

And Congress doesn't need to go around "reminding" the President what the Constitution says. They need to focus on their duties.

[hrothgar]

BebopKid, on Aug 31 2007, 10:41 PM, said:

And Congress doesn't need to go around "reminding" the President what the Constitution says. They need to focus on their duties.

Funny that...

One of the duties of the legisilative branch is reminding the executive when it oversteps its bounds. In some cases, this reminders are very forceful (the term impeachment comes to mind). However, even if Congress doesn't decide to go this route, they are perfectly within their power to exercise due oversight.

Admittedly, the president got used to getting a free pass from legislative oversight back when the Republicans were dominating all three branches of government. However, the times they are a'changing.

[kenrexford]

Al_U_Card, on Aug 31 2007, 11:39 AM, said:

Sadly, but realistically, the US is just following in the footsteps of its predecessors. The Maine, Pearl Harbor, The Gulf of Tonkin, 9-11. The powers that be exercise their control to further their ends and are very sanguine about it. The US was founded in an attempt to restore a certain measure of power to the people. Unfortunately, it was a noble experiment that appears to be in failing health.

Ah, but is it now? Are "the People" somehow not interested in real politik?

Omelas always will exist. However much we may want to deny reality, it exists. One comfort is that the child is not an innocent. The child wants us to carry the burden for it, and the child is an angry child. In fact, one could argue that the child already tried to force "us" into carrying the burden, but it lost. We can grieve for the child, but we cannot let the child be free so long as the child persists in its aspirations.

[Al_U_Card]

I wonder if a groundswell of support for an article V convention (already in progress) could be countered by seizure of possessions because it will have a negative impact on the "execution" of the plan for Iraq..... (which includes the presence of the army on US soil to protect you from "them dern terarists")

[pbleighton]

Quote

I'm not all that certain that I am misperceiving the big picture.

A lady at my bridge club is about to turn 100 years of age. So, she was alive before WWI. What has the big picture been in her lifetime?

When she was born, a few European nations were in control of almost everything. The colonial powers were largely places that wanted to be in control of almost everything, but they lost at some point.

The powers in Europe fought amongst each other and some power arrangements seemed to shift slightly. This allowed some new powers, old powers long forgotten but resurfacing, to gain new powers.

A generation later, this new power tilt boiled over, and millions died. Power shifted in a major way. Power vacuums developed, with sources for very old power having some breathing space.

The new powers pushed at each other while vacuums started to fill. One large area of relative power vacuum, at one time an area of extreme power, has tried a new tactic.

What I see in this story, so far, are a few things.

Power moves. It may seem to increase or decrease in specific areas, but it seems relatively assured to emerge.

Powers end up fighting, and lots of people die as a result.

All power is used to the benefit of those holding the power and to the detriment of those not having the power. That seems to be because power is the most important asset, one that cannot be shared effectively.

Within the range of power-holders, some are more troubling than others.

The effects of power concentration in an area seem to be most disturbing when the power must also be used internally.

Dogs fight over food. Most dogs are otherwise fairly nice pets, but they do fight over food. The nice dog that does not fight over food goes hungry.

Some dogs have fought too much, having been trained by their masters to kill senselessly. Those dogs are usually subject to extreme rules by the government and often must be put down. You just cannot trust a dog that bites for no reason.

Yet, dogs always have a reason. Ultimately, however, that does not matter.

Ken, following your logic:

Rape has always been with us, and will probably always will be with us.

Therefore, it's cool.

Do I understand you correctly?

Peter

[kenrexford]

pbleighton, on Aug 31 2007, 03:11 PM, said:

Ken, following your logic:

Rape has always been with us, and will probably always will be with us.

Therefore, it's cool.

Do I understand you correctly?

Peter

In a manner of speaking, I suppose. As a big stretch metaphor.

The idea is not that "it's cool." The idea is that it's necessary. I'm not all that certain that rape can be categorized as necessary.

However, the logic extension, albeit flawed in your use, might be useful nonetheless.

You are in a room. There is a gun in the room, and a knife. You are a nice person, but the sole other person in the room is a rapist. He wants you bad. You are not all into him like that.

So, you run for the gun, and he grabs the knife.

Three things could happen, IMO.

1. You could shoot him senselessly between the eyes. That might be a tad extreme. When you have him, you have him. No need to be brutal.

2. You could suggest that everyone put down their weapons and talk. He would likely agree. He might even be very reasonable about it. Then, you get raped. If you want, you can take it and understand whatever suffering as a kid he must have experienced to justify this behavior.

3. You could point your gun and him and threaten him. If he approaches anyway, you could fire a warning shot (hopefully you have enough bullets). You might then, if necessary, shoot him in the leg and hope that works. If all fails, then you must resort to shooting him.

Ah! But is this not really unfair if your father raped him and made him the way he is? Sure. But, I ain't letting him rape me to make up for it.

What about the fact that he is so messed up that he cannot get any dates with real nice people? And, because you are not messed up, you get to date all the people he does not get to date. His pain lets you have more options. Does this mean that you'll let him rape you, just this once? I doubt it.

What if you yourself tormented him as a kid? What if you made fun of him for what your own father did? Let him rape you now? Probably not so much.

Now, once you have this guy in complete control, where he cannot rape you, might you try to do something to help him? Sure! Why not?

Thank God he did not get the gun and you the knife. He would rape you, of course. However, he would also beat you down for even thinking about resisting him, pistol-whip you, take your knife and cut you with it, find your family and do the same to them, and then perhaps eventually turn on himself and finally end the suffering by his own self-destruction.

Back way up. Suppose he held a knife to the throat of some third person in the room. Does that change the analysis? Would you try your damnedest to stop him, but not by dropping the gun, allowing him to do whatever he wants to both of you?

Oh -- wait! That's where Hollywood comes into play. Sure -- drop the gun. Somehow the hero wins when he drops the gun.

[DrTodd13]

hrothgar, on Aug 31 2007, 11:47 AM, said:

BebopKid, on Aug 31 2007, 10:41 PM, said:

And Congress doesn't need to go around "reminding" the President what the Constitution says.  They need to focus on their duties.

Funny that...

One of the duties of the legisilative branch is reminding the executive when it oversteps its bounds. In some cases, this reminders are very forceful (the term impeachment comes to mind). However, even if Congress doesn't decide to go this route, they are perfectly within their power to exercise due oversight.

Admittedly, the president got used to getting a free pass from legislative oversight back when the Republicans were dominating all three branches of government. However, the times they are a'changing.

Given that the reminder was removed, I'd have to say that times they-aren't-a-changin'. Surprise, surprise, if you look at all the candidates running for president, the only ones who get blessed with the "top tier" status by the media are the big corporatists. Who owns the media? Corporations. Everything now is about perpetuating the status quo and maximizing profits for business. Mussolini said that fascism is more properly called corporatism and this is what we have today. I don't have a problem with someone making billions from running a business ethically. My problem is where the system is rigged for the benefit of the elites. The top democrats are not anti-war, they are anti-THIS-war and that only for political expediency. Give them a chance and they'll attack Iran (and Pakistan if Obama gets his way) just like Bush wants to do.

[helene_t]

Ken, you've seen too many movies. Better go back to bidding system design.

[pbleighton]

Quote

Ken, you've seen too many movies. Better go back to bidding system design.

LOL.

Quote

Sure -- drop the gun.

No one is suggesting unilateral disarmament, Ken. What we're saying is don't blow his brains out because he's buying parts which he might use to build a gun.

You don't seem to be able to distinguish between offensive and defensive wars. They all blur into one continuous historical BOOM for you.

What's the diff, eh?

Peter

[mike777]

This is a really queasy difficult question.

IF someone does not have a "gun" "bomb" "plague" big enough to destroy the world in a matter of minutes or hours or days but assume you have proof they are buying the parts for one.

With India and Pakistan and China and others we did nothing.
Doing nothing with Iran may be the best result also, but I do not see Congress or the those running for President even debating that, too busy with Craig I guess.

Can anyone cite what those guys and gal positions are on this?

I just did a quick check of Mrs. Clinton's website but found no mention of Iran at all.

[pbleighton]

Quote

IF someone does not have a "gun" "bomb" "plague" big enough to destroy the world in a matter of minutes or hours or days but assume you have proof they are buying the parts for one.

Oh, you mean the kind of weapons WE have.

Peter

[pbleighton]

Quote

Can anyone cite what those guys and gal positions are on this?

I'm guessing none of the candidates from either party have a clear position on what they would do now. It would do them no political good, and could cause all of them some political harm.

Peter

[Winstonm]

MikeH brought up a good point: what leader in their right mind would use or deliver for use a nuclear weapon?

As with most things, the most eloquent of lies is the one which holds in its conceptualization a portion of truth - Islamic terrorists are the greatest threat to the U.S.

There are extreme elements of Islam who believe a Cailif should rule an all-Islam world. These are the extremists who suicide bomb in order to attempt to recreate the Ottoman Empire.

However, this is a minority of Islamics and there are conflicts even within Islam over this ideology. The danger is that this very small group could come to power in a country or be given weapons by a country. For them to come to power is about as likely as a third-pary candidate being elected President of the U.S. There simply isn't enough power base for them to win. As for nuclear weapons, it seems clear to me that although rogue states might hide, allow training, and even financially support terrorists - more for political than ideological reasons - that to actually provide a nuclear weapon is too insane to be considered.

The big lie is that all Islamic enemies of the U.S. are this insane.
We propogate misquotes and mis-translations to support this claim.
"We will wipe Israel from the face of the map" was never said.

We have also villified Osama bin Laden as our greatest enemey - The Great Satan, to steal a phrase. Yet Osama bin Laden originally led the insurgency against Russia's invasion of Afghanistan. The reason? To drive Russian infadels from Islamic lands. It wasn't about creating a Islamic Empire - it was about protecting Islamic land - the same basic problem Islam has with Israel.

Odd that once Russia withdrew, they were no longer the target of terroists plots.

What turned bin Laden against America was the U.S. bases in Saudi Arabia. Once again, bin Laden turned his forces against infadels on Islamic land.

Although small groups of extremists may believe in renewing the Ottoman Empire and establishing a Cailifet, the overriding concern of angered Islamics is the U.S. presence - again, infadels in Islamic lands.

All that is accomplished by warring actions against other Islamic nations is to further prove the "rightness" of the extremist while pushing more and more moderates into the extremist camps.

This global was on terror is an illusion to allow a secondary agenda - an agenda of a few men who we have allowed to hold positions of power.

There are certainly terrorists. They are of the same ilk as David Kuresh and Jim Jones, and about as powerful.

But these groups are not a threat to civilization - Islam is too divided into too many branches to be this kind of threat. Unless, of course, you provide all of Islam a common enemy by invading their land.

[kenrexford]

pbleighton, on Aug 31 2007, 06:24 PM, said:

No one is suggesting unilateral disarmament, Ken. What we're saying is don't blow his brains out because he's buying parts which he might use to build a gun.

You don't seem to be able to distinguish between offensive and defensive wars. They all blur into one continuous historical BOOM for you.

What's the diff, eh?

Peter

Ah, but I have not said what position I would take, right? Find one place in any post that I have that suggests a position on Iran and the possibility of the invasion thereof.

You claim that I am unable to diistinguish between offensive and defensive wars. I'm not sure why. I don't think that was part of the discussion to date.

All that said, however, I find the juxtaposition of your two statements strange. I would imagine there being three types of war, perhaps.

Type One would be an "offensive" war, or perhaps more properly a war of conquest. Conquest does not require land as the asset sought, of course. Power, position, whatever. Attaining something not held.

Type Three would be a type of "defensive" war. I'd call it a reactionary war, reacting to a threat that is known and present.

Type Two would be something in the middle. You are not trying to attain something. Rather, you are attempting to stop someone from attaining something. One might say that this is an "offensive" war because you are trying to attain superiority, but that asset is already held. One might say it is a defensive war, because you are attempting to preempt a threat that is not yet known or present, in a sense.

The Iran question seems to involve a Type Two war, IMO. We are not talking of any asset grab, nor are we talking about repelling a known threat. We are talking of a suspected future threat.

Deciding what to do in such a scenario is not as easy as following some ridiculous notion of peace and love and fuzzy puppies. Maybe Troy would have been a friend, but maybe Carthage did need to be destroyed.

[Winstonm]

Quote

Find one place in any post that I have that suggests a position on Iran

Can't find one on Iran, but god help the people of Iowa if you are ever in charge.

Let me rephase the three types of war:
The offensive war
The defensive war
The Boogeyman under the bed war.

Well, that explains Iowa - an ear of corn can be used as a lethal weapon - and enough corn mash could surely be construed as Weapons of Mass Destruction.

[Winstonm]

The latest news:

Quote

The International Atomic Energy Agency said in its report that Iran was being unusually cooperative and had reached an agreement with the agency to answer questions about an array of suspicious past nuclear activities that have led many nations to suspect it harbors a secret effort to make nuclear arms. The agency added that while Tehran’s uranium enrichment effort is growing, the output is far less than experts had expected.

“This is the first time Iran is ready to discuss all the outstanding issues which triggered the crisis in confidence,” Mohamed ElBaradei, the I.A.E.A. director general, said in an interview. “It’s a significant step.”

The usual response:

Quote

But the Bush administration and its allies, which have won sanctions in the United Nations Security Council in an effort to stop Iran’s uranium enrichment, saw the latest report as more evidence of defiance, not cooperation.

Defiance of playing their role as the Evil Empire, maybe. It must be really hard to make a good case for war when the enemy is not cooperating.

[pbleighton]

Quote

Type One would be an "offensive" war, or perhaps more properly a war of conquest. Conquest does not require land as the asset sought, of course. Power, position, whatever. Attaining something not held.

Type Three would be a type of "defensive" war. I'd call it a reactionary war, reacting to a threat that is known and present.

Type Two would be something in the middle. You are not trying to attain something. Rather, you are attempting to stop someone from attaining something. One might say that this is an "offensive" war because you are trying to attain superiority, but that asset is already held. One might say it is a defensive war, because you are attempting to preempt a threat that is not yet known or present, in a sense.

Type Two and Type One are both offensive wars, and both illegal under the U.N. Charter, which prohibits unilateral military action except in the case of Type Three.

Both are war crimes.

The Nuremberg Charter defines “Crimes against Peace” as “planning, preparation, initiation or waging of wars of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties or participating in a common plan or conspiracy to wage an aggressive war.”, and goes on to say "to initiate a war of aggression . . . is not only an international crime, it is the supreme international crime.”

The U.S. is signatory to and subject to the U.N. Charter, which is certainly an international treaty. The Charter forbids one country from unilaterally attacking another except in self defense. Kofi Annan declared that the United States invasion of Iraq was “illegal”.

It's clear, and quite limited. It doesn't say it's OK to invade when Country A doesn't like Coountry B's government, or thinks that it may become a threat in the future, or doesn't like B's actions, or even if it thinks that B is itself guilty of war crimes. The recourse is the Security Council.

You've made a distinction without a difference within the category of offensive wars.

Peter

[kenrexford]

pbleighton, on Sep 1 2007, 06:46 AM, said:

Quote

Type One would be an "offensive" war, or perhaps more properly a war of conquest. Conquest does not require land as the asset sought, of course. Power, position, whatever. Attaining something not held.

Type Three would be a type of "defensive" war. I'd call it a reactionary war, reacting to a threat that is known and present.

Type Two would be something in the middle. You are not trying to attain something. Rather, you are attempting to stop someone from attaining something. One might say that this is an "offensive" war because you are trying to attain superiority, but that asset is already held. One might say it is a defensive war, because you are attempting to preempt a threat that is not yet known or present, in a sense.

Type Two and Type One are both offensive wars, and both illegal under the U.N. Charter, which prohibits unilateral military action except in the case of Type Three.

Both are war crimes.

Peter

So?

If a nation in fact has set up nuclear missiles pointing your direction and has stated an intention to use them, if that has occurred, and I'm not saying that it has, but if it has, then waiting for an attack gets you millions of dead and moral superiority. Preemption gets you the nomenclature of a war criminal and not millions of dead.

The problem with the old definitions of aggression are that the old terms dealt with old realities. An attack could be repelled once begun.

In the nuclear age, however, that luxury is not available. All we have any longer is mutual destruction.

The modern would may need a different definition of an act of aggression. If the battle field is no longer a front line but is instead the entire globe, if crossing a border has a new parallel of programming a computer guidance system to cause a missle to land inside the others' border, then new definitions must be used.

[pbleighton]

Quote

So?

If a nation in fact has set up nuclear missiles pointing your direction and has stated an intention to use them, if that has occurred, and I'm not saying that it has, but if it has, then waiting for an attack gets you millions of dead and moral superiority. Preemption gets you the nomenclature of a war criminal and not millions of dead.

The problem with the old definitions of aggression are that the old terms dealt with old realities. An attack could be repelled once begun.

In the nuclear age, however, that luxury is not available. All we have any longer is mutual destruction.

The modern would may need a different definition of an act of aggression. If the battle field is no longer a front line but is instead the entire globe, if crossing a border has a new parallel of programming a computer guidance system to cause a missle to land inside the others' border, then new definitions must be used.

So I don't support the U.S. committing war crimes, and you do. That's a form of moral idiocy, but, hey, this is a free country.

Peter