1876 replies to this topic

[Yakatsu]

http://www.mirror.co...15875-21748476/

There goes my peace and quiet.

Who's in the UK Force in this forum? Shall we arrange a meeting in the midst of fire and shrapnel hell?

[Strangelove]

Not to mention when Bill Clinton went all horny with his secretary and to turn media attention he bombed, yes bombed Iraq. Look at Operation Dessert Fox

http://www.cnn.com/A...ts/clinton.html there is a transcript.

Now im sure you all heard of Dr Ron Paul.

"Policy toward Iraq is ... not designed to protect U.S. national security. It is instead a threat to our security because it may lead to war and loss of American lives, increase terrorism and certainly an additional expense for the U.S. taxpayer. The hyped rhetoric coming from Washington which describes Hussein as the only evil monster with which we must deal in the world is a poor substitute for wise counsel. "

~ Rep. Ron Paul, Letter to President Bill Clinton, November 19, 1997

I mean WTF! WTF!!!!

http://www.lewrockwe...ig8/beito2.html


It is, unconstitutional to declare war on a nation that has not declared war on the United States. It is in the constitution and these demopublicans should read it.

Edited by Strangelove, 27 October 2009 - 03:04 PM.

[Strangelove]

Article I Section 8.

So you are basically talking about preemptive war then? Something Hitler and other tyrants brought to the table, wasting millions and billions of tax payer money. You are no conservative if you believe in preemptive strikes, you are a Woodrow Wilson progressive who believed in preemptive war, because it has unintended consequences.

1998 Operation Dessert Fox---> Attack on the World Trade Center----> Attack on Afghanistan----> 9/11----> Attack on Afghanistan followed by an Attack on Iraq----> Insurgent strikes on our troops in Iraq----> Surge----> Leaving Iraq----> Loosing the war in Afghanistan.

And yes Afghanistan cannot be won. You can continually kill the Taliban, but if you don't deal with the real problem then you might as well kill Taliban for the rest of your life, wasting hundreds upon thousands of tax payer money.


P.S. Article I Section 8 Congress shall have the power to declare war Not the president. The War Power Resolution of 1973 gave the President the power to declare war with the approval of Congress. Bill Clinton did not seek authorization to declare war on Iraq in 1998, and i don't remember, but isn't an attack on a foreign nation a declaration of war?

Edited by Strangelove, 27 October 2009 - 04:06 PM.

[Sakura Blossoms]

Oh, the double standards:

http://news.yahoo.co..._politico/28764

As much as I absolutely disagreed with Bush and practically every one of his policies, there shouldn't be this much of a double standard going on.

[Nate River]

Article I Section 8.

So you are basically talking about preemptive war then? Something Hitler and other tyrants brought to the table, wasting millions and billions of tax payer money. You are no conservative if you believe in preemptive strikes, you are a Woodrow Wilson progressive who believed in preemptive war, because it has unintended consequences.

1998 Operation Dessert Fox---> Attack on the World Trade Center----> Attack on Afghanistan----> 9/11----> Attack on Afghanistan followed by an Attack on Iraq----> Insurgent strikes on our troops in Iraq----> Surge----> Leaving Iraq----> Loosing the war in Afghanistan.

And yes Afghanistan cannot be won. You can continually kill the Taliban, but if you don't deal with the real problem then you might as well kill Taliban for the rest of your life, wasting hundreds upon thousands of tax payer money.


P.S. Article I Section 8 Congress shall have the power to declare war Not the president. The War Power Resolution of 1973 gave the President the power to declare war with the approval of Congress. Bill Clinton did not seek authorization to declare war on Iraq in 1998, and i don't remember, but isn't an attack on a foreign nation a declaration of war?

I'm aware of that provision, but you said it's unconstituional to declare war on another nation that has not declared war on us.

Article I Section 8 says no such thing. Congress can declare war on who it wants regardless of whatever trangressions may or may not have done by the other party. If Congress wishes to use its power to declare war only in response to a declaration by someone else nothing stops them from doing so, but I don't know of any constitutional (and you have cited to none) provision that mandates such an exercise of that power.

So you are basically talking about preemptive war then? Something Hitler and other tyrants brought to the table, wasting millions and billions of tax payer money. You are no conservative if you believe in preemptive strikes, you are a Woodrow Wilson progressive who believed in preemptive war, because it has unintended consequences.

Say what you like. I really don't require or care about your validation of my political beliefs or what they constitute. However, to answer your question, I don't think this nation should be forced to wait until its people have been annihilated before it should be given the ability to do something about a threat its knows exists. I cannot believe in a theory that tends to require people ignore the obvious until its too late to do anything about it or just so I can pretend to take the moral high ground.

Obama's approach has been diplomacy, diplomacy, diplomacy. But if that fails, what's he going to do next? Under you're theory has only two options: sanctions and more diplomacy. If the Iranians make good on their threat Obama's banned from preventing it with force until it attacks. Israel maybe a smoldering pile of nuclear waste by then, but hey, at least we don't have to worry about "wasting" money preventing the tragedy or our moral justification for intervening. So yeah, I suppose I do want to stop those "unintended consequences" because they can be a real b*tch sometimes.

Speaking of Woodrow...I largely don't care for him, but damn him nonetheless for declaring war on Germany in WW1. The Germans didn't attack us. They merely torpedoed the Lusitania and then tried to get the Mexicans to do it instead.

And quickly add, with a hint of jealousy: How does Obama get away with it?

I loved this question because I don't think conservatives actually wonder this. Most of them know why: The press corps lips are attached Barack's backside.

I don't think even Hillary would have gotten away with as much as Obama has.

[Strangelove]

I just think preemptive strikes have unintended consequences, the way you are thinking is the same way the enemy thinks, we should annihilate them before they annihilate us. Based on that logic we should annihilate China, Russia, India, Pakistan, because all this nations pose a threat to US national security.

The US needs a strong defense force, not a force that goes into other nations making enemies.

Edited by Strangelove, 27 October 2009 - 05:31 PM.

[Miss Soupy]

Oh, the double standards:

http://news.yahoo.co..._politico/28764

Now, Obama’s aides say, the positive coverage simply reflects the fact that their efforts are succeeding.

This should read "the positive coverage simply creates the illusion that their efforts are succeeding."

Edited by Miss Soupy, 27 October 2009 - 05:33 PM.

[Nate River]

I just think preemptive strikes have unintended consequences, the way you are thinking is the same way the enemy thinks, we should annihilate them before they annihilate us. Based on that logic we should annihilate China, Russia, India, Pakistan, because all this nations pose a threat to US national security.

Of couse they can and should be considered before actually using such a strike.You just don't randomly strike the nearest target that causes you discomfort.

I'm not advocating the indiscrimanite use of pre-emptive strikes but I do believe diplomacy with overtly hostile powers is largely worthless if there is no real threat to back any of your words up. If you can't back yourself up, why should they listen to you? For example, if the there is no real threat of consequence, why the hell should the Iranians and North Koreans discontinue building nukes when we tell them too? Waiting until they use them works so long as the rocket isn't pointed at you. Someone like Israel doesn't exactly have that kind of luxury. After all, what are we going to do about it? Run to the security counsel that includes a Russia that hasn't exactly been back us up on this?

I also believe the U.S. shouldn't be required to wait until after a tragedy hits before it's allowed to do anything to protect itself. If pre-emptive strikes are always bad, then what exactly are we to do when other forms of persuasion fail? Sit and hope they're bluffing?

You, and correct me if I wrong, appear to summarily taking them off the table and arguing that they should never be used, which I absolutely disagree with.

EDIT: For me, it's another weapon in the arsenal. Diplmoacy doesn't always fail. Sanctions doesn't always fail, but they don't always work either. I simply do not believe such a strike is per se immoral or unconstitutional and that its foolish, if not suicidal, to simply write it off as such.

[Strangelove]

Of couse they can and should be considered before actually using such a strike.You just don't randomly strike the nearest target that causes you discomfort.

I'm not advocating the indiscrimanite use of pre-emptive strikes but I do believe diplomacy with overtly hostile powers is largely worthless if there is no real threat to back any of your words up. If you can't back yourself up, why should they listen to you? For example, if the there is no real threat of consequence, why the hell should the Iranians and North Koreans discontinue building nukes when we tell them too? Waiting until they use them works so long as the rocket isn't pointed at you. Someone like Israel doesn't exactly have that kind of luxury. After all, what are we going to do about it? Run to the security counsel that includes a Russia that hasn't exactly been back us up on this?

I also believe the U.S. shouldn't be required to wait until after a tragedy hits before it's allowed to do anything to protect itself. If pre-emptive strikes are always bad, then what exactly are we to do when other forms of persuasion fail? Sit and hope they're bluffing?

You, and correct me if I wrong, appear to summarily taking them off the table and arguing that they should never be used, which I absolutely disagree with.

EDIT: For me, it's another weapon in the arsenal. Diplmoacy doesn't always fail. Sanctions doesn't always fail, but they don't always work either. I simply do not believe such a strike is per se immoral or unconstitutional and that its foolish, if not suicidal, to simply write it off as such.

Well there is some truth to that one, the US and Iran have had talks since Jimmy Carter...and it hasn't really produced results, but there is no real answer. The war in Iraq didn't worked, the war in Afghanistan didn't worked, i don't feel that the United States is any safer than it was 8 years ago, but i do not think that this problem can be resolve by attacking this nations, and killing their people, it will just increase their hatred, which will increase the numbers of Al Qaeda, which in turn will increase our occupation in this neighbors, and no we just shouldn't sit and do anything, the United States its stuck in a hole, and attacks will just deepen that hole, im afraid we will be stuck fighting terrorism forever, there is no other solution, just as Rome dig its own grave, the United States seem to be doing the same thing. Im sorry to say, but there is no clear answer for this form of solution. Maybe it should bring all its troops home, maybe it should nuke the Middle East into oblivion, but there is no clear solution. Diplomacy won't work on Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan seem more like failed states, and Iraq might go down to become Afghanistan in the near future, you just saw the failure of their security forces.

Actually there is a solution, turning the people of Afghanistan against the Taliban, turning the people of Iran against their govt, and turning the people of Iraq against the insurgents. But that isn't going to happen if were there killing people, instead the opposite will happen and the people will turn on our own troops. Osama Bin Laden is an expert at fighting foreign powers, being that he helped drive out the Soviets from Afghanistan, with Americas help of course. Same thing with the War in Vietnam, one of the major losses, was because constant bombing, occupation, and support to a corrupt leader turned the people of Vietnam against the United States, thus loosing the war.

[Yakatsu]

Actually there is a solution, turning the people of Afghanistan against the Taliban.

With? How? Explain.

[Cloud]

With? How? Explain.

With tea and biscuits.

[Strangelove]

With Nation building the nations that the United States has destroyed, but also by expanding the goodness of America, not by the barrel of a gun, but by setting an example, of our civil liberties, and the success of a free market economy.

Edited by Strangelove, 29 October 2009 - 03:12 AM.

[Nate River]

With? How? Explain.

Opium.

[Cloud]

Opium.

This is not fedual era Japan, Nate. XD

[Sakura Blossoms]

Opium.

Couldn't help snickering at that one

[Nate River]

This is not fedual era Japan, Nate. XD

I said that in jest, but seriously, one of the cited problems is the massive opium farms in that country. I think it's Afghanistan's number #1 export right now (I'm totally serious).

[Cloud]

I said that in jest, but seriously, one of the cited problems is the massive opium farms in that country. I think it's Afghanistan's number #1 export right now (I'm totally serious).

I know.

Your humor just lightened the situation up. XD

[Yakatsu]

This is not fedual era Japan, Nate. XD

It's Chinese.

Chinese.

CHINESE. You toss. And you call yourself Taiwanese.