Jump to content


- - - - -

Pres Obama is making an unscheduled address to the nation(crap is about to get real)


#91 depascal22   Daddy Fat Sacks CAGiversary!   10195 Posts   Joined 13.7 Years Ago  

Posted 02 May 2011 - 09:51 PM

Yes because eliminating people who plan and execute terrorist attacks on us, declare war on us, plan and execute terrorist attacks on other countries, harm their own people, both physically and barring them from basic human rights is a terrible thing for this country to be doing.

The cost was great, but what cost would we be facing if we left Afghanistan as it was? Do you think bin laden was wrapping things up after 9/11?


Did you give a damn about Afghanistan before 9/11? Please don't go on about human rights abuses when we sat there and supplied the fucking Taliban to fight the Soviets and then sat by as they raped and pillaged a country with our support. Where was your indignation then?

This "War on Terror" crippled us and sentenced a generation of soldiers to languish in shitty VA hospitals for the rest of their lives. In order to avenge the 3,000 dead from 9/11, we sent our men and women into a meat grinder. How many blown off limbs, mangled bodies, and body bags will it take to satisfy your blood lust?

Who won this war? Fucking private military corporations, arms dealers, and vehicle manufacturers.

#92 IRHari   COME ON! CAGiversary!   3815 Posts   Joined 10.7 Years Ago  

Posted 02 May 2011 - 09:54 PM

I recommend reading Blowback, by Chalmers Johnson. Then read Dying To Win, by Robert Pape.

Also, Imperial Hubris, by Michael Scheuer, is an excellent read. Scheuer was the head of the Bin Laden unit in the mid to late 90s.


Pfft good luck with that, I think you forgot who you're talking to.

The cost was great, but what cost would we be facing if we left Afghanistan as it was? Do you think bin laden was wrapping things up after 9/11?

Why are you all narrowing down the war to be about this one man?



I've seen Scheuer on the tv a lot lately. I think I remember him saying that Osama needed to execute an attack on Americans in order to get the US government to enact the policies Scheuer wants.

Did you give a damn about Afghanistan before 9/11? Please don't go on about human rights abuses when we sat there and supplied the fucking Taliban to fight the Soviets and then sat by as they raped and pillaged a country with our support. Where was your indignation then?


Uh, Saint Reagan did that. And one must follow Reagan's rule, right?

#93 dmaul1114   Banned Banned   24688 Posts   Joined 14.1 Years Ago  

dmaul1114

Posted 02 May 2011 - 10:12 PM

I agree with Magus, dohdough, and javery. We "beat" Bin Laden but at what cost? This is the definition of a pyrrhic victory.


It was always a no-win situation IMO.

Fight the wars and do what it takes to get him and diminish Al Qaeda's ability to carryout large-scale attacks--but raise anti-American sentiment in the middle east and help generate a new generation of jihadist in the process with the inevitable bombings of civilians etc.

Do nothing (or less) and thus bolster Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups by showing that they can carry out major attacks with relative impunity.

There's just no easy solution to that kind of situation. No doubt some things could have been done differently to minimize anti-American sentiment--i.e. not invade Iraq, not held enemy combatants indefinitely, not torture them etc. But not taking action in Afghanistan and against Bin Laden/Al Qaeda really wasn't an option IMO.

#94 Knoell   Achievement Unlocked CAGiversary!   2584 Posts   Joined 9.4 Years Ago  

Posted 02 May 2011 - 10:16 PM

I don't see the point on trying to argue about who is worse in terms of killing innocent people.

Innocent people die in an effort to accomplish something on both sides. The number of deaths to compare each other becomes irrelevant when both sides are basically doing the exact same thing, just for different reasons.


Its not about who is killing more people. He was spouting ridiculous things such as "US forces are killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people" and later goes on to say our military industrial complex "makes billions to kill millions".

That is why I brought up numbers, I am sick and tired of those lies.

Feeding the Abscess, I will look into those books. I have read a bit about dying to win, and I have to say my initial impression is that his data is skewed. If you look at it from a birds eye view, sure most of the time suicide bombers are attempting to get foreign democracies out of their homeland. My question for him would have to be then why do groups such as al qaida and the taliban have to radicalize, falsely use their religion, and lie to motivate such people. I will have to find time to read it though.

Depascal I give a damn about all kinds of human rights violations. Too damn bad the UN cant get a backbone and deal with them. The US government offers more aid to the rest of the world than any other country. We are one country, we cannot deal with all the pyschopaths in the world, while protecting aiding, and feeding the world, while ensuring all the dictators do not kill their own people, or another country's.

I believe the US makes mistakes, but it does far more good than bad, and to shrink back into north america and pick up isolationism would do far, far more harm than good in the world.

IRHari.....nevermind.

#95 IRHari   COME ON! CAGiversary!   3815 Posts   Joined 10.7 Years Ago  

Posted 02 May 2011 - 10:18 PM

It was always a no-win situation IMO.

Fight the wars and do what it takes to get him and diminish Al Qaeda's ability to carryout large-scale attacks--but raise anti-American sentiment in the middle east and help generate a new generation of jihadist in the process with the inevitable bombings of civilians etc.

Do nothing (or less) and thus bolster Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups by showing that they can carry out major attacks with relative impunity.

There's just no easy solution to that kind of situation. No doubt some things could have been done differently to minimize anti-American sentiment--i.e. not invade Iraq, not held enemy combatants indefinitely, not torture them etc. But not taking action in Afghanistan and against Bin Laden/Al Qaeda really wasn't an option IMO.


Surely there is some middle ground between spending trillions of dollars and starting endless wars and...doing nothing at all.

#96 Knoell   Achievement Unlocked CAGiversary!   2584 Posts   Joined 9.4 Years Ago  

Posted 02 May 2011 - 10:25 PM

Surely there is some middle ground between spending trillions of dollars and starting endless wars and...doing nothing at all.


Like what?

#97 dmaul1114   Banned Banned   24688 Posts   Joined 14.1 Years Ago  

dmaul1114

Posted 02 May 2011 - 10:27 PM

Surely there is some middle ground between spending trillions of dollars and starting endless wars and...doing nothing at all.


For sure. I covered that partly by saying we shouldn't have invaded Iraq as they had little to nothing to do with Al Qaeda.

The war in Afghanistan I think was necessary as well, but it surely could have been done in some more efficient manner than it has been. But the Taliban had to go. But I agree it's hard to imagine that this endless and fruitless occupation was the way to go.

#98 Dr Mario Kart   SD/2D Defense Force CAGiversary!   10957 Posts   Joined 15.1 Years Ago  

Dr Mario Kart

Posted 02 May 2011 - 10:27 PM

The cost was great, but what cost would we be facing if we left Afghanistan as it was? Do you think bin laden was wrapping things up after 9/11?

Wait a minute, does someone actually think that the cost is not unequivocally less? I'm tempted to just slowly back away from the room here.

Here is would happen. The US gets attacked every now and again (meaning we're not 100% safe forever, which is the case anyway). Some people die, theres a temporary downturn in the economy. What does not happen is the U.S. spending the kind of money we are to fighting enemies that never end because we're in part creating them through the very same process that we use to fight them.

Fewer US citizens would have died as well. Our intelligence gathering and national security apparatus (even ridiculous as some of it is) would be the same or better since 9/11 in the alternate history where we didnt get bogged down in the current set of wars. The US troops that have died there is almost certainly numerically higher than the toll that wouldve been taken in even multiple, successful domestic attacks over the last decade.

If you want to talk about how to effectively fight persons who have been infected with a particularly virulent strain of the the disease known as religion, that probably belongs elsewhere. But its a multi-generational and largely peaceful game.

#99 dohdough   Sum Dum Guy CAGiversary!   6854 Posts   Joined 9.6 Years Ago  

Posted 02 May 2011 - 10:35 PM

....Did deadliest year since 2001 not sink into your head? Did multiplying the DEADLIEST year by ten not cover it? Anyways....suddenly we are talking about iraq to justify your lies. Which it does not even do that. Both combined does not even do that. Then you are saying that we went to iraq for bin laden? WTF? and you want me to get my facts straight? WOW.

Here take a look at the actual incidents. http://www.iraqbodyc...incidents/page1 Now sort through all 492 pages and tell me who is killing who.

Did we or did we not go into Iraq because of misleading information based on Al Qaeda? Did we or did we not train AND arm them with our tax dollars? Do/Did we or do/did we not install AND support AND ARM dictators in that area? What am I lying about? Absolutely nothing.

Billions for millions rhymes better than 100's of 1000's. If you're going to make a little word play the backbone of your argument, keep on going, but it still doesn't change the fact that we are mostly and directly responsible for the current situation in the MidEast.

The only thing you're concerned is about the lives of US citizens and not the ones killed by US citizens before 9/11. A lot more than 5000 people died because of the US since we've been fucking around in the desert. This did not start when 20 people flew planes into buildings no matter how many times you say it or how loudly you protest.

Sorry I missed this post. It also goes to show how Obama did not inform Pakistan that it was going to strike 35 miles from their capital. That shows alot I think. Sure everyone who is wanted is close to someone, but pakistan has been known as a hiding place for al qaida so they should be more vigilant if they really didn't know he was there. Also I recently found out that this compound of bin ladens was 100 yards from a Pakistani military base.

Whitey Bulger is probably living across the street from the Queen of England. Somebody call the FBI and raid his ass.

#100 Feeding the Abscess   CAGiversary! CAGiversary!   3251 Posts   Joined 9.6 Years Ago  

Feeding the Abscess

Posted 02 May 2011 - 11:12 PM

It was always a no-win situation IMO.

Fight the wars and do what it takes to get him and diminish Al Qaeda's ability to carryout large-scale attacks--but raise anti-American sentiment in the middle east and help generate a new generation of jihadist in the process with the inevitable bombings of civilians etc.

Do nothing (or less) and thus bolster Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups by showing that they can carry out major attacks with relative impunity.

There's just no easy solution to that kind of situation. No doubt some things could have been done differently to minimize anti-American sentiment--i.e. not invade Iraq, not held enemy combatants indefinitely, not torture them etc. But not taking action in Afghanistan and against Bin Laden/Al Qaeda really wasn't an option IMO.


False choice. Intervention bolsters Al-Qaeda; in fact, our previous intervention helped create what became Al-Qaeda. Blowback is very real, and the solution to our intervention has been: intervention. It is a never ending cycle. The correct response is to no longer practice militarism overseas, and when we are attacked we enact the following:

To authorize the President of the United States to issue letters of marque and reprisal with respect to certain acts of air piracy upon the United States on September 11, 2001, and other similar acts of war planned for the future.



#101 spmahn  

Posted 02 May 2011 - 11:13 PM

Look, take your blame America first nonsense elsewhere. Let's get this discussion to Bin Laden's death, and its implications.

So what affect does this have on 2012? A lot of people are claiming that this will clinch the election for Obama. I certainly think it will help, but I don't think it's going to be enough to single handedly win the election for him. For one thing, Americans have short attention span, and after next week when this finally gets dropped out of the news cycle, we're going to be back to the realization that the economy still sucks, gas is too expensive, and unemployment is too high. While this certainly does allow Obama's supporters to hark back to the hope and change that was promised, if Obama can't follow up with this, it might even leave his supporters even more jaded.

#102 dmaul1114   Banned Banned   24688 Posts   Joined 14.1 Years Ago  

dmaul1114

Posted 02 May 2011 - 11:15 PM

False choice. Intervention bolsters Al-Qaeda; in fact, our previous intervention helped create what became Al-Qaeda. Blowback is very real, and the solution to our intervention has been: intervention. It is a never ending cycle. The correct response is to no longer practice militarism overseas, and when we are attacked we enact the following:


Just have to agree to disagree.

I strongly disagree with much of how we intervened for sure. But I disagree that you can ignore responding militarily to attacks on US soil, US embassies etc.

I do agree we should stop other militaristic interventions around the world though. I don't see it as our place to have invaded Iraq, or to be involved in Libya currently.

But when you have terrorist attack, you have to respond IMO. Though again our response has been horribly misguied IMO. For instance, I think a combination of bombing and diplomacy could have got the Taliban out of Afghanistan and had a new Aghani government rise up that's no less dysfunctional than the one in place now. And of course we never should have been in Iraq.

#103 dmaul1114   Banned Banned   24688 Posts   Joined 14.1 Years Ago  

dmaul1114

Posted 02 May 2011 - 11:18 PM

So what affect does this have on 2012? A lot of people are claiming that this will clinch the election for Obama. I certainly think it will help, but I don't think it's going to be enough to single handedly win the election for him. For one thing, Americans have short attention span, and after next week when this finally gets dropped out of the news cycle, we're going to be back to the realization that the economy still sucks, gas is too expensive, and unemployment is too high. While this certainly does allow Obama's supporters to hark back to the hope and change that was promised, if Obama can't follow up with this, it might even leave his supporters even more jaded.



It doesn't cinch it. It will just help quiet any attacks on his foreign policy and claims that he's not willing to act etc.

But as you note, the election will mainly come down to the economy.

If the stock market stays up and unemployment keeps slowly falling, and gas prices fall by then, he'll most likely win re-election.

If there's another small downturn or even pro-longed stagnation in the recovery, he may lose depending on who the republican nominee is.

If the economy really takes another major dive, then he's done for period.

#104 Clak   Made of star stuff. CAGiversary!   8079 Posts   Joined 9.9 Years Ago  

Posted 02 May 2011 - 11:33 PM

So what is your idea for a zero casuality clean out of al qaeda and the taliban? The removal of both organizations vastly benefits the security of the US, and primarilly the afghan people.

You're assuming they can ever be removed to begin with.

I have no idea for destroying Al Qaida without innocents being killed. It would be a pretty difficult thing to do. You'll somehow take this as justification for doing it the way we have.

#105 Clak   Made of star stuff. CAGiversary!   8079 Posts   Joined 9.9 Years Ago  

Posted 02 May 2011 - 11:43 PM


The cost was great, but what cost would we be facing if we left Afghanistan as it was? Do you think bin laden was wrapping things up after 9/11?



In other words, we're fightin' 'em there so we don't have to fight 'em here.

Btw, we had a hand it turning Afghanistan into what it was as of 9/11, so if anything it's just our own stupidity coming back to bite us in the ass. It would be like giving a criminal a gun and being surprised when they rob you at gun point.

#106 KingBroly   CAG Club Nintendo CAGiversary!   15248 Posts   Joined 12.0 Years Ago  

KingBroly

Posted 02 May 2011 - 11:50 PM

It doesn't cinch it. It will just help quiet any attacks on his foreign policy and claims that he's not willing to act etc.

But as you note, the election will mainly come down to the economy.

If the stock market stays up and unemployment keeps slowly falling, and gas prices fall by then, he'll most likely win re-election.

If there's another small downturn or even pro-longed stagnation in the recovery, he may lose depending on who the republican nominee is.

If the economy really takes another major dive, then he's done for period.


Actually, it won't quiet attacks if this Libya conflict continues. Something along the lines of 'are you going to wait 10 years to get Kadahfi (spelling)?'

The Libyan conflict is driving up oil prices right now, which is hurting the economy. If it's not resolved sooner than later, it'll nosedive the economy again. Not to mention all of the bad mortgages that are still out there (If those were taken off the market it'd really fix the economy).

#107 dmaul1114   Banned Banned   24688 Posts   Joined 14.1 Years Ago  

dmaul1114

Posted 02 May 2011 - 11:56 PM

Sure, but having taken out Bin Laden gives him a retort to such critiques about Qaddafi that he didn't have before.

Plus he can pin that on NATO and the UN resolution not given the authority to take out Qaddafi etc., and say that getting Bin Laden shows he'll act when their is justification to take someone out etc.

So it just gives him more leverage in deflecting those kind of attacks.

Gas prices are already projected to start falling again in a month or so, so I don't see that being a huge issue. It's more the overall instability in the middle east that's worrying investor, than it is Libya specifically on their own as they don't ahve a huge chunk of the world oil supply, and hardly any (if any) comes to the US as they mostly export to Europe.

#108 Feeding the Abscess   CAGiversary! CAGiversary!   3251 Posts   Joined 9.6 Years Ago  

Feeding the Abscess

Posted 03 May 2011 - 12:43 AM

Just have to agree to disagree.

I strongly disagree with much of how we intervened for sure. But I disagree that you can ignore responding militarily to attacks on US soil, US embassies etc.

I do agree we should stop other militaristic interventions around the world though. I don't see it as our place to have invaded Iraq, or to be involved in Libya currently.

But when you have terrorist attack, you have to respond IMO. Though again our response has been horribly misguied IMO. For instance, I think a combination of bombing and diplomacy could have got the Taliban out of Afghanistan and had a new Aghani government rise up that's no less dysfunctional than the one in place now. And of course we never should have been in Iraq.


You can't respond to an attack on US soil by a non-government entity with tanks and planes and large numbers of ground troops. I offered a solution to deal with those who attacked us.

A "letter of marque and reprisal" would involve permission to cross an international border to effect a reprisal (take some action against an attack or injury) authorized by an issuing jurisdiction to conduct reprisal operations outside its borders. In plain terms, a small task force to arrest those responsible for their actions - a police action.

Bombing the Taliban would have driven them out? We bombed them as it was. You used softer language to advocate instigating a war against a nation that did not attack us. Using such language may be more palatable to us in America, but it makes no difference to the people who have family members killed in a bombing under the guise of retaliation. Retaliation for something those people had nothing to with.

#109 KingBroly   CAG Club Nintendo CAGiversary!   15248 Posts   Joined 12.0 Years Ago  

KingBroly

Posted 03 May 2011 - 01:05 AM

Sure, but having taken out Bin Laden gives him a retort to such critiques about Qaddafi that he didn't have before.

Plus he can pin that on NATO and the UN resolution not given the authority to take out Qaddafi etc., and say that getting Bin Laden shows he'll act when their is justification to take someone out etc.

So it just gives him more leverage in deflecting those kind of attacks.

Gas prices are already projected to start falling again in a month or so, so I don't see that being a huge issue. It's more the overall instability in the middle east that's worrying investor, than it is Libya specifically on their own as they don't ahve a huge chunk of the world oil supply, and hardly any (if any) comes to the US as they mostly export to Europe.


Americans won't care come election time though. They care about the here and now. What that is when election time comes won't be this. While he can use Bin Laden as a talking point, having him dead doesn't help the economy, which will most likely be the key issue then. Doing one thing, while great, doesn't change the fact that he is perceived to be weak on national security, and when election time comes, that perception will still be there, in large part due to the continuing conflict in Libya and his apparent inaction.

Gas prices have gone up on average about a cent a day for roughly 2 months, so to say they'll start falling 'in a month or so' doesn't tell me how much and for how long? We all know how volatile the Middle East is. Whenever something happens over there, whether or not oil is there, prices do shoot up very quickly.

But who knows? Maybe the Seals will take out Qaddafi as well. But I doubt it somehow.

#110 dohdough   Sum Dum Guy CAGiversary!   6854 Posts   Joined 9.6 Years Ago  

Posted 03 May 2011 - 01:25 AM

I have a hypothetical for you guys:

How would you feel if one day, Iraq demanded the extradition of Cheney/Rumsfeld for war crimes and took covert action without permission of the US government.

*I know, it's one of my wet dreams...LOLZ

#111 nasum   CAGiversary! CAGiversary!   3480 Posts   Joined 14.7 Years Ago  

Posted 03 May 2011 - 01:45 AM

Dear dohdough and knoell,

You both make many very good points and I personally find both of your insights helpful in understanding this whole situation. Thank you for that.

When people argue, it's almost never a case of one side being all right and the other all wrong. Please accept the merits of each other's points and have a cordial debate rather than all this bickering. I believe that you can state your facts and opinions without letting too much of your emotions get wrapped up in between the lines.

But anyway, I am definitely encouraged to find thinkers on this site, and it's the reason I prefer these forums over many others. God bless you both. :)


Shut the Fuck up donny, you're out of your element!

While assassinating OBL (surely laying the ground work for another nobel peace prize, jesus Fuck that makes me mad...) doesn't help the economy TODAY, what it does is lift a bit of that fear that the general population had. So maybe they start to think things aren't so bad and they go see UB at work and buy some stuff. Who knows, if S/11 was the impetus for collapse (or so they'd have us know) perhaps this will be the spur to recovery.

#112 RedvsBlue  

RedvsBlue

Posted 03 May 2011 - 01:50 AM

I have a hypothetical for you guys:

How would you feel if one day, Iraq demanded the extradition of Cheney/Rumsfeld for war crimes and took covert action without permission of the US government.

*I know, it's one of my wet dreams...LOLZ


Not a fair comparison as Cheney and Rumsfeld are government officials, OBL was not. Now you could make a Saddam comparison I suppose but terrorist leaders are government officials.

#113 Clak   Made of star stuff. CAGiversary!   8079 Posts   Joined 9.9 Years Ago  

Posted 03 May 2011 - 02:04 AM

So, who else thinks that if this had happened under Bush's presidency that there would have been no question from the right of whether it was really Bin Laden?

http://news.yahoo.co...t-sea-a-mistake

#114 Magus8472   The Sudden Stop CAGiversary!   1408 Posts   Joined 12.3 Years Ago  

Magus8472

Posted 03 May 2011 - 02:07 AM

To authorize the President of the United States to issue letters of marque and reprisal with respect to certain acts of air piracy upon the United States on September 11, 2001, and other similar acts of war planned for the future.


I thought Privateer was an awesome game too, but this sounds like an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power to me.

But hey, I suppose hiring pirates to do the its dirty work would do wonders for the United States' global image.

#115 IRHari   COME ON! CAGiversary!   3815 Posts   Joined 10.7 Years Ago  

Posted 03 May 2011 - 02:18 AM

So, who else thinks that if this had happened under Bush's presidency that there would have been no question from the right of whether it was really Bin Laden?

http://news.yahoo.co....-sea-a-mistake


I think the left would have wanted to see proof. But I don't think it makes much sense to doubt he was actually killed, regardless of who was President. To pretend he was killed then have him come out with some video or interview a few months later would be disastrous for any President.

But let's be clear, I don't think the right doubts the fact that he was killed. I think they consider it 'political correctness' to give bin Laden a Muslim burial.

To be honest, I don't understand how Obama can say bin Laden didn't represent the faith then give him a 'proper Muslim burial'.

#116 Clak   Made of star stuff. CAGiversary!   8079 Posts   Joined 9.9 Years Ago  

Posted 03 May 2011 - 02:29 AM

I think the left would have wanted to see proof. But I don't think it makes much sense to doubt he was actually killed, regardless of who was President. To pretend he was killed then have him come out with some video or interview a few months later would be disastrous for any President.

There is a 2Pac joke in there somewhere...:rofl:

I really don't think there would have been much of a call for proof from the left really.

#117 Feeding the Abscess   CAGiversary! CAGiversary!   3251 Posts   Joined 9.6 Years Ago  

Feeding the Abscess

Posted 03 May 2011 - 04:36 AM

I thought Privateer was an awesome game too, but this sounds like an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power to me.

But hey, I suppose hiring pirates to do the its dirty work would do wonders for the United States' global image.


Article 1, Section 8:

... To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal ...

So it's clearly constitutional. Now, ideally, there would be diplomacy work undertaken with the country the aggressors were located in before this would need to take place, so even this could be avoided (as dohdough pointed out, it would be a disaster to unilaterally run around the world as though we owned it). But even so, this course of action would be a vast improvement over simply invading nations at will, bombing countries that don't toe the line for us, or assassinating individuals without putting them on trial.

It's also cute for you to attempt to question the constitutionality of an action when you felt the sense of the Senate vote in March was sufficient for starting a war in Libya.

#118 Feeding the Abscess   CAGiversary! CAGiversary!   3251 Posts   Joined 9.6 Years Ago  

Feeding the Abscess

Posted 03 May 2011 - 04:55 AM

I've seen Scheuer on the tv a lot lately. I think I remember him saying that Osama needed to execute an attack on Americans in order to get the US government to enact the policies Scheuer wants.


Scheuer's hawkish, but he's still non-interventionist; similar to Pat Buchanan. Also like Buchanan, he tends to speak from an analyst's point of view, rather than from his own personal perspective. His personal perspective is more pronounced at non-intervention.com.

EDIT: By the way, why hasn't anyone brought up that we assassinated someone without putting them on trial, let alone bringing formal charges against them? dohdough touched on this earlier, I'm taking it a step further.

#119 Magus8472   The Sudden Stop CAGiversary!   1408 Posts   Joined 12.3 Years Ago  

Magus8472

Posted 03 May 2011 - 06:01 AM

Article 1, Section 8: [. . .]

So it's clearly constitutional.


Article I, section 8 is the enumerated powers of Congress. So it's constitutional for Congress to do it, but not to delegate it to the executive branch. Which is what that bill, you know, does. By your logic, Congress could pass a statute allowing the President to declare war.

And I still can't abide the idea that running around the world hiring local thugs to enforce our foreign policy is how the United States should behave, even if it is politically sensitive about it.

#120 Feeding the Abscess   CAGiversary! CAGiversary!   3251 Posts   Joined 9.6 Years Ago  

Feeding the Abscess

Posted 03 May 2011 - 06:18 AM

Article I, section 8 is the enumerated powers of Congress. So it's constitutional for Congress to do it, but not to delegate it to the executive branch. Which is what that bill, you know, does. By your logic, Congress could pass a statute allowing the President to declare war.

And I still can't abide the idea that running around the world hiring local thugs to enforce our foreign policy is how the United States should behave, even if it is politically sensitive about it.


The text I offered is the exact text of a bill offered after September 11, 2001, as an alternative to the outright warmongering that was going on at the time. There also wasn't even an official investigation into who was behind 9/11 at that time, so clear action under that guise was elusive.

Even in this thread, I offered it as an alternative to warmongering, and in later posts referenced only the act of passing a letter, not the exact text from the 2001 bill. Also cute that you keep referencing thugs, when you could just as easily hire local police force. Arresting aggressors not associated with a country = bad foreign policy, bombing countries that are no threat to our national security = good foreign policy. Good job.

But really, I don't know why you're bothering. You were trolling for the war in Libya, did something change?

Edited by Feeding the Abscess, 03 May 2011 - 06:33 AM.