You're in charge

Status
Not open for further replies.
Rich is probably the most lucid poster here. Just a question, exactly WHO would Congress declare war on? Under Internarional Law, a formal declaration of war must be against a political entity recognized as a nation-state. The Constitution of the United States was drawn up when that was already the common meaning of the law.

What the Constitution allows is the use of punitive expeditions against pirates, bandits, and brigands. This has been used several times. Tripoli, Mexico, the Phillipines, Nicaragua, and so on. Terrorists have no international standing as other than brigands. Accordingly, they would be treated as such, and operations against them fall into the Punitive Expedition catagory.

I'm all for Mr. Lucibella's plan. I am also a supporter of "mirror import/export law". It won't, however, solve the rants that all too many seem to feel are imporatnt, if only to themselves.
 
JuanCarlos

No prob. (we need a smilie for tongue-in-cheek)

And if I am ever guilty of jingoism or xenophobia hit me w/ all burners. :eek:

PS I think King George the II sounds better, but it's already been done.
 
Just as long as we don't declare war on souds (remember them? the hijackers?). Lets see, kidnap 2 israelies & see what happens, yet umpteen Souds ram some planes and we invade...Afghanistan! And what ever connected OBL & the taliban to 9/11 anyway? I'd heard some reasonable sounding chatter/speculation that ole Osama may have been dead since late '01 anyway (remember his dialysis-requiring condition? Imagine dragging one of THOSE machines around from cave to cave. Between the gov't story and speculation, I could go either way.) Heck, I'd even heard about some pakistani newspaper that interviewed him after 9/11 in which he denied responsiblity for the attacks (but not the uss cole??)...take that with a grain of salt but still.

But wait, the tv said so, so it MUST be true...:D
 
I basically agree with Rich, Bluesman and Busterbury on most points. I would declare war, but it would be Saudi Arabia first. Make no mistake, they are the main ones against us and the main country fueling most of the terrorist groups. After them comes Iran. I would officially declare war on the countries that support the groups, because you can't officially declare war on groups that have no bonafide national allegiance.

But, the main thing with this "war" is we are trying to use force to combat ideas. Most of the Islamic groups are driven by ideas, and no amount of force is going to change that. The more we respond with military might, the more they hate us and rise up. The ideas need to be changed somehow. We are never going to defeat these groups with strictly military power. Their leaders that are killed just become martyrs and more kids rise up in their place to continue the struggle. The West is Satanic to them and their goal is to force everyone else to convert to their beliefs. Their beliefs have to be changed somehow before there will be any progress, and I don't see any way to change people's beliefs.

Also, pulling out now and completely leaving the Middle East is not going to work. I used to be all for that, thinking if we left them alone, they'd reciprocate. However, they are coming for us now, and nothing is going to change that. We need to strike them over there before they begin striking over here more and more.
 
I can't see her face, but ol' Yasser seemed to be doing SOMETHING right! Always figured Mrs. Arafat looked like Madeleine Albright
Click to expand...


:eek: No wonder he was so looking forward to the 72 virgins! I am intrigued by your questions badbob - can you give me a link to the story of the nsa documents showing that the gulf of tonkin was a lie?

And forgot to mention before, +1, also agree with Rich.
 
I don't remember where, but I'd heard that the tonkin gulf resolution was based on a lie also...and for some dad gum reason, I'm just inclined to believe it.

(something to the effect that the top brass knew that our ship hadn't been hit or somesuch...it was a loooong time ago)
 
As far as the Tonkin Gulf Resolution goes, it's quite possible that the NSA provided tapes that everyone refers to as proof of a lie were unknown to the pols, the people, or the military.

As we found out in the 9/11 scenario, intelligence agencies are loathe to share information with each other. They are also so compartmented that they miss sharing information within each other. This is neither good nor bad. There is a LOT of world out there, so much that it has to be separated into sections. The input to each section is huge. If you were to include all of the analysis in each days input, nothing would ever be accomplished.

As usually happens, one agency will have a transcript of an intercept, and either sit on it in hopes of garnering budget when it's revealed, or simply doesn't recognize it's importance until events are such that revealing the information would have a negative effect.

There is also the simple fact that intercepts are just that, intercepts. They provide a snap-shot only of a conversation. It may take days, months, or years before hind-sight allows their importance to show through.

I don't like the way it works, but I understand the limitations that massiva amounts of raw data impose upon those charged with collating the information.

I am also finding it hard to believe the opinion of some that the government, composed of people just like us, has some grand plan. The fact that you are a government employee doesn't make you some participant in a world-wide conspiracy. Only the senior tin-foilers think that.

It's also ludicrous to employ terms like "King this or that". Listen to your own statements about "what you'd do", and see how you as the average citizen would react to the implementation of some of these ideas. You wail about the "loss of freedoms", yet would act with such draconian methods that Martial Law would be the only way to accomplish them. This is still a Republic, and with it comes the idea of representative government. How many of these "big idea" and "we shouldn't allow" people have ever been elected to anything after grade school? Or even attempted to help in an election?

I do not wish to be a politician, my choice. However, I donate to the pols that I wish to see elected. I support them with my time, as well. Instead of ranting and raving about big lies and corrupt politicians who would be king, I put time into preventing this and modifying the system. We need more people to help, not buy Reynolds Wrap.
 
Read Body of Secrets: Anatomy of the Ultra-Secret National Security Agency by James Bamford. It is the history of the NSA, how it developed over time, and its place in historical events. Truly interesting reading because it give the story behind the story. It covers the Tonkin Gulf, Bay of Pigs, Vietnam War, the Tet Offensive, the Pueblo, and the USS Liberty fiasco. It talks about intercept of phone calls, Echelon, and a host of other surveillence programs. He gives a pretty good explanation for the USS Liberty attack and provides background reasons for what the US did or did not do. It is a long but interesting read because of the NSA unique spot in history.
 
While I don't know much to do differently, I would probably have to start with overhauling the public education system. Teach responsiblity. Teach manners. Balancing checkbooks. Teach them to doubt more. Teach them to find answers themselves. To accept responsiblity for their actions. Teach them to pick their battles. To stand up when they know they're right. To stand down when they think they're wrong. To call B.S. To give good handshakes. To comprimise. To understand and RELY on the fact that "what goes around, comes around".

If this was done, SURELY the next crop of govenors & politicians would be better than what it is/has been. I believe if these lesson plans were implemented, the rest would follow.
 
Why, then, are they being afforded protection under the Geneva convention?
Click to expand...

I sincerely hope that we still extend some rights to the accused until they are given a fair trial and convicted. Once convicted, hang 'em. But accused does not equal guilty in this country. At least it's not supposed to.
 
Who said they were?? Everything i've heard with relation to terrorists and the geneva conventions were that they should receive the protections. If for no other reason than the fact that we're better than them. Regardless if they subscribe to the conventions or not. Furthermore, who gets to decide who's a terrorist and who's not? 'Tis all relative. Better to err on the side of honor and integrity as it's a slippery slope when you don't.
 
Who said they were?? Everything i've heard with relation to terrorists and the geneva conventions were that they should receive the protections. If for no other reason than the fact that we're better than them. Regardless if they subscribe to the conventions or not. Furthermore, who gets to decide who's a terrorist and who's not? 'Tis all relative. Better to err on the side of honor and integrity as it's a slippery slope when you don't.
Click to expand...


Well, I thought I had heard that the Bush admin. had decided to grant the Gitmo detainees G.C. protection. Maybe I was mistaken.

Nevertheless, the suggestion that they deserve it seems to fly in the face of acknowledgement that they do not have international standing as some sort of army.

If we acknowledge that they are not a true nation-state or an army, then they are not worthy of the protections that the Geneva Convention gives to members of such an entity.

-azurefly
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top