I Wear Pants;929451 wrote:Ah so you'd rather play the "if we kill enough of the insurgents we win" game then I take it?

There are reasons that people in the middle east don't like us, these reasons don't excuse the terrible things these people do to their people or to US soldiers/citizens but I think it's important to establish why they do these things. It isn't because they hate our freedoms.

No it isn't. It's important to make them understand that if they don't like what we're doing, all that flying planes into buildings is going to accomplish is getting the shit bombed out of your country.

I Wear Pants;929451 wrote:Ahmadinejad and Iran probably don't like us because we propped up a brutal dictator in their country. Ahmadinejad is at least as big as an **** as the dude we propped up but it's understandable why some Iranians would not view us in a good light.

It's been 30 years. They need to get over it.

I Wear Pants;929451 wrote:Great example of how meddling in other people's affairs caused problems for us down the line.

Do you think the likelihood of terrorism is reduced by us being in the Middle East?

What about the countries who request our presence?

fish82;929540 wrote:No it isn't. It's important to make them understand that if they don't like what we're doing, all that flying planes into buildings is going to accomplish is getting the shit bombed out of your country.

All but one of the 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia. We aren't bombing the shit out of their country.

fish82;929540 wrote: It's been 30 years. They need to get over it.

Now this is an excellent argument.

fish82;929540 wrote: What about the countries who request our presence?

I don't know which countries request our presence, but it isn't our responsibility to occupy every country that does.

Cleveland Buck;929556 wrote:All but one of the 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia. We aren't bombing the **** out of their country.

Was A-Q based in Saudi, or Afghanistan? I forget. Seriously dude.....try again.

Cleveland Buck;929556 wrote:Now this is an excellent argument.

I know, right? I see you haven't been in here long enough to grasp the concept that I pretty much piss wisdom. I'm sure it'll sink in soon though.

Cleveland Buck;929556 wrote:I don't know which countries request our presence, but it isn't our responsibility to occupy every country that does.

Nor did I say it was.

fish82;929540 wrote:No it isn't. It's important to make them understand that if they don't like what we're doing, all that flying planes into buildings is going to accomplish is getting the shit bombed out of your country.



What about the countries who request our presence?

And how has that helped us at all.

I noticed you didn't answer if the likelihood of terrorism has been reduced by us being in the middle east.
Our people don't want us over there, their people don't want us there, we can't afford to be there, and we shouldn't abide by the deaths of our soldiers that comes from our being over there. We have nothing to gain by having occupational forces in the middle east.

And we gain very little if any safety from having as many bases abroad as we do.

We are not and should not be the world police. And some of you arguing that we should need to remember how you've railed against different things like TARP, healthcare, etc as being unconstitutional and yet want to support the unconstitutional use of our military to police the world.

fish82;929540 wrote:No it isn't. It's important to make them understand that if they don't like what we're doing, all that flying planes into buildings is going to accomplish is getting the shit bombed out of your country.

The problem is, their loyalty is NOT to a country, so they're not going to give a shit about that.

But guess who will. The people who had nothing to do with the attacks, but whose country we bombed anyway.

fish82;929540 wrote: It's been 30 years. They need to get over it.

You're showing a glaring lack of understanding regarding the Middle East.

30 years is nothing. 30 years to them is like last week to us. If you think they're just going get get over it because YOU think it was a long time ago ... even though you don't realize that they don't think it was long ago at all ... then that might be the epitome of naivety.

fish82;929540 wrote: What about the countries who request our presence?

Doesn't matter. Constitution grants the right of the Federal government to provide for the common (read "homeland") DEFENSE. They request our presence? Sorry, not our job. Fend for yourself. We have.

Cleveland Buck;929556 wrote:All but one of the 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia. We aren't bombing the shit out of their country.

Interesting point, but as I pointed out, it doesn't matter if we were.

Cleveland Buck;929556 wrote: I don't know which countries request our presence, but it isn't our responsibility to occupy every country that does.

It is our obligation to occupy no country if said occupation does not directly deal with the common defense of our soil.

fish82;929576 wrote:Was A-Q based in Saudi, or Afghanistan? I forget. Seriously dude.....try again.

Al-Qaeda is a nebulous entity in terms of geo-location. They can set up camp in other countries.

^^^

We keep tip-toeing around the crux of the matter. This all sounds all sweet & kumbaya-ish but our presence in the Middle East is, in fact, a matter of "Homeland" defense.

Our cushy lifestyle depends heavily upon relatively cheap foreign sources of oil.

The kings, sheiks, and dictators of the region have no issue basking in their wealth of fiat American dollars while they secretly allow their mullahs to fan the flames of hatred among their people for infidel American meddling in their internal affairs.

When we grow the intelligence and gonads to tell our left-wing environmentalist kook fringe element to "fuck off" and start capitalizing on our own abundant domestic sources of energy (oil, oil shale, natural gas, coal and nuclear) while making a concerted effort to develop economically viable "alternative" sources of energy, we are doomed to deal with the Middle East masses who still cling to memories of centuries old atrocities of the Crusades (equivalent caliphate atrocities aside of course) and their beliefs that the world should be dominated and ruled by Muslim Sharia Law.

O-Trap;929719 wrote: You're showing a glaring lack of understanding regarding the Middle East.

30 years is nothing. 30 years to them is like last week to us. If you think they're just going get get over it because YOU think it was a long time ago ... even though you don't realize that they don't think it was long ago at all ... then that might be the epitome of naivety.

I'm laughing pretty damn hard here. Yeah, I don't know jack about the Middle East. Thanks for the lesson. :rolleyes:

O-Trap;929719 wrote:Doesn't matter. Constitution grants the right of the Federal government to provide for the common (read "homeland") DEFENSE. They request our presence? Sorry, not our job. Fend for yourself. We have.

You guys are acting like I'm supporting global military presence. If you've read any of my posts over the past 3 years, you'd realize that I'm just as against us setting up camp all over the world as you are. That said, arguing against it on constitutional grounds is not a winner...sorry.

O-Trap;929719 wrote:Al-Qaeda is a nebulous entity in terms of geo-location. They can set up camp in other countries.

They are now, yeah. On 9/11/2001 they were based in Afghanistan, and had the full support of that country's government.

believer;929830 wrote:^^^

We keep tip-toeing around the crux of the matter. This all sounds all sweet & kumbaya-ish but our presence in the Middle East is, in fact, a matter of "Homeland" defense.

I wouldn't disagree that SOME presence there (for intelligence purposes) would be advantageous, but having as much of our military over there, and not here at home, would mean we're trying to focus on one example of where we've been attacked.

I'm not saying we should be joining hands with the people. Quite the opposite. I'm saying leave them ... the whole region ... to fend for themselves. Send our military to the land it was sworn to protect. It'd make it far easier to secure the borders on all sides.

believer;929830 wrote: Our cushy lifestyle depends heavily upon relatively cheap foreign sources of oil.

I'm aware. However, I don't see "providing for the common convenience" anywhere in the Constitution. As such, using our military for something other than homeland defense would be unconstitutional of the Federal government.

believer;929830 wrote:The kings, sheiks, and dictators of the region have no issue basking in their wealth of fiat American dollars while they secretly allow their mullahs to fan the flames of hatred among their people for infidel American meddling in their internal affairs.

Which would be a lot harder to do if America wasn't there.

believer;929830 wrote: When we grow the intelligence and gonads to tell our left-wing environmentalist kook fringe element to "fuck off" and start capitalizing on our own abundant domestic sources of energy (oil, oil shale, natural gas, coal and nuclear) while making a concerted effort to develop economically viable "alternative" sources of energy, we are doomed to deal with the Middle East masses who still cling to memories of centuries old atrocities of the Crusades (equivalent caliphate atrocities aside of course) and their beliefs that the world should be dominated and ruled by Muslim Sharia Law.

And if such a time arises, we do, but unless we see some country actively seeking empire (taking over other countries ... including ones outside the region), we shouldn't be there.

Come to think of it, from the outside looking in, we may seem like WE are the ones seeking empire. But we can't stop, because that would mean reducing the reach of the sacred military cow.

fish82;929832 wrote:I'm laughing pretty damn hard here. Yeah, I don't know jack about the Middle East. Thanks for the lesson. :rolleyes:

Honestly, your answer surprised me. Telling a people who have been fighting amongst themselves over thousand-year-old issues that they should get over something that happened thirty years ago would be equitable to some foreigner telling us that we should get over September 11th, because it happened ten years ago.

fish82;929832 wrote: You guys are acting like I'm supporting global military presence. If you've read any of my posts over the past 3 years, you'd realize that I'm just as against us setting up camp all over the world as you are. That said, arguing against it on constitutional grounds is not a winner...sorry.

And how might you come to that conclusion? Seems like "provide for the common defense" is pretty exclusionary to any federally sanctioned action except what is purposed for the defense of the country and its people.

Or am I reading it incorrectly?

fish82;929832 wrote: They are now, yeah. On 9/11/2001 they were based in Afghanistan, and had the full support of that country's government.

Well they're probably "based" somewhere even now. However, while they might have been supported by the government, that doesn't mean they were necessarily supported by the people living there, many of whom would be impacted by us bombing the country.

And once again, people who agree with what terrorists do aren't automatically terrorists or threats. We should certainly keep an eye on such people, but that's equitable to beating up a guy for tripping you ... and then beating up another guy for laughing at you when the first guy tripped you. The second guy might be a prick, and you might want to keep an eye on him, lest he try the same thing, but he hasn't done anything to you.

Finally, if our purpose was to go over, kill bin Laden, and come home, I would have been 100% on board. To this day, I think that would have been great. However, bin Laden is apparently dead, and his followers are scattered. We don't still need to be there.

O-Trap;929876 wrote:I'm aware. However, I don't see "providing for the common convenience" anywhere in the Constitution. As such, using our military for something other than homeland defense would be unconstitutional of the Federal government.

There is nothing in the constitution that says congress can only declare for defense purposes only. If some rouge nation is choking off the free flow of oil at market prices, shutting down the Suez Canal etc. It hurts our economy and indirectly our ability to pay for the military to defend ourselves. Congress most definitely could declare war on that nation.

In fact the declaration of war clause in the constitution was added primarily for offensive war beyond our borders. The frames wanted to make it very hard to get involved in one. If we are attacked within or borders by a nation we are at war already. FDR alluded to this in his declaration of war speech. I ask that the Congress declare that since the unprovoked and dastardly attack by Japan on Sunday, December 7, 1941, a state of war has existed between the United States and the Japanese Empire . Congress declaring it was merely stating the obvious. I am not saying we should not declare war when attacked inside our borders. We should. Just making a point as to its purpose.

No, Congress declaring it was not a mere formality. Just because FDR said we were already in a state of war does not mean that constitutionally at war. He said that because it makes for a compelling speech not because it was constitutionally correct.

It's disturbing to me that you're okay with invading and bombing countries merely if they decided not to trade with us. Do countries have the same right to do that to us? Someone inconveniencing us economically doesn't give us the right to kill a bunch of people. We have no rights to the goods or services or resources of anyone who doesn't want to trade with us and acquiring these things through force is absolutely wrong.

I Wear Pants;930015 wrote:No, Congress declaring it was not a mere formality. Just because FDR said we were already in a state of war does not mean that constitutionally at war. He said that because it makes for a compelling speech not because it was constitutionally correct.

Like I said congress should declare war in all cases. If Mexico invades the US and congress does not formally declare war, is the US in a state of war?

I Wear Pants;930015 wrote:It's disturbing to me that you're okay with invading and bombing countries merely if they decided not to trade with us.

Did I say this? All I said was there is nothing in the constitution saying congress could not declare offensively. Now under the most extreme cases of economic warfare I could support offensive military action.

I Wear Pants;930015 wrote:Do countries have the same right to do that to us?

Sure they do. If we are strangling a nation economically, should they just lay down and die? And you guys have been running for how long now telling us they hate us cause we do this type of stuff.

I Wear Pants;930015 wrote:Someone inconveniencing us economically doesn't give us the right to kill a bunch of people. We have no rights to the goods or services or resources of anyone who doesn't want to trade with us and acquiring these things through force is absolutely wrong.

LOL! I am not talking about economic inconveniece. Only the most extreme cases. Congress alone has the ability to determine when that line is crossed.

O-Trap;929876 wrote:Well they're probably "based" somewhere even now. However, while they might have been supported by the government, that doesn't mean they were necessarily supported by the people living there, many of whom would be impacted by us bombing the country.

I'm sure there were many Japanese who didn't support the Emperor, and many Germans who despised the Fuhrer, yet were terribly impacted by our actions in WWII. If negative impact on the civilian population eliminated any and all instances of just war on our part, then it would seem to leave room for the unjust and brutal regimes to inflict even greater casualties on civilians both here and elsewhere.

We don't still need to be there

That's a different argument from "We shouldn't have been there in the first place", which some like to make.

majorspark;929916 wrote:There is nothing in the constitution that says congress can only declare for defense purposes only.

In all fairness, that could easily be said to be because the Constitution was meant to dictate what the Federal governnment could do ... not what it could not do, which would be virtually impossible to do at one given time in history.

If I sat down with one of my boys at the local youth center and told him, "Jordan, this is what you can do tonight," and I catch him doing something else because I didn't make a list of what he couldn't do, he would still be in error, because even though I didn't give him a list of what he couldn't do, I gave him a list limiting what he could do, meaning anything outside that list is something he ought not do.

The same can be said in this case. The Constitution states what the Federal government was created and is intended to do. As such, that is the limit of what it is supposed to be able to do.

majorspark;929916 wrote:If some rouge nation is choking off the free flow of oil at market prices, shutting down the Suez Canal etc. It hurts our economy and indirectly our ability to pay for the military to defend ourselves. Congress most definitely could declare war on that nation.

I honestly can't agree with this. How would that go?

Nation X: "Sorry. Canal is closed."
Nation Y: "But we need it."
Nation X: "That's unfortunate, but it is our canal, so whether you need it or not, you have no right to claim it."
Nation Y: "Well, then we're just going to have to declare war on you until you let us use your land for our benefit."

If it's not ours, we don't have a claim to it. Now, I can sympathize with the need of course, but only because our nation has made the mistake of allowing itself to become too needy of things which it has no claim to. This idea that we are allowed to take from other countries when they're not playing by our rules is unjust.

Now, if the restriction was indicated to be an action of aggression (a modern-day "siege" I suppose), I might be persuaded otherwise, because the action, though not on our soil, was still hostile toward our people.

majorspark;929916 wrote:In fact the declaration of war clause in the constitution was added primarily for offensive war beyond our borders. The frames wanted to make it very hard to get involved in one. If we are attacked within or borders by a nation we are at war already. FDR alluded to this in his declaration of war speech. I ask that the Congress declare that since the unprovoked and dastardly attack by Japan on Sunday, December 7, 1941, a state of war has existed between the United States and the Japanese Empire . Congress declaring it was merely stating the obvious. I am not saying we should not declare war when attacked inside our borders. We should. Just making a point as to its purpose.

I would say it was more enacting what everyone knew was coming as opposed to stating the obvious as it already was. A state of war ... actions of war ... had indeed already existed. As such, FDR would have been in folly to not declare, because it was still very necessary.

Even still, I don't think we can merely take a president's address as unadulterated truth, but that's aside from the point, I suppose.

majorspark;930126 wrote:Like I said congress should declare war in all cases. If Mexico invades the US and congress does not formally declare war, is the US in a state of war?

Not officially, but you may as well act like it, because a declaration ought to come shortly thereafter.

If no declaration is ever made, then no.

majorspark;930126 wrote:Did I say this? All I said was there is nothing in the constitution saying congress could not declare offensively. Now under the most extreme cases of economic warfare I could support offensive military action.

That is, again, because the Constitution lays out what the Federal government is limited to doing, and not what it is prohibited from doing. It states what it is allowed to do, which under Aristotelian logic would indicate that what is not mentioned is what it is not allowed to do.

majorspark;930126 wrote: Sure they do. If we are strangling a nation economically, should they just lay down and die?

What they do is up to them. If we are within our rights as a country, and a nation attacks us for that, then we ought to declare formal war against said nation.

majorspark;930126 wrote:And you guys have been running for how long now telling us they hate us cause we do this type of stuff.

It would seem that way, as we are being attacked more now than we were when our economy was "booming." If their hatred was because of our freedom and prosperity, one would think they would have attacked more frequently then. However, the number of attacks correlate more closely with our involvement over there than they do with our times of freedom and/or prosperity.

majorspark;930126 wrote:Congress alone has the ability to determine when that line is crossed.

And as far as I know, they have yet to make a formal declaration against the nations we're in.

jhay78;930180 wrote:I'm sure there were many Japanese who didn't support the Emperor, and many Germans who despised the Fuhrer, yet were terribly impacted by our actions in WWII.

One does have to acknowledge a difference in circumstance when a declaration of war has been made, to be fair. Also, at least at that point the leaders were ordering the attackers/adversaries. In this case it was a religious sect that, while probably cheered by the leaders of the respective countries, was not commissioned by the leaders of the respective countries (that we know of). If that was found to be the case, then it opens a whole new scenario.

jhay78;930180 wrote:If negative impact on the civilian population eliminated any and all instances of just war on our part, then it would seem to leave room for the unjust and brutal regimes to inflict even greater casualties on civilians both here and elsewhere.

Brutal regimes are a reality of the world, but it is not our responsibility to occupy a sovereign nation for the purpose of ousting a leader who we deem "brutal" enough. (A) We are without the right to do so, and (B) it leaves far too much up to the subjectivity of the people in office at the time.

jhay78;930180 wrote:That's a different argument from "We shouldn't have been there in the first place", which some like to make.

Sure. I agree that we should have gone into Afghanistan (not bombed, occupied for years on end, or rebuilt) for the purpose of finding and taking out bin Laden. That's it, though.

The specific use of the word "war" is crucial. it triggers many other authorities and powers to take place. Many military actions can and do occur without them being declared war so that those powers and authorities don't come into play.

The defense of our nation does include military action but not necessarily war.

Con_Alma;930227 wrote:The specific use of the word "war" is crucial. it triggers many other authorities and powers to take place. Many military actions can and do occur without them being declared war so that those powers and authorities don't come into play.

The defense of our nation does include military action but not necessarily war.

That's fair, but the action still needs to be "for the common defense" and not "for the economic convenience" or "for the spread of a style of government." I agree with you, though.

O-Trap;930234 wrote:That's fair, but the action still needs to be "for the common defense" and not "for the economic convenience" or "for the spread of a style of government." I agree with you, though.

I don't know how else state the defense of our nation other than saying the defense of our nation. Anything else wouldn't be the defense of our nation.

Con_Alma;930242 wrote:I don't know how else state the defense of our nation other than saying the defense of our nation. Anything else wouldn't be the defense of our nation.

Wasn't really rebutting you as much as I was stressing that not all military action is defense, by default.

I don't know if it's just me, but I run into a lot of people who seem to think military automatically equals defense. That's all.

O-Trap;930255 wrote:Wasn't really rebutting you ....

Nor I you. Just kind of likeed my repartee which repeated itself yet still had meaning.

O-Trap;930255 wrote:...

I don't know if it's just me, but I run into a lot of people who seem to think military automatically equals defense. That's all.

Maybe it's because the military functions under the defense department!

Imagine if we still had a Secretary of War!!

Con_Alma;930263 wrote:Maybe it's because the military functions under the defense department!

Imagine if we still had a Secretary of War!!

Very well could be, but that certainly doesn't mean everything the military does is defensive.

Also, "Secretary of War" sounds like the most badass position in the Federal government. If Chuck Norris was a politician ...

Con_Alma;930263 wrote:...

Imagine if we still had a Secretary of War!!

Then people would think everything the military does would be an act of war!!! Yikes.

O-Trap;930274 wrote:Very well could be, but that certainly doesn't mean everything the military does is defensive.

....

..certainly not those natural disaster efforts they assist in afterwards.

O-Trap;930274 wrote:...

Also, "Secretary of War" sounds like the most badass position in the Federal government. If Chuck Norris was a politician ...

Yeah, they finally came to their senses and got rid of that title. Imagine the public outcry every time it was reported that the Pres was consulting with his Secretary of War!

Quick poll... Who are you in favor of for the nomination and why? (Please note if your party affiliation if any)

Too early for me yet.

Don't know.

Soon though!