Posted on 07/30/2008 4:27:52 PM PDT by rightwinghour
I watched Ron Paul on Glenn Beck today and as usual I was amazed that he is just about the only politician in Washington talking about the real issues. Neither McCain nor Obama will talk about monetary policy. They are scared to, because they know the system we have is unconstitutional and that the only way to fix things is to go back to constitutional money. But that would hurt, so it wouldn't be prudent to bring it up...
I said they attacked us because of money, which destroys your point. Congrats.
I have to disagree with you there. While I support RP drafting the bill to give the President Letters of Marque and Reprisal, Jefferson did in fact authorize the United States Marine Corps to engage the Barbary states, hence the Marine Hymn verse "...to the shores of Tripoli".
Anyone who does see that is a crackhead. I don't "wish" Hitler had taken over the world, I believe he could not have possibly done it. So the next time you claim I believe otherwise, you're nothing but a liar.
It wouldn't be a US occupation, but it would be an Israeli one, which would be given the green light by our government. Israel looks to us for permission to do alot of things. They give up alot of sovereignty to us because we helped build up their military and we give them so much aid all the time. The location of Palestine is rather beside the point, which is that Pelosi has supported military interventions in the past.
This doesn't make any sense. Are you talking about land seized in the '67 war? I'm not aware of the Israelis asking permission to go to war against four hostile nations that had been threatening Israel since its founding. It fact they sunk one our ships (the USS Liberty) during the war in what Israel contends to this day was a case of mistaken identity.
What occupation are you referring to?
What country are they occupying?
They've pulled back completely from Gaza and considerabaly from the West Bank. Did you not catch the news that Hamas and Fatah are running the show in the disputed territories, and that they're killing each other for control?
The location of Palestine is rather beside the point...
It's a HUGE point. Where do you consider Palestine to be? Is is all of greater Israel, like Hamas believes, or is it the West Bank and Gaza?
It sounds like a little more background research in this area is warranted on your part.
I'm sorry, it's been so long since I posted that. She has, in the past supported Israel's occupation of Palestine. In restrospect, perhaps that does not qualify as a US military occupation
It's a HUGE point. Where do you consider Palestine to be? Is is all of greater Israel, like Hamas believes, or is it the West Bank and Gaza? It sounds like a little more background research in this area is warranted on your part.
I agree I should not have included her support of Israeli occupation of Palestine as a support of US intervention, although the location of Palestine still would not have been relevant to the point that Pelosi has supported military interventions in other nations in the past.
Okay, let's put Pelosi aside for a moment.
What country is Israel occupying?
It seems a bit silly to put Pelosi aside, when she is the very subject I was talking about. What is your point anyway?
Well, I'm actually trying to draw out your point about grouping the Israeli-Arab conflict with Kosovo and Bosnia.
Let me try this; do you understand that Palestine is not a country, and that the disputed territories are regions that have been under numerous control in the past 100 years (Ottomans, British, Jordanians, Egypt, Israelis, etc). What Israel is doing is not akin to the Nazis in Poland, the Soviets in Afghanistan, or, as J Carter likes to say, "apartheid" in South Africa.
I've heard a lot of Ron Paul supporters drone on about the evil Israelis oppressing the poor Palestinians, but I've also heard some side with Israel, but make the case that ending Israels's foreign aid in that it allows Israel to subsidize its quasi socialist government. What type of RP supporter are you?
Just a word of warning, most people on FR will be open to the idea of ending foreign aid, but Israel is still the good guy around here (not always, but with 95% of members). Freepers aren't going to appreciate it (me included) if you start going around and talking about the brutal and illegal occupation of Palestine by the Zionist criminals or something along those lines.
Some Ron Paul supporters around here (there are some) will go to bat for you, but not if you start regurgitating Al-Jazeera talking points about the Israelis.
What you need to understand is that you are looking for a fight where there isn't one. You are trying to "draw out" something that simply isn't there, especially since I dropped the Israeli/Palestine part of the point. If you are a big supporter of Israel, that's fine, but don't start preaching to me about it. With that said, I'm not one of those who would regurgitate Al Jazeera talking points. I just don't believe in foreign aid.
No, I said that there would be very little and we wouldn't be missing much, and 700m is indeed very sneezable. Jeez, just ONE Las Vegas resort costs that! You fail to understand that the reason why there is little foreign investment in Cuba is because foreign investors are rightfully paranoid that Castro will decide to nationalize their business at a moment's notice. That's what dictators do! There is no rules of law to protect the investors business! You are very naieve in not getting this point.
While they don't have the best economies in the world, you need to realize that the sanctions we impose against these countries are a major reason why you see their economies in a shambles.
"Don't have the best economies in the world? Ha! That's an understatement! Let's face it, they really SUCK! But I have to laugh when you concede my point but then say that it is our fault. The self-flagellation of the blame America first crowd never ends. You are truly a naieve idiot. Their economies already sucked before any sanctions were imposed!
Some are worse than others, but you cannot make a blanket statement and separate the two and simply say dictatorships economies are inherently in shambles.
Oh yes I can! And as compared to countries with democratic free market cpaitalism, they are in shambles.
Your example of Zimbabwe is an equally asinine one. For years, many countries have been imposing sanctions against Zimbabwe, and Bush just recently strengthened ours against them.
You are putting the cart before the horse here. The dictator seized and nationalized the assets of private citizens and/or killed many citizens or another nasty dictator type stuff BEFORE the sanctions. You would just let the dictator get away with all this nastiness and not do anything.
So, to sum up, you have not established that a non interventionist foreign policy could not foster trade with a dictatorship.
I said, Trade with what? Tobacco and sugar cane? In the case of Cuba, that's all they have to offer. Castro seized all the assets when he took power. The risk of nationalization is too great for any serious foreign investment. Zimbabwe proved this once again when they seized the white-owned farms.
Furthermore, you still haven't answered the question: is it your opinion that hundreds of thousands of people have to die and the world must view us as a bully in order for trade relations to exist?
No, that's a strawman! And i'm still waiting for your math about US casualties adding up to a million, down from your already conceded number of "literally millions". Besides, who cares how the world sees us? We're not running for a congeniality contest. We kill mass-murdering dictators because it's the right thing to do and those other people don't have the stomach for it, that's why they have a tendency to get subjugated by them.
Perhaps you just didn't read. They not only passed of the details of the invasion, they passed off everything to the president. The how, when, where, and why, all of it. This is exactly the OPPOSITE of what the Framers wanted for the executive, except perhaps the monarchist Alexander Hamilton. There's no weakness in my rebuttal, you just simply refuse to recognize a difference.
No it's not. There is no difference. You just refuse to accept the FACT that the Congress DID INDEED authorize the military to offensively attack Iraq. Give up, you are looking really idiotic here and grasping at straws.
Yeah, we held a line in Korea, and that is your measure of success. The fact is that the war is still not officially over. The pull back down the peninsula was the longest retreat in American history. The best we accomplished there was a strategic and tactical stalemate.
But you said we wern't very successful. Well, a tie in this case is very successful in that S. Korea is a great trading partner, and is easily MUCH better than a trading partner of North Korea and it's economic systemic shambles.
And yeah, Vietnam still counts, because you fail to realize that if we had declared war, we would not have pulled out, especially since we were winning.
Oh come on! The democrats clearly would have pulled out if we had declared war or not!
The no fly zones were not authorized by the UN, and that is a fact.
Oh this is rich. So now you actually are concerned with UN resolutions, but only some of them to pick and choose from, because you sure don't care about the other ones authorizing use of force against Saddam. Those don't count.
Whether or not Saddam believed they were legal and abided by them at any time does not negate that fact.
So what? Your argument is so weak here. It still remains that Saddam himself thought they were legal for many years and then violated them.
And yes, it is no business of ours to get involved in another country's problems. I've already shown that your assumption of economic ruin is faulty because sanctions always exacerbate the conditions.
You have not shown that cause and effect. You are assuming that. My position is that the shambles already existed and would naturally continue in a death spiral.
And is it your assumption that a resistance will last a long time and the economic conditions will therefore remain in a bad state because of that?
Yes. people with no guns have little chance against people with guns, and in the rare case of being a successful rOesistance, it takes a long time, naturally. Shopkeepers will not open their stores when there is civil unrest in the streets.
Nope, like I said before, I used the example of the American Revolution because such a low percentage of our population actually got involved and we still succeeded. I've never argued that success of resistance movements is commonplace. Stop lying.
No, you are waffling on your argument because I said that we should take out the dictators, you said they are on their own and that the citizens should take up resistance instead. I said that there is little chance of their success and that, in total, there would be less bloodshed if we went in and took him out, instead of a protracted, under-armed resistance movement. You then got weak and said..well, it wasn't that many Colonists that took up resistance and won. But that is besdies the point, their chances of success, as buttressed by history is slim. Doesn't matter if it was a few or a lot, their chances are still slim. You refuse to concede this point. Face it, you made an erroneous claim with evidence that has proven to be an extremely rare case.
Well, Mr. History, perhaps you could enlighten me as to how Hitler came to power to begin with. What made conditions so favorable toward him and his ideas in the 30's?
There you go again with the misdirection of the argument. The point was that little countries with dictators can become big problems if you don't nip them in the bud, and you paulites don't want to nip anything. How Hitler got there is besides the point and is not germane to this argument and is misdirection. You lost this one too. Demolishment continues.
Hopefully you remember my main contention this whole time has been that we need a foreign policy of non interventionism, and that our interventions abroad have caused most of our problems with other nations.
I have clearly debunked this claim, yet you keep spouting such nonsense.
Non interventionism provides opportunities in trade, and it fosters peace between ourselves and other nations.
Yea, if want go around with rose colored blinders on! LOL! This is so naive and I have debunked this also. Dictators don't play by civilized rules. They mass murder their opponents and seize domestic and foreign assets which kills further investment and kills the economy. Why can't you accept this?
If this type of foreign policy had been used toward the middle east and the rest of the world, there would have been no threat of Saddam sending somebody in with a dirty bomb.
Because we support Israel and we are not true believers of the faith aOnd we don't like it when dictators invade other countries (Kuwait) and they are so apt to do! Come on, wake up! You Paulites need to stop enabling these dictators. You assume they play by civilized rules. They don't.
Also, our security of the border would be top notch, since our military wouldn't be spread out in 130 countries instead of protecting the homeland from enemies foreign and domestic. You play defense at the border while the dictator amasses power and land and weapons. Bad strategy, IMO. And history backs me up.
Your contention has been that we have to go over there before they come over here, but you never ask why they want to come over here.
Sure I do, they hate Israel, they hate us Christians, they hate our democratic system, they hate our woman's freedoms, they hate our decadent society, etc, etc. It has little to do with our foreign policy. Wake up.
""Under one of the new laws, food retailers or distributors caught skirting government-imposed price controls or hoarding products will be punished with up to six years in prison. Business owners who refuse to produce, import, transport or sell "items of basic necessity" can face up to 10 years in jail. The decree allows the government to "restrict or prohibit the import, export, distribution, exchange or sale" of certain foods or agricultural products and "take over distribution activities when considered necessary." Other measures increase state control over commerce, services and publicity. Businesses that violate the new rules can face fines or indefinite closure.
Here we go, it's already started with the oil companies in Venezuela getting their assets seized and now this. Did SANCTIONS cause this? Huh? I love the part of the article that says "take over distribution activites when necessary".
http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=33632
Idiot Paulites just gloss over this as a non-event with no ominous signs toward the future. Hey, he's still a good trading partner! Yea, for now, that is. These soon-to-be dictators (election was verified by Jimmy Carter, remember? LOL!) start slow, then like Hitler, go inch by inch, step by step. Assets slowly get nationalized, foreign investment flees, economy goes into a SHAMBLES, well before sanctions!
That's a different part of the constitution, not pertaining to war, it just states other responsibilities.
Congress cannot "declare war for any damn reason it wants to".
Says who? You? I again challenge you to show me a list of constitutionally approved reasons for war. You can't because they don't exist. Funny that you like to keep strict adherence to the constitution only when it suits your argument. Face it, our elected reps have free reign to declare war.
Your statement assumes that our founding fathers rose up against a tyrant who was a warmonger, won their independence, and then didn't seek to limit our government with the Constitution so that we wouldn't be tyrannical like King George was. Come on, man. Just give this one up.
No, because you are wrong, once again. You fail to see that we limited our government by making our elected reps in Congress actually go to the task to formally declare war(use of force) Whatever language gets the point across.
It does not specifically spell out what language is to be used, and that is actually totally beside the point.
No, it's not. But I'm glad you admit the format for the language does not exist. Once again, in order to get it through your head, the purpose of Section and Act is to make Congress do the effort of a formal authorization of a m,ilitary offensive. You bringing up who actually prosecutes the details of the offensive is really "besides the point"and a weak attempt at misdirection. Bottom line, Congress wanted offensive military action and voted for it. According to the requirements of the constitution. Pure, plain and simple. Admit it, you lost again.
Unless you can prove there is no difference between these two, you still have no leg to stand on.
Oh boy, you can't ignore the intent of Congress by having a selective made-up reading of the constitution.
Then I guess it depends on what "very little" means to you. $700 million may sound like a drop in the bucket, but I don't think you're taking into account the size and population of Cuba. Cuba's top ten trading partners exported a total of 1.9 billion in goods to Cuba as far back as 1998. I did some research on countries about the same size as Cuba and their foreign trade and I found out some interesting things. For the sake of this example, I'll focus on the imports of these countries (stuff they buy from other countries), since that is the valuation we have been using.
Honduras (larger), democratic republic. Total imports $2.09 billion. Subtract the US from that and it comes to $699 million.
Guatemala (a tad smaller), democratic/representative. Total imports $3.65 billion. Subtract the US from that and it is $1.71 billion.
Nicaragua (larger), democratic. Total imports $1.45 billion. Subtract the US and it is $1.036 billion.
You and I don't have any way of knowing how much we are missing, since the embargo is still in effect. But I hope these comparisons I just shared with you will put the dollar amount of Cuba's trade into perspective for you. I think it shows that even regardless of the system of government, a high amount of trade is neither a sure thing nor an impossibility, and also that Cuba's trade amount is not "sneezable". Comparing the amount of trade with Cuba with the cost of a Vegas resort is like comparing apples to oranges. Vegas resorts are paid for with debt.
Don't have the best economies in the world? Ha! That's an understatement! Let's face it, they really SUCK! But I have to laugh when you concede my point but then say that it is our fault. The self-flagellation of the blame America first crowd never ends. You are truly a naieve idiot. Their economies already sucked before any sanctions were imposed!
I didn't concede your point, I only said that we are basically holding them back through economic sanctions. I suppose you believe economic sanctions have not hurt the Cuban economy? I'd like to see some clarification on that.
Oh yes I can! And as compared to countries with democratic free market cpaitalism, they are in shambles.
No, you can't. This has already been proven wrong.
You are putting the cart before the horse here. The dictator seized and nationalized the assets of private citizens and/or killed many citizens or another nasty dictator type stuff BEFORE the sanctions. You would just let the dictator get away with all this nastiness and not do anything.
I didn't put any cart before any horse. Perhaps you don't understand the usage of that idiom. I know Zimbabwe is a dictatorship, that was never in question. Your example of Zimbabwe as a economically dead nation doesn't work because many countries, not just us, have imposed sanctions. That drops alot of dough out of an economy. Your main assumption is that dictatorships have nothing to offer as trading partners, but you ignore the fact that sanctions keep you from getting a true picture of a dictatorship's economic potential. And yes, I would let the dictator have his way, it is none of our business how he runs his country. I think it is noteworthy that Zimbabwe is three times larger than Cuba, yet has about $400 million less in imports. Could be because so many other countries have sanctions on them, not just the US.
I said, Trade with what? Tobacco and sugar cane? In the case of Cuba, that's all they have to offer. Castro seized all the assets when he took power. The risk of nationalization is too great for any serious foreign investment. Zimbabwe proved this once again when they seized the white-owned farms.
Almost half of Cuba's commodity export market (53%) is taken up by sugar and honey, representing 5.7% of the world's export sales in these two items. Nickel is the second hottest item (23%), followed by fish (6.8%). Other exports include tobacco (5.6%) and medicinal and pharmaceutical products (2.8%). I would imagine tobacco exports would skyrocket if the US were finally allowed to legally buy Cuban cigars.
No, that's a strawman! And i'm still waiting for your math about US casualties adding up to a million, down from your already conceded number of "literally millions". Besides, who cares how the world sees us? We're not running for a congeniality contest. We kill mass-murdering dictators because it's the right thing to do and those other people don't have the stomach for it, that's why they have a tendency to get subjugated by them.
No, sadly that's not a strawman. It's part of one of my comments from awhile back. Here it is again for your reading pleasure:
A foreign policy of non-interventionism would accomplish the same thing, only without killing hundreds of thousands of people and causing other countries to look at us as a bully.
You replied:
No, it wouldn't. Not even close. The economy of a dictatorial regime would easily be in a shambles and wouldn't amount to much to do business with.
So would a policy of non interventionism kill hundreds of thousands of people during the course of establishing trade or not? You aren't waiting for my math on the million soldiers. Here's what I said awhile back:
Alright not millions, it was only just over one million. So perhaps I should rephrase and say your passion is noble but it has cost just over a million American deaths.
But if it is a specific number you want, I think it was just below 1.2 millionNo it's not. There is no difference. You just refuse to accept the FACT that the Congress DID INDEED authorize the military to offensively attack Iraq. Give up, you are looking really idiotic here and grasping at straws.
Dude, just SAYING there's no difference is not a way to rebut my argument. You need to show that my statements about declarations and authorizations are indeed false, and that would require some kind of thought and evidence from you. Just saying they are no different doesn't cut it. Also, it would serve you well to read my posts a little better. I never said Congress didn't authorize the military to use force in Iraq. The whole argument here is that they didn't declare war, and we haven't declared war since WWII.But you said we wern't very successful. Well, a tie in this case is very successful in that S. Korea is a great trading partner, and is easily MUCH better than a trading partner of North Korea and it's economic systemic shambles.
The point about Korea is that we were not successful because a declaration of war was not made, there was no buildup of munitions, troops weren't sent in correctly, etc. If we had declared war, we would have been mobilized to go in and WIN. As it is, we had to endure the longest retreat in our history and settle for a stalemate, which is not a WIN.
Oh come on! The democrats clearly would have pulled out if we had declared war or not!
Just saying it doesn't make it true. At least provide some reasoning. Clearly, if we had gone to war in Vietnam the same way we went into WWII, funding would not have been a problem. The government funded WWII through taxes, war bonds, and borrowing and everybody was behind the effort. Funding was not an issue, because the American people believed there was a direct threat to us, i.e. Pearl Harbor. With Vietnam, there was no direct threat, support for the war was not there, and the war was undeclared and was instead a "police action".
Oh this is rich. So now you actually are concerned with UN resolutions, but only some of them to pick and choose from, because you sure don't care about the other ones authorizing use of force against Saddam. Those don't count.
I'm not concerned with UN resolutions, I'm just telling you what the facts are. Giving you the facts doesn't involve picking and choosing. And when have I ever argued about the UN's resolution on the current war? Another straw man?
So what? Your argument is so weak here. It still remains that Saddam himself thought they were legal for many years and then violated them.
My argument is not weak, it is a fact. The no fly zones were illegal. Whether Saddam at any time thought they were legal, doesn't make them legal. How can you violate something that is illegal to begin with?
You have not shown that cause and effect. You are assuming that. My position is that the shambles already existed and would naturally continue in a death spiral.
Wow. You really believe economic sanctions don't exacerbate the bad conditions of an economy? It will be interesting to see how you rationalize this, especially since I have shown the cause and effect earlier in this post.
Yes. people with no guns have little chance against people with guns, and in the rare case of being a successful rOesistance, it takes a long time, naturally. Shopkeepers will not open their stores when there is civil unrest in the streets.
Alright, just wanted some clarification from you on that. I didn't know how successful you thought a resistance could be, based on your previous comments.
No, you are waffling on your argument because I said that we should take out the dictators, you said they are on their own and that the citizens should take up resistance instead. I said that there is little chance of their success and that, in total, there would be less bloodshed if we went in and took him out, instead of a protracted, under-armed resistance movement. You then got weak and said..well, it wasn't that many Colonists that took up resistance and won. But that is besdies the point, their chances of success, as buttressed by history is slim. Doesn't matter if it was a few or a lot, their chances are still slim. You refuse to concede this point. Face it, you made an erroneous claim with evidence that has proven to be an extremely rare case.
Actually, I haven't "waffled" at all. It may seem like it to you because you have a problem paying attention. I spend 75% of my time correcting your erroneous statements about what I've said. The correct order of events is this: You started by saying it is our business to free the millions of people who are under dictators. I disagreed and said it is not our job, that if the people want freedom, they will eventually rise up and take it like we did. You then said that people under a dictator don't have guns, which is kind of a big assumption, but whatever, and you said they cannot possibly win and the US should go in because less human death would occur. I then said resistance movements find ways to get weapons and supporters, which they do. Notice how I never said anything about the success of resistance movements, just that they find ways to fight back. Moving on, you then said resistance movements don't find ways to get guns and supporters, and that the French resistance had no chance against Hitler. I then responded and said I was talking about a resistance within a country against the tyrannical rule of its own government, not one country against the occupation of another. I then cited an example of a successful resistance movement, the American Revolution, and this example was given to help you understand what kind of resistance I was talking about. Notice here that the success of our revolution wasn't used to say that all or even most resistances can be successful. You created a straw man argument later by saying otherwise. You created another straw man argument in this post by still focusing on the success or failure of resistances, and you said I have not conceded the point. The fact is, I cannot concede a point that comes from a straw man argument. I would be conceding a point I never made. You must make an effort to pay attention to what is said, so that you don't steer the debate totally of course as you have already done.
There you go again with the misdirection of the argument. The point was that little countries with dictators can become big problems if you don't nip them in the bud, and you paulites don't want to nip anything. How Hitler got there is besides the point and is not germane to this argument and is misdirection. You lost this one too. Demolishment continues.
I have not misdirected the argument at all. Unless you have an understanding of how Hitler got where he was without some study. The big difference between Hitler and other dictators is that he had the support of the people. Now ask yourself how that helped propel his success in the region. How Hitler got where he was is essential to the point. We have dictators all over the world, yet most of them are no trouble to us.
I have clearly debunked this claim, yet you keep spouting such nonsense.
To debunk this claim, which you haven't done, you would have to show that foreign interventions have no bad side effects and cause no problems. Good luck with that.
Yea, if want go around with rose colored blinders on! LOL! This is so naive and I have debunked this also. Dictators don't play by civilized rules. They mass murder their opponents and seize domestic and foreign assets which kills further investment and kills the economy. Why can't you accept this?
You haven't debunked that either, as shown earlier in this post. I agree dictators kill their opponents, but you have to make yourself into an opponent first.
Because we support Israel and we are not true believers of the faith aOnd we don't like it when dictators invade other countries (Kuwait) and they are so apt to do! Come on, wake up! You Paulites need to stop enabling these dictators. You assume they play by civilized rules. They don't.
None of the above addressed my point, which was if this type of foreign policy had been used toward the middle east and the rest of the world, there would have been no threat of Saddam sending somebody in with a dirty bomb.
You play defense at the border while the dictator amasses power and land and weapons. Bad strategy, IMO. And history backs me up.
Not just at the border. Don't forget, we do have a navy and an air force. The enemy has to actually get here first. Absent an act of aggression, we have no reason to attack anyone. Why do you think we waited until Pearl Harbor to get into WWII? Preemptive war leaves too many holes to fill. As John Quincy Adams said in reference to American foreign policy: "But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. She will commend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example. She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force.... She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit.... "
Sure I do, they hate Israel, they hate us Christians, they hate our democratic system, they hate our woman's freedoms, they hate our decadent society, etc, etc. It has little to do with our foreign policy. Wake up.
Little to do? So at least you admit it does play some kind of role.
This is going to get incredibly embarrassing for you if you want to cling to this argument. It does state other responsibilities, but includes the common defense. Perhaps you have some other idea of what the common defense might be. If so, would you care to share that with me?
Says who? You? I again challenge you to show me a list of constitutionally approved reasons for war. You can't because they don't exist. Funny that you like to keep strict adherence to the constitution only when it suits your argument. Face it, our elected reps have free reign to declare war.
Says the Constitution. The government is to provide for the common defense. I would think that would be clear enough language for you. The "list" of approved reasons is this: common defense. In your fantasy world, Congress has the power to declare war on anyone for any reason, which would lead to empire building. Although I am not surprised you hold to this view, since you support the nation building we do all over the world. If you don't drop this stupid point, I'll have to whip out the words of the founding fathers on you.
No, because you are wrong, once again. You fail to see that we limited our government by making our elected reps in Congress actually go to the task to formally declare war(use of force) Whatever language gets the point across.
Man, pay attention. I know we limited our government with the Constitution. I'm saying your view of what the Constitution says about war negates the separation of powers and even goes against what the founders fought for.
No, it's not. But I'm glad you admit the format for the language does not exist. Once again, in order to get it through your head, the purpose of Section and Act is to make Congress do the effort of a formal authorization of a m,ilitary offensive. You bringing up who actually prosecutes the details of the offensive is really "besides the point"and a weak attempt at misdirection. Bottom line, Congress wanted offensive military action and voted for it. According to the requirements of the constitution. Pure, plain and simple. Admit it, you lost again.
It is beside the point, since the point in this part of our debate was whether or not the Constitution allows for our military to be used to liberate people in other countries. My argument is that our military is for the defense of this country, not the citizens of another country. Your argument seems to be the opposite, although you've tried to bring the "declaration/authorization" part of our other debate into this one. The fundamental difference between a declaration of war and the authorizations of force simply will not go away just because you ignore them. A use of force authorization gives all the power to the president. A declaration of war gives Congress all the power in the matter, and simply tells the president, as commander in chief, what the military has to accomplish. Unless you can prove there is no difference between these two, you still have no leg to stand on. So now, you've still got to answer the original question, which is this: if you believe our Constitution authorizes us to liberate non-US citizens from dictators, are you ready to commit our American forces to fight wars in North Korea, Cuba, and any other country we view as oppressive towards its people? If you do, then you are NOT a conservative by any standard. Even George W. Bush ran in 2000 on a humble foreign policy and he spoke out against such nation building. So are you a neocon or just a liberal?
Oh boy, you can't ignore the intent of Congress by having a selective made-up reading of the constitution.
My reading of it has not been selective. Yours has been outright imaginary and fantastical.
I guess I just need you to answer one question, since you’ve dodged it so far. Do economic sanctions help a country or hurt a country?
Ha! What a laugher! You havn't even read the Constitution! In Section 8, the first enumerated power is
""To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.""
ALL THE WAY DOWN THE LIST IN NUMBER 11 is the part about declaring war..
""To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water; ""
So, for you to combine the two is VERY INCORRECT when they are not related to each other! In FACT, at NUMBER 15 is the enumerated power you convienmtly leave out of your argument probably because you are so ignorant of the Consitution!..
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions
Ha! So we see it is the militia that is supposed to repel invasions, not the army or navy. You Paulites are so brainwashed you can't even fact check what your dangerous and naive leader is saying!
In your fantasy world, Congress has the power to declare war on anyone for any reason, which would lead to empire building. Although I am not surprised you hold to this view, since you support the nation building we do all over the world. If you don't drop this stupid point, I'll have to whip out the words of the founding fathers on you.
I just whipped them out on you! Again I challenge you show me where it spells out legitimate reasons to declare war. It's laughable that you have barely even read the Constitution and erroneously combine unrelated parts of the few parts that you have read! Typical Paulite!
I know we limited our government with the Constitution. I'm saying your view of what the Constitution says about war negates the separation of powers and even goes against what the founders fought for.
It's sad that you just can't accept the FACT that Congress VOTED to use the military in an offensive action against a enemy. You are just whining when you say..."Waaa! Waaa! But they didn't do it the way I wanted them to! Waaa! Waaa! You sound like a baby. I'm starting to pity you, actually.
My argument is that our military is for the defense of this country, not the citizens of another country.
No, Constitution says that that is the responsibility of the militia, not the military. "Repel invasions", it says.
The fundamental difference between a declaration of war and the authorizations of force simply will not go away just because you ignore them. A use of force authorization gives all the power to the president. A declaration of war gives Congress all the power in the matter, and simply tells the president, as commander in chief, what the military has to accomplish.
You are starting to sound like a broken record. Did the president act unilaterally? No! Did the Congress VOTE to authorize the military to fight in an offensive action against a enemy? YES! According to the Constitution!
Unless you can prove there is no difference between these two, you still have no leg to stand on.
You are just too much and it is clear I am arguing with a fanatic who won't examine FACTS! Why prove this when it is not germane to the FACT that Congress VOTED to send the military in an offensive action? You admitted that there was no specific constitutional language format to "declare war", so now you INVENT a new clause that the Congress can't defer to the president the details on prosecuting the war, and if they do defer on the details, it invalidates their vote for war. You are ridiculous. No wonder Ron Paul did so badly in the primaries. His foreign policy MAKES NO SENSE!
So now, you've still got to answer the original question, which is this: if you believe our Constitution authorizes us to liberate non-US citizens from dictators, are you ready to commit our American forces to fight wars in North Korea, Cuba, and any other country we view as oppressive towards its people?
If they invade other countries and/or mass murder their own citizens and/or cause death and destruction to citizens of other countries (Lockerbie) then, YES! I am a firm believer in the Bush doctrine.
My reading of it has not been selective. Yours has been outright imaginary and fantastical.
No, it's clear YOU havn't even read most of it. Jeez, at least read Article 1 Section 8 and you won't continue to look like such an idiot on thjis forum
I guess I just need you to answer one question, since you’ve dodged it so far. Do economic sanctions help a country or hurt a country?
Nice try at the misdirection again, but you refuse to face the real main arguments we are having. Does a dictator help or hurt an existing free market capitalist economy that is in place before he takes power? And generally speaking, historically, has the economy been in better shape under a democracy or a dictator?
Give me the Bush doctrine anyday over the cower-and-hide, head-in-the-sand, screw-you-subjugated people, cold-hearted Ron Paul doctrine.
First, let's deal with the first major misconception, that Congress can declare war for any damn reason it wants to. Inherent in your statement is that if Congress decides to attack a country just because it wants to enlarge the American Empire, it can do so and the Constitution supports that. That would obviously require that the founding fathers were a group of imperialists, and this is not supported by history and facts. Perhaps you could enlighten me as to why you think the founders were imperialists. And as promised here are some quotes of the founding fathers about just the kind of war making you advocate. These are from the Federalist Papers, which were written to support the ratification of the Constitution, and they serve as the primary source for Constitutional interpretation.
"The JUST causes of war, for the most part, arise either from violation of treaties or from direct violence. America has already formed treaties with no less than six foreign nations, and all of them, except Prussia, are maritime, and therefore able to annoy and injure us." John Jay, Federalist #3 In #'s 3-5, John Jay argues that a Union would defend us better than 13 separate colonies or 3 or 4 confederacies. It is noteworthy that he never advocates an offensive war. Rather, a harm must be done to us first before war is considered "just"
"As to those just causes of war which proceed from direct and unlawful violence, it appears equally clear to me that one good national government affords vastly more security against dangers of that sort than can be derived from any other quarter. Because such violences are more frequently caused by the passions and interests of a part than of the whole; of one or two States than of the Union. Not a single Indian war has yet been occasioned by aggressions of the present federal government, feeble as it is; but there are several instances of Indian hostilities having been provoked by the improper conduct of individual States, who, either unable or unwilling to restrain or punish offenses, have given occasion to the slaughter of many innocent inhabitants." John Jay, Federalist #3. Jay also favors a Union because it would be less likely to be an aggressor. He gives the example of Indian wars, and boasts that the federal government at that time had not started any aggressive wars against Indians, but that the states, on their own, had done so on their own, and did so improperly.
Jay continues: "But not only fewer just causes of war will be given by the national government, but it will also be more in their power to accommodate and settle them amicably. They will be more temperate and cool, and in that respect, as well as in others, will be more in capacity to act advisedly than the offending State. The pride of states, as well as of men, naturally disposes them to justify all their actions, and opposes their acknowledging, correcting, or repairing their errors and offenses. The national government, in such cases, will not be affected by this pride, but will proceed with moderation and candor to consider and decide on the means most proper to extricate them from the difficulties which threaten them."The same thought is presented here. The Union would be more peaceful than separate states.
"But the safety of the people of America against dangers from FOREIGN force depends not only on their forbearing to give JUST causes of war to other nations, but also on their placing and continuing themselves in such a situation as not to INVITE hostility or insult; for it need not be observed that there are PRETENDED as well as just causes of war. It is too true, however disgraceful it may be to human nature, that nations in general will make war whenever they have a prospect of getting anything by it; nay, absolute monarchs will often make war when their nations are to get nothing by it, but for the purposes and objects merely personal, such as thirst for military glory, revenge for personal affronts, ambition, or private compacts to aggrandize or support their particular families or partisans. These and a variety of other motives, which affect only the mind of the sovereign, often lead him to engage in wars not sanctified by justice or the voice and interests of his people. But, independent of these inducements to war, which are more prevalent in absolute monarchies, but which well deserve our attention, there are others which affect nations as often as kings; and some of them will on examination be found to grow out of our relative situation and circumstances." John Jay, Federalist #4. He very clearly here argues against flippant reasons for war, which goes directly against your idea that Congress can declare war for any damn reason it wants to.
After talking about how international commerce on the sea could lead to conflicts, Jay says "The people of America are aware that inducements to war may arise out of these circumstances, as well as from others not so obvious at present, and that whenever such inducements may find fit time and opportunity for operation, pretenses to color and justify them will not be wanting. Wisely, therefore, do they consider union and a good national government as necessary to put and keep them in SUCH A SITUATION as, instead of INVITING war, will tend to repress and discourage it. That situation consists in the best possible state of defense, and necessarily depends on the government, the arms, and the resources of the country." John Jay, Federalist #4. Jay argues that one government would work best to ward off the prospect of war. It is very apparent that aggression was not on the minds of the founders when they wrote the Constitution.
Alexander Hamilton, speaking of a hypothetical person ignorant of our Constitution says, "If he came afterwards to peruse the plan itself, he would be surprised to discover, that neither the one nor the other was the case; that the whole power of raising armies was lodged in the LEGISLATURE, not in the EXECUTIVE; that this legislature was to be a popular body, consisting of the representatives of the people periodically elected; and that instead of the provision he had supposed in favor of standing armies, there was to be found, in respect to this object, an important qualification even of the legislative discretion, in that clause which forbids the appropriation of money for the support of an army for any longer period than two years a precaution which, upon a nearer view of it, will appear to be a great and real security against the keeping up of troops without evident necessity." Hamilton, Federalist #24. Here, Hamilton speaks of the provision that standing armies are only to be appropriated for two years at a time, and absent a reason for them to exist, the standing army would be disbanded and the militias and navy were to be solely relied upon. Hence, in peace time, no standing armies were to be had in America. It stands to reason that absent the aggression of an enemy, America would not have an offensive fighting force, and would necessarily not assert itself abroad with that force by declaring wars willy nilly.
This one is from James Madison in his Letters to Helvidius. "There can be no relation worth examining between this power and the general power of making treaties. And instead of being analogous to the power of declaring war, it affords a striking illustration of the incompatibility of the two powers in the same hands. Those who are to conduct a war cannot in the nature of things, be proper or safe judges, whether a war ought to be commenced, continued, or concluded. They are barred from the latter functions by a great principle in free government, analogous to that which separates the sword from the purse, or the power of executing from the power of enacting laws." Here Madison argues that the president cannot at the same time have the power to declare war AND make treaties, since he could not inherently be the right judge of both at the same time. Notice also, he expressly says that the president could not decide when war should be started, continued, or concluded. This goes directly against your argument that an authorization of force is constitutional, since Congress has been delegating those EXACT things to the president. The Iraq war resolution passed in October of 2002, the the president DECIDED to START the war six months later.
Second, you claim that my combining the "common defense" and "declaring war" powers of Congress is wrong because they are two different things, and that the fact that one is listed before the other somehow magically makes the two terms entirely unrelated to one another. It would seem rather obvious that, in the event of an invasion we would call up the militia to repel it, and declare war on the aggressor. Therefore, I see no reason for you to separate the terms "common defense" and "declaring war".
Regarding your misunderstanding about "militia" and "military" or "army", it is essential that you understand that the militia and the navy were to act as our line of defense during times of peace, and that a standing army would not even exist. All through the Federalist Papers dealing with this issue, the writers were trying to ease the fear of the people that there would be a standing army at all times. They knew a standing army would be a threat to liberty. Therefore, the Constitution stated that no standing army shall be appropriated for more than two years at a time. A standing army would only be raised if it was needed to augment the existing militia. You seem to have it in your mind that the militia was only for defense, and that the army was only for declaring war for whatever damn reason Congress wanted to declare it for.
If you are going to debate the meaning of the Constitution, you must understand it first. And to understand it you must get to the heart of the original intent of the framers, which is contained in their own writings. I urge you do to this, because what you advocate goes directly against what they believed in. You have stated that you do believe that our military should be used in defense of people who are not Americans. I understand where you are coming from, and I can see that you are coming at this from an emotional angle instead of a factual one. The founders set up our military as a defensive one and didn't authorize permanent standing armies because the only goal was to protect Americans and preserve THIS Union and OUR freedoms, and not that of others. If we endeavored to use our military for all the world, they knew our nation would soon be gone from this earth.
We'll save the sanctions debate for the other thread, instead of having it in two places.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.