Tweet
Start reading the Book of the Month yet? 
-
(\__/) 07/07/1937 - Never forget
(='.'=) "Claims demand evidence; extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence." -- Carl Sagan
(")_(") "Starting the fire from within." -
Not yet, my lack of a reliable computer has left me in a tough spot, but I will pick up a copy from amazon (prounounced am-a-zin) or some place in the next couple days.
http://monkspider.blogspot.com/Comment
-
I support the goal of removing Saddam Hussein, but not under the present circumstances - uppity DPRK, lack of international support, lack of a clear plan for a post-war occupation and transition to a post-Saddam government, sluggish (at best) economy, overcommitment of US military forces, and lack of an immediate threat from Hussein's weapons programs.Originally posted by Urban Ranger
monkie,
To be fair, I don't think MtG has ever supported Gulf War II.
Solve some of those problems, and then Hussein can come off the back burner.When all else fails, blame brown people. | Hire a teen, while they still know it all. | Trump-Palin 2016. "You're fired." "I quit."Comment
-
C'mon you people, the ONLY reason we need to support ousting Saddam is the liberation of the people under his rule. I don't believe he's a threat to the US, and I do believe he may handout WMD to terrorists if we do invade, but he's ******* evil AND the US really screwed up by inviting the Iraqi people to rebel at the end of the last Gulf War only to let them get slaughtered. We owe those people, and to hell with the UN!Comment
-
Hard to tell what really drives Bush personally on this issue. I'd bet on some strange form of bigotry, rather than madness.
So the Bushies are shifting to war without SC resolution? Will be fun to watch Blair trying to hold that **** together...“Now we declare… that the law-making power or the first and real effective source of law is the people or the body of citizens or the prevailing part of the people according to its election or its will expressed in general convention by vote, commanding or deciding that something be done or omitted in regard to human civil acts under penalty or temporal punishment….” (Marsilius of Padua, „Defensor Pacis“, AD 1324)Comment
-
Hershie, I never supported the UN, and I'm not a Bushie. He should be impeached just like damn near every other President for the last cenury for treating the Constitution like toilet paper.Comment
-
Saddam has made himself the enemy of the US by his words and his actions. He should have been more intelligent about not getting himself in this position. I think he may have thought that they US wouldn't bother with him, but he was wrong. Bush is being really stupid by starting a war again. I'm sure it's only because Saddam is so disrespectful of US power.Originally posted by HershOstropoler
Hard to tell what really drives Bush personally on this issue. I'd bet on some strange form of bigotry, rather than madness.
So the Bushies are shifting to war without SC resolution? Will be fun to watch Blair trying to hold that **** together..."When you ride alone, you ride with Bin Ladin"-Bill Maher
"All capital is dripping with blood."-Karl Marx
"Of course, my response to your Marx quote is 'So?'"-Imran SiddiquiComment
-
If Bush were respecting the constitution, he'd have less trouble abroad too. Like the little thing Art VI says about international treaties...
I'd assume though that "the ONLY reason we need to support ousting Saddam is the liberation of the people under his rule" means you do not support Bush's war?“Now we declare… that the law-making power or the first and real effective source of law is the people or the body of citizens or the prevailing part of the people according to its election or its will expressed in general convention by vote, commanding or deciding that something be done or omitted in regard to human civil acts under penalty or temporal punishment….” (Marsilius of Padua, „Defensor Pacis“, AD 1324)Comment
-
I do support ousting Saddam, but I could care less if Bush, Clinton, or the man on the moon was the one in charge. And those international treaties don't mean squat when they conflict with the Constitution. IF Congress declares war on Iraq, then the UN is irrelevant. So the question is whether or not Congress declared war on Iraq. IMO, Congress did not, but if we listen to Congress, they did authorise the President to use force against Iraq if he wants and there's nothing I can do to get Congress to grow a spine. Now, how did you conclude I oppose a war in Iraq if led by Bush? Do you see another way to liberate the Iraqi people?Comment
-
"And those international treaties don't mean squat when they conflict with the Constitution."
That's nonsense, but irrelevant anyway. The UN charter does not conflict with the US constitution.
"Now, how did you conclude I oppose a war in Iraq if led by Bush?"
Because there's a 99 % chance that this liberation will be by chaos and/or another dictator, just one more to the US' liking. Of course, if Chile was liberated in 1973...“Now we declare… that the law-making power or the first and real effective source of law is the people or the body of citizens or the prevailing part of the people according to its election or its will expressed in general convention by vote, commanding or deciding that something be done or omitted in regard to human civil acts under penalty or temporal punishment….” (Marsilius of Padua, „Defensor Pacis“, AD 1324)Comment
-
Hersh -Calling it nonsense is not a rebuttal.That's nonsense, but irrelevant anyway.
Yes it does, the Constitution says Congress has the power to declare war. The UN charter says the UN must approve invasions for regime change.The UN charter does not conflict with the US constitution.
That's your proof for why you concluded that I allegedly oppose a war in Iraq after I said I support that war? I can't speak to the motives of others pushing for this war, and I'm frankly tired of the lies and half truths being told to get support for the war, but I have no doubt that liberating the people there is just after what we did to them in 1991. What I can't understand is why so many liberals who trumpet human rights would rather see Saddam stay in power. I can understand skepticism about motives, but just as moral people should want Saddam removed, moral people should oppose installing a puppet dictator. Look at Germany and Japan today - both a result of US actions. And I wouldn't point to Chile as an example of chaos, it has the best economy in S America.Because there's a 99 % chance that this liberation will be by chaos and/or another dictator, just one more to the US' liking. Of course, if Chile was liberated in 1973...Comment
-
"Calling it nonsense is not a rebuttal."
Well it's not really worth a rebuttal. I'm not going into a monism/pluralism debate now.
"Yes it does, the Constitution says Congress has the power to declare war. The UN charter says the UN must approve invasions for regime change."
And congress has the power to make laws - treaties can limit the exercise that power. That's at the heart of international treaties, as adopted by Art VI. Same with declaring war, international treaties can limit the exercise of that power without being in conflict with the constitution. Under your interpretation, there would be hardly any treaty left that could be made.
"That's your proof for why you concluded that I allegedly oppose a war in Iraq"
Proof? An assumption, hence I asked.
"Look at Germany and Japan today"
Useless analogy.“Now we declare… that the law-making power or the first and real effective source of law is the people or the body of citizens or the prevailing part of the people according to its election or its will expressed in general convention by vote, commanding or deciding that something be done or omitted in regard to human civil acts under penalty or temporal punishment….” (Marsilius of Padua, „Defensor Pacis“, AD 1324)Comment
-
Gone Mad ???
He's been mad forever.
But at least in a few years this political turmoil will be over
-=-=-=-=-=-
BRITAIN - Blair has lost most of the government and peoples support.
AUSTRALIA - Howard commited political suicide by describing the 90% of Australia who disagrees with him as a mob that is incapable of making a descision.
AMERICA - Bush has no support outside of America and little within.
-=-=-=-=-=-
So after the next election in each country the world will be very different !Unfairly Banned at Civfanatics twice...
To protest the war I am using the UN Flag - Howard has said most Australians are for the war so clearly I am not an Aussie.Comment
-
BUT, The US constitution reserves the power to accept or reject treaties to the congress. Thus trumping any and ALL UN treaties if they so desire.Originally posted by HershOstropoler
"Yes it does, the Constitution says Congress has the power to declare war. The UN charter says the UN must approve invasions for regime change."
And congress has the power to make laws - treaties can limit the exercise that power. That's at the heart of international treaties, as adopted by Art VI. Same with declaring war, international treaties can limit the exercise of that power without being in conflict with the constitution. Under your interpretation, there would be hardly any treaty left that could be made.
They so desired in the case of KYOTO, in which up to 80% of congress critters voted to out of hand reject, WHEN BILL CLINTON was the President.
In short, the UN amounts to nought. The same is true in almost every country of the world. The countries reserve the right to accept or reject UN resolutions/treaties. In fact in almost all jurisdictions, the treaty must be backed up by passed legislation to provide for enforcement of treaty obligations.Comment
-
Don't bogart that joint, my friend. Pass it over, to me.
Life is not measured by the number of breaths you take, but by the moments that take your breath away.
"Hating America is something best left to Mobius. He is an expert Yank hater.
He also hates Texans and Australians, he does diversify." ~ BraindeadComment
Comment