That's pretty easy. Our relationship with the UN is determined on laws and treaties signed and approved by the US government. When those laws and treaties are broken our country and government has failed it's legal obligations and that, my friend, is unconstitutional.
You are extrapolating. This is not valid, please show where the US relationship with the UN is in the Constitution.
not at all. you are being purposely obtuse because you don't like the answer and have no understanding of or use for the Rule of Law.
I have looked through it many times. It is just another typical Libertarian rant. Gut the military, close all bases, stop any future development. Meanwhile be capable of responding quickly and decisively if the need arose. Completely impossible to do both of those at once. I still say this thread more appropriately belongs in the Conspiracy Theory section.
Alright, i'll help. Take this one: 1. End all foreign aid. Let other nations take care of themselves, & build themselves. If there is a tyrant in power, oppressing his people, let the whole world, & especially the neighboring countries be involved. If there are problems in Mexico or Canada, we can consider how their situation affects us & take whatever actions are appropriate. So i'll assume you are in favor of foreign aid. You think giving the taxpayer's money to foreign despots is a good idea. You think we should meddle in the internal affairs of other sovereign nations, & promote a particular dictator over another, based on what he returns to some crony's business interests. We should take the labors of the american middle class, & redistribute them to rich oppressive dictators & their political cronies. How can you defend this, ideologically? By what basis does ANYONE have the right to take my hard earned money & give it to some tyrant to oppress his own people? How does my own govt justify this? It is immoral, unconstitutional, & has no common sense. Since you are fond of labels, what do you call this policy? I call it theft, madness, corruption, & could come up with a few more. Progressives call me libertarian, libertarians call me progressive. I'm just an american constitutionalist.
Once again, you just do not seem to get it. Let me say it once again, ok? I am not making any kind of stance here! You insist on trying to project onto me views that I have never said to have, and are completely irrelevant. You simply fail because you see me correcting you where you are wrong, and automatically assume I am opposed to you. In my post, I am neither supporting, nor am I opposing, I am correcting. If you can't understand this, then there is absolutely no point in continuing this, because you are existing totally outside of the framework. I also want to state this loud and clear: I do not defend a single thing ideologically! Ideology is not a foundation upon you can have a debate, it only fosters arguments. Because this is an objective personal viewpoint. If you want to discuss ideology, then fine. But do not expect me to participate in any way, shape, or form. If however in the process you make glaring mistakes as to how something like the Constitution and it's precedents operate, then I will correct you. Because those are facts, not opinions. In other words, if you try to scream something is "Unconstitutional", you had damned well better be able to back it up with proof, not just "ideology". If you can't do that, then you are just blowing smoke.
You are living in denial. You have an ideology. It is the basis for your beliefs, & shapes your opinions. At present, it is, 'Ignorance is strength'. You think that heckling from the sidelines & mocking people who try to frame their arguments is cool. You have NOTHING to offer, except ridicule. You shut your brain off, & look for 'gotcha!' statements to rebut your opponent. ..except, you stand for nothing. Your spine is sufficient, as logic & reason are tossed aside. But by attempting to take the high ground, & put yourself above all the silly 'ideological' disputes, you demean yourself, as standing for nothing, & having nothing to contribute, except heckling cracks to entertain the peanut gallery. You will not defend liberty, truth, or justice. You despise humanity, & passively allow despots to run rampant over individual freedom, all in the name of insolence. You make a religion of arrogance, & promote pretension with your cavalier, haughty superiority. Stand for something, or you'll fall for anything.
Yes, well, the U.S. has numerous treaties with nations all over, so unilaterally abrogating those and withdrawing into 'Fortess America' is not an option, and never was, which is why nobody with decision making powers is going to adopt the isolationist fantasy or take it seriously, since it has always failed. Better to fight little wars than big ones, I guarantee you this, and U.S. policies have worked very well in a nuclear age, as did the Cold War containment strategy against Marxist imperialists de-stabilizing states all over the world. Anybody can find some facet of the history of that strategy, but none of them render it invalid or a failure; even Viet Nam was not the abject failure it's been faddishly trendy to claim it was since the 1960's, whatever pols' careers suffered during it.
This isn't a fair criticism; you're shotgunning out screeds that cover numerous issues in one post and add more posts doing the same thing several times, and then expecting people to parse and discuss line by line a load of hyperbole and narratives based on your own biases. Nobody is going to bother with trying to go through all that, so try and limit your arguments to a couple or three related ones at a time, rather than make grandiose speeches if you want decent replies; or just make up more nebulous screeds and get ignored. The Fever Swamps upstairs are the popular place for that sort of thing.
I'm not sure what your point is here..except ifyou're trying to say that the actions over the last 60 years have been very successful in building the MIC into the monster it is and transfering enough wealth into few enough hands the economic purchase of our government and the blackmail of what's left became possible...who could argue? the results speak for themselves.
This is why I wish these types would keep their blatantly political discourse in the political sections where they belong. I do not come down here to have some loosertarian try and "enlighten" me. And the more they babble about such things, the more I simply tune them out. They have nothing worth reading, it is just another kind of New Age religion to me. Because that is how they view and preach it, like it was a religion. I just want to talk about things that go boom. I am plenty enlightened thank you very much, and these sophomoric attempts to push their viewpoints down my throat simply make me more and more sure I never want to join their ranks. And the fact that they resort to insults simply because you do not agree with them speaks volumes about their mental instability. Translation: I am right! I am always right! If you dare to dispute me, you are wrong!
Who cares about the UN? I also said he took his lying case to Congress. "Lying to Congress", "Contempt of Congress", "Perjury"; if we didn't have laws against these, they would be constitutional. Unfortunately for you, those laws are in place.
And people then wonder why I often have contempt for civilians and their political nonsense. Of course, I also bet you go around screaming that "No WMDs were found", even though not only were they found, but Iraq turned over bunkers of the stuff to the UN after the war was over. And you also simply ignore the mass graves, because they do not matter. So once again, if all you can give to me as an argument is politics, then there is really nothing to discuss.
The OP is addressing war. It is a very complex human issue. A bumper sticker line or cutesy slogan might be fine to rally the masses, or stick in the memory of the dense, but for a reasoning person, it requires much more thought, & exposition. My debate or critique with mushroom is none of your business, unless you want to list a point, or rebut something one of us has said. But a generalized smear about my post is not a valid debate. If you have something to say, say it. Rebut one or more of the points i've made. Or sit on the sidelines & heckle, like mushroom. I don't care. But don't kid yourself that you are being rational or debating. 'Wit' might be fun, & ridicule is always popular in the peanut gallery. But I'm looking for content, & if you post something, i'll look at it. But the juvenile back & forth, masquerading as 'debate' is lame & boring. I'll point it out from time to time, but am not interested in a destracting flame war. Here's a challenge. Pick a point or 2 from this list, & tell my why i'm full of $h*t. Rebut it, & counter with your own points & thoughts. Don't go to the 'Daily Leftist' to pick the current talking points, but explain YOUR views in YOUR own words. Is that too hard?
No, the OP is addressing biased political partisanship. If the OP was addressing the Battle of Stalingrad, or the logistics of running convoys into Afghanistan, or if the Turkish Sabra is better then the US Patton, those are topics addressing war and the military. You are pontificating on your own beliefs, that is way off in left field. If you want to talk about such things, then it really belongs in the political section of the forum. This is not the place to dialectic debates. This is where we talk about things that blow things up and kill people, blowing things up and killing people, or the best way to blow things up and kill people. Not to try and justify the occasional loosertarian who wanders in here with conspiracy fantasies.
Seriously? I post an OP about war, it's philosophy, motivation, & reasons, IN 'Forums > Political Issues > Warfare/military', & you want to accuse me of off topic posting? I've got news for you.. war IS a political issue. It effects EVERYONE, & is not there just for your amusement & fascination with explosions. There are plenty of forums for discussions on tactical issues, or the tools of war, or historical analysis. But the OP is in EXACTLY the right place in this forum. Ok, so you, personally, don't want to talk about the motivations or philosophy of war. Fine. Skip over it. But historians, politicians, philosophers, & great thinkers have done this for millinnea. Many of us are intrigued by the human animal, & not just the technology of warfare. Besides, without the warmongering spirit of man, you would not have all the great war toys you enjoy so much. I've been very patient with your replies, & have not been insulting, deliberately. I have addressed your points with truth & sincerity, but have not been demeaning. I can do that, but prefer not to. It has been my longstanding policy to not have a battle of wits with an unarmed man.
Link, please. I do have a link to Bush's statement that "no WMDs were found" if you need it. And of course I ignore the mass graves. If they hadn't been Shia mass graves they would have been Sunni mass graves. What's your point?
Oh, there are many. You can start with Wikileaks, there are thousands of documents there relating to chemical weapons found in Iraq. http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/201...nt-continued-in-iraq-with-surprising-results/ http://blog.heritage.org/2010/10/28/wikileaks’-inconvenient-truth-about-iraqi-chemical-weapons/ http://nypost.com/2010/10/25/us-did-find-iraq-wmd/ Then there is also this: http://www.nti.org/gsn/article/india-completes-chemical-weapons-disposal-iraq-declares-stockpile/ Now let me guess, none of these exist, right? Iraq did not find at least 2 bunkers with weapons in them and turn them over to inspectors in 2009, right? Look, I am sorry that you are not so well informed, but the evidence is clear, and it is abundant. Continue to scream it is not there if you wish. Or do some research and find out for yourself. The choice is yours.
So what you are trying to tell me is that your leader has LIED to me? Most presidents LIE to enhance their position, not destroy it.
Once again, I do not get involved with political dogma and opinions. You challenged me to provide facts and references, and I did so. If you want to continue some kind of political based discussion (which always deals with personal opinions), then I am not playing. And it is obvious since you are trying to attack a former politician no matter what. He lied and said there were chemical weapons! He lied when he said there were no chemical weapons! And FYI, the Wikileak documents were classified TOP SECRET when they were leaked, so of course I would not expect the President (ANY President) to discuss what was in them. And the turning over of chemical weapons by Iraq was in 2009, after he left office. Not interested in playing "political attack pong-pong", thank you very much.
That's not politics or opinions. It was a fact stated by your Commander-in-Chief based on information received from his generals and hordes of inspectors.
My opposition to the military expansionism of america is 3 fold: 1. Fiscal. We cannot afford to police the world. We can barely afford to police ourselves. Military expenditures are an EXPENSE for the taxpayers.. shackling them with oppressive war costs is damaging to any society. 2. philosophical. It does not reflect the values of a free people to meddle in any & every nation's sovereignty. Supporting tyrants, killers, & thieves, who kill their own people, puts blood on our hands.. this is NOT what americans are about. We will kill oppressors, but supporting & funding them is contrary to our values. Why fight hitler & hirohito, then support karzai & mubarek? It is an ideological conflict, & is unbecoming to a free people. 3. Practical. The world is too big, with too much evil, murder, mayhem, & aggression for us to jump at every injustice. We don't do that, anyway, so our involvement is hypocritical. We jump at the ones that are politically expedient, or support some big corporate crony, or make the politician look good, or fulfill some dreams of military glory. IMO, there is no valid argument that overrides these points. 'just because' isn't a good one, nor is 'make the world safe for democracy', or 'the war to end all wars'.. those were tried, & made good slogans, but they didn't fulfill their promises, & neither do the ones today.
The US can afford 5% of GDP defence budget. I can't afford a 5% defence budget and all the social programs. So you don't want just meddle in other countries, but you support doing so if it means killing oppressors? You can't campare internal rules and elected leads to imperial Japan or the NAZI's. Ok here is a little geopolitical lesson for you the US doesn't care about the world. Only controlling trade routes of the majority of the worlds trade, so we are talking about the India Ocean, North Atlantic and North Pacific, Caribbean sea, Mediterranean sea and South China sea. That is all the US military cares about. So you aren't policing the world, just protect the worlds trade and gain geopolitical influence in doing so. It is worth it trust me I am British. The valid argument is geopolitical, not slogans here.
Protecting trade routes from piracy perhaps, but today, this function is hardly the power lever that helped build the british. empire. Social programs are about quality of life. Military programs are about defending that quality of life by administering quality death. I do entirely agree that it is ALWAYS about geo-politics. In the past, America leveraged its position in the aftermath of wars to invest and build the shattered econmies of their enemies mainly with american knowhow and capital. They have used their umbrella of power to protect vested interests the primary one being raw materials to fuel its massive manufacturing industries. today there is a huge shift, where some nations are finding out that creating their own manufacturing industries closer to the raw materials required makes economic sense. Other nations have figured out that instead of a massive military presence designed to fight wars that hopefully never actually occur they would maintain an adequate defensive and regional control force and use the monies they don't spend on weapons and the military to secure long term resources deals. China spends $300 billion on its military. It spends over $200 billion on foreign aid annually building roads and infrastructure in return for mining and drilling rights, lumber, energy, etc etc. By contrast America spends $660Billion on its military and paltry $48 billion in foreign aid. Its entirely possible that America shall be hoist by its own petard.
As George Friedman always says, if China is so good why are they investing so much outside China? The British government started doing the same thing in the late 1880's with something called globalisation, which was investment in the Empire rather than Britain. They thought they could make more money with government capital investments in infrastructure and resources from the Empire, it didn't work very well. Same with Japan in the late 1980's.
