Post Reply
Page 3 of 9  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 9 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Why do they hate us?
3 years ago  ::  Jun 13, 2012 - 5:34PM #21
catboxer
Posts: 14,012

Jun 13, 2012 -- 4:25PM, CharikIeia wrote:


Why do proponents of war always and inevitably play these "hide between laws" games instead of admitting that they just act out of their most primal instincts?




Probably because they can't ever make such an admission, even to themselves.


It's not just the proponents, either. Only Congress has the legal right to declare a war, but our modern-day legislators choose not to address their responsibility to say either "yes" or "no" to the question of war, and instead weenie out, and hand Preznit Whomever a permission slip to do whatever he wants, and to whomever he wishes.


But no president, not Obama or BushII or Reagan or Nixon or Lydon J, is going to ever get in front of a camera and say "Ya know, one of the things I like about this job is the incredible sense of power I get from it, and from being cruel and killing people in faraway lands.


"


Adepto vestri stercore simul.ttr
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jun 13, 2012 - 6:26PM #22
teilhard
Posts: 52,219

As I've noted previously on numerous Occasions, The "War" on "al Qaida" has LONG been a murky Mess of BOTH "Judicial" AND "Military" Actions ...


What is CLEAR is that The United States Government has both the Right and The DUTY to act to protect American Citizens and American Interests ...


Jun 13, 2012 -- 4:25PM, CharikIeia wrote:


Jun 13, 2012 -- 4:21PM, Fodaoson wrote:


Here is a listing of Al Qaida attacks  on the US , US property, Soldiers and Ships...



The question that Teilhard opened up is, what is the legal basis, in international law, that would justify warfare of a nation (USA) against a terrorist organisation (Al Qaeda)? Where is it?


And more importantly: why do proponents of war always and inevitably play these "hide between laws" games instead of admitting that they just act out of their most primal instincts?





Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jun 13, 2012 - 6:29PM #23
teilhard
Posts: 52,219

The Proponents and Defenders of Terrorist Activities "play [Righteousness] Games instead of admitting that they just act out of their most primal Instincts ..."


Jun 13, 2012 -- 5:34PM, catboxer wrote:


Jun 13, 2012 -- 4:25PM, CharikIeia wrote:


Why do proponents of war always and inevitably play these "hide between laws" games instead of admitting that they just act out of their most primal instincts?




Probably because they can't ever make such an admission, even to themselves.


It's not just the proponents, either. Only Congress has the legal right to declare a war, but our modern-day legislators choose not to address their responsibility to say either "yes" or "no" to the question of war, and instead weenie out, and hand Preznit Whomever a permission slip to do whatever he wants, and to whomever he wishes.


But no president, not Obama or BushII or Reagan or Nixon or Lydon J, is going to ever get in front of a camera and say "Ya know, one of the things I like about this job is the incredible sense of power I get from it, and from being cruel and killing people in faraway lands.


"






Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jun 13, 2012 - 6:43PM #24
CharikIeia
Posts: 8,301

Jun 13, 2012 -- 6:29PM, teilhard wrote:


I agree that the Proponents and Defenders of Terrorist Activities "play [Righteousness] Games instead of admitting that they just act out of their most primal Instincts ..."



How can you "agree" with something nobody else ever considered before?


Maybe it's a good idea to not just let people re-do their driving license after so-and-so many years of going unchecked, but also do a basic English semantics checkup...

tl;dr
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jun 13, 2012 - 6:49PM #25
teilhard
Posts: 52,219

Amended as requested ...


Jun 13, 2012 -- 6:29PM, teilhard wrote:


The Proponents and Defenders of Terrorist Activities "play [Righteousness] Games instead of admitting that they just act out of their most primal Instincts ..."


Jun 13, 2012 -- 5:34PM, catboxer wrote:


Jun 13, 2012 -- 4:25PM, CharikIeia wrote:


Why do proponents of war always and inevitably play these "hide between laws" games instead of admitting that they just act out of their most primal instincts?




Probably because they can't ever make such an admission, even to themselves.


It's not just the proponents, either. Only Congress has the legal right to declare a war, but our modern-day legislators choose not to address their responsibility to say either "yes" or "no" to the question of war, and instead weenie out, and hand Preznit Whomever a permission slip to do whatever he wants, and to whomever he wishes.


But no president, not Obama or BushII or Reagan or Nixon or Lydon J, is going to ever get in front of a camera and say "Ya know, one of the things I like about this job is the incredible sense of power I get from it, and from being cruel and killing people in faraway lands.


"










Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jun 13, 2012 - 6:54PM #26
Fodaoson
Posts: 11,164

Jun 13, 2012 -- 4:25PM, CharikIeia wrote:


Jun 13, 2012 -- 4:21PM, Fodaoson wrote:


Here is a listing of Al Qaida attacks  on the US , US property, Soldiers and Ships...



The question that Teilhard opened up is, what is the legal basis, in international law, that would justify warfare of a nation (USA) against a terrorist organisation (Al Qaeda)? Where is it?


And more importantly: why do proponents of war always and inevitably play these "hide between laws" games instead of admitting that they just act out of their most primal instincts?




U.S. Constitution Article I, sec .8. Congress shall have the powers to:...


 10:  To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;


11:  To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;…


Letters of Marque is an archaic term for authorizing actions by Militia, privateers  mercenaries against militia, privateers mercenaries, pirates , the authorization allows the former to act on behalf of congress  on the latter. 
The first war of the New United States was against  Pirates from the Barbary coast, not a state.  And our deadliest war was a rebellion, or in contemporary terms an insurgency. 

“I seldom make the mistake of arguing with people for whose opinions I have no respect.” Edward Gibbon
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jun 13, 2012 - 7:03PM #27
teilhard
Posts: 52,219

Yes ...


Just because Bandits, Pirates, Brigands, Thieves, Murderers, and Terrorists operate across Borders and  WITHOUT Flag or Uniforms or National Governmental Structure does NOT mean that Civilized Nations must therefore just roll over and play helpless Victim ...


Nope ...


Jun 13, 2012 -- 6:54PM, Fodaoson wrote:


Jun 13, 2012 -- 4:25PM, CharikIeia wrote:


Jun 13, 2012 -- 4:21PM, Fodaoson wrote:


Here is a listing of Al Qaida attacks  on the US , US property, Soldiers and Ships...



The question that Teilhard opened up is, what is the legal basis, in international law, that would justify warfare of a nation (USA) against a terrorist organisation (Al Qaeda)? Where is it?


And more importantly: why do proponents of war always and inevitably play these "hide between laws" games instead of admitting that they just act out of their most primal instincts?




U.S. Constitution Article I, sec .8. Congress shall have the powers to:...


 10:  To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;


11:  To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;…


Letters of Marque is an archaic term for authorizing actions by Militia, privateers  mercenaries against militia, privateers mercenaries, pirates , the authorization allows the former to act on behalf of congress  on the latter. 
The first war of the New United States was against  Pirates from the Barbary coast, not a state.  And our deadliest war was a rebellion, or in contemporary terms an insurgency. 





Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jun 13, 2012 - 7:06PM #28
Fodaoson
Posts: 11,164

I have read several presidential memoirs and biographies of Presidents.   A common regret of all is that they had to send soldiers to die and to kill and the president had to bear the burden of ordering it. None expressed great pleasure of exercising the war powers.  If you have been in the military and have exercised “ extreme prejudice”  and observed the results close up , I doubt  you would feel the “power”.  Forty one years after the fact it still bothers me sometimes 

“I seldom make the mistake of arguing with people for whose opinions I have no respect.” Edward Gibbon
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jun 13, 2012 - 7:11PM #29
Iwantamotto
Posts: 8,489

teilhard:  2) Just absorb the Attacks and file the Insurance Claims ... ???


As irritating as it would be, the only way to really piss off terrorists is to act like they are harmless.  Terrorists thrive on the fear they can hurt you.


catboxer:  It's never about us, and what we do to other people. Never about the goddam empire.


Indeed.  Palpatine could've had the entire Rebellion nipped in the bud if he hadn't killed way more people than was really necessary.


teilhard:  Under International Law, we have The Right of Self Defense ...


Our wars are hardly self-defense.  The reason our country is so irritable is that the 19 people responsible died, removing any possibility of us hanging them by their yahoos.  Self-defense would've been to shoot the damn planes out of the sky on 9/11 instead of sitting around apparently playing Solitaire while people were in danger.  Self-defense is NOT attacking entire countries because of a small group of assholes.


fodaoson:  The FBI turned up evidence that Osama bin Laden, provided financial support


And yet it takes all the way up to Obama to off the guy.


teilhard:  What is CLEAR is that The United States Government has both the Right and The DUTY to act to protect American Citizens and American Interests ...


What we've accomplished is the Mission to Cut Our Nose to Spite Our Face.  You want to protect American interests?  How's about stop pissing off innocent people and making them into enemies?  How well has genocide helped us so far?  We are now a very lonely superpower way overstretched (thankfully, our enemies with the loudest pissing contests can't hit the broad side of a barn and actual enemies powerful enough and skillful enough to hurt us REAL bad are too embroiled with us in the global economy to risk it).


You don't go killing enemies.  You make them have nightmares of what they'll lose if they stop being your friend.


Charikleia:  Maybe it's a good idea to not just let people re-do their driving license after so-and-so many years of going unchecked, but also do a basic English semantics checkup...


As many psychotics are on the road, this is actually a good idea.  :)

Knock and the door shall open.  It's not my fault if you don't like the decor.
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jun 13, 2012 - 7:18PM #30
CharikIeia
Posts: 8,301

Jun 13, 2012 -- 7:03PM, teilhard wrote:


Yes ...


Just because Bandits, Pirates, Brigands, Thieves, Murderers, and Terrorists operate across Borders and  WITHOUT Flag or Uniforms or National Governmental Structure does NOT mean that Civilized Nations must therefore just roll over and play helpless Victim ...


Nope ...



Then WHERE is the US government's initiative to reform international law in this respect, and put drone warfare on a legal basis that would be acceptable also outside the USA?


The quotes you, Fodaoson, give, are hardly an international agreement to violate national sovereignty when deemed necesary by the US president. It's merely one clan's document to justify actions against another clan...


Where is the initiative to reform international law? In my view, the USA is not only not participating in these efforts, but has been actively sabotageing them.


E.g., by passing a law in the spirit of those you quoted, making it legal for US citizens to invade the Netherlands and free prisoners from Dutch prisons.


Highly offensive!

tl;dr
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 3 of 9  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 9 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook