or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Libya - Page 4

post #121 of 222
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Rumsfeld :

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2738089.stm And you've gotten another one from Fellows about Cheney. How many do you need?

And by the way : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq

Bigger than Beck's " I have a scheme ".




This is just more subterfuge on your part but I guess any source can be questioned when it's convenient.

Subterfuge? I was just asking who you meant. You meant officials. Fair enough...though I really don't think many officials claimed it would be "easy." There may have been some. In some ways they were right about the timeline anyway (duration of combat). What was not anticipated was the post-war security situation. They clearly misjudged that.

Quote:


Ok show me the quote.

Over the course of our many discussions at that time you claimed many things. I guess it's easy to claim you've said anything when so much time has past. Either that or selective memory loss.

Uh, wow. Making a "claim" is not the same as stating what one posted previously. That's not "a claim." That's what happened. I'm actually surprised that you'd challenge this. It's tantamount to calling someone a liar. In any case, I looked for the thread but was unable to find it. It was called "The American People Now Overwhelmingly Support War" (or something close...that might have been the tag line). There was this whole discussion on the nature of the poll (it was not a scientific poll, which caused quite a stir. A moderator intervened, edited my post for no other reason than to discredit the poll and win the argument (causing a blow-up as you might imagine). It's possible it was just too long ago. In its place I can offer some other polling data on support for the war at the time, which was significant if not actually overwhelming.

Quote:
May 2003
A Gallup poll made on behalf of CNN and the newspaper USA Today concluded that 79% of Americans thought the Iraq War was justified, with or without conclusive evidence of illegal weapons. 19% thought weapons were needed to justify the war.

from here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular...#February_2003

Quote:

No matter what you'll never admit anything. Even in the face of evidence to the contrary. There are too many like you here who make me realize I'm wasting my time. That's why I don't post much anymore here. The whole thing is a joke and can't be taken seriously.

Sad really since I remember a time when you could have real discussions with people about real issues ( not cartoon crap like Obama's birth certificate ). What horse shit! The only good part about this is that back in the real world it's those cartoon issues that keep those people out of power and will eventually lead to them not being taken seriously by the voting public. Thank God for something good coming out of all of this!

What am I supposed to admit? You seem to get very frustrated when anyone disagrees with you, or in my case...when someone asks a simple question. I decided to unblock you and respond to your post because I thought you might actually want to discuss and debate the issues as well. I stated clearly that I supported the military operation in Libya and I didn't think President Obama needed to go to Congress first. I took issue with how the operation has been explained and communicated. You responded by bringing up Iraq. Huh?

Edit: Re: Cartoon issues. I don't consider the birth certificate issue to be "cartoon." I'm not a birther, but I am starting to wonder why that certificate is not just released to shut the birthers up. I think it's a worthy question. You don't agree?
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #122 of 222
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Yes we need oil. This does not mean we need to go to war for it. But this isn't really about oil anyway. It's about helping those people who are getting killed by their leader.

Well, that just confirms what a disaster they have been in terms of explaining it.

Quote:


Wait until they lose a pilot or two.




OK




Thanks.

There is no "we" here. Don't drag those of us who oppose this action and the many other dubious military actions launch by our king into this. If you wish to support the President's military actions, fine. But there is no "we" in this.

There is, whether you like it or not.

Quote:




I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree: You support the United States government and military bombing another country for questionable reasons and I don't.

Questionable in your opinion.

Quote:

I am sorta curious...let's change the situation around. Let's say that some people in the US decided to rebel against the US central government. Let's say that maybe Texas decided it wanted to secede from the union and the US federal government...champions of freedom, independence and self-determination did what most reasonable people expect they would do...threaten and even execute violence against this seceding faction. And then...some outside country decided it needed to support the "rebels" by trying to implement a no-fly zone over Texas and flying cruise missiles into US federal government command bunkers and anti-aircraft batteries...what then would some think?

Just sort of an interesting thought exercise.

Not really, since it's totally different and utterly unrealistic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Except you're full of shit. I supported taking out the Taliban. I learned my lesson for giving said support. But I supported it nonetheless. I also thought Bush should have gone to Darfur instead of Iraq. That would have really demonstrated that he cared about a people being ruthlessly killed by its government. We all know that was a farce. It came out in Rumsfeld's book that Bush was already talking about invading Iraq days after 9/11.

Dude, it was tongue-in-cheek. Relax.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #123 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Well, that just confirms what a disaster they have been in terms of explaining it.

No.


Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

There is, whether you like it or not.

No, there isn't. Don't drag me into "we." I have nothing to do with what the US government is doing in Libya. You and the others who support this don't get to diffuse your guilt or hypocrisy by dragging a wider, unwilling and unsupportive group of people into because you think there's a wide "we" that exists only in your mind.


Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Questionable in your opinion.

Yes...it is my opinion. One informed by facts, history and experience.


Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Not really, since it's totally different and utterly unrealistic.

That's why it's called it a "though exercise." And, it would not be "totally different."

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #124 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by marvfox View Post

What is the real underlying reason we are in Libya now?

hardcore sex
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #125 of 222
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

No.

So, they've done a GOOD job?

Quote:


No, there isn't. Don't drag me into "we." I have nothing to do with what the US government is doing in Libya. You and the others who support this don't get to diffuse your guilt or hypocrisy by dragging a wider, unwilling and unsupportive group of people into because you think there's a wide "we" that exists only in your mind.

First, I'm not hypocritical, nor am I feeling guilty. I'm simply saying that you are a citizen of the United States. You may not support what your government does, but that government still represents the nation as a whole. "We" is the United States. It doesn't mean everyone agrees. "We" attacked Libya. "We" attacked Iraq. "We" have a huge deficit and overall debt. You can't divorce yourself from it because you disagree with a policy.

Quote:


Yes...it is my opinion. One informed by facts, history and experience.

That's not what you stated. You stated that it was my right to support the action for "questionable reasons." I support it for what I consider to be good reasons. If there were not good reasons, I would not support it. In this case I believe that the humanitarian situation and security of oil markets warranted participating. You're saying you disagree, which is both fine and something I respect. But don't disrespect me because we have different opinions.

Quote:
That's why it's called it a "though exercise." And, it would not be "totally different."

First, I won't tell you where to put that condescending eye roll, but I'm sure you can guess. Secondly, I could respond with the same indignation over your "thought exercise." Why? Because it really IS totally different and unrealistic.
  • We settled the fight over a secession a long time ago
  • The US would not use active-duty military against it's population, particularly to slaughter people.
  • The only known historical example that peratins here is the Civil War. That war was fought between two ARMIES.
  • The US is not ruled by a brutal dictator. It is based on individual liberty and freedom consistent with law and order. It participates in world affairs and is part of the community of nations. It's a democracy. Libya is not.
  • Libya is nearly a rogue nation. It's leader has sponsored terrorism and violated human rights for 40 years.
  • Realistically, there is no power on Earth that has the capability to intervene in US affairs.

Any "thought exercise" like the one you outlined is shallow and a waste of time. The facts are that we and a handful of other nations have the power to stop guys like this. Now, if you feel we shouldn't be involved, that's fine with me. But that needs to be communicated and applies across the board. Obama's problem here has been communication. Of course, that itself is looking like he doesn't really know what our policy is to begin in the first place.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #126 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

So, they've done a GOOD job?

No. Your assumption is that I think what I think because they simply haven't explained themselves well enough. That sounds like Barack Obama's excuse for why people were so opposed to Obamacare.



Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

I'm simply saying that you are a citizen of the United States. You may not support what your government does, but that government still represents the nation as a whole.

It doesn't represent me in this action.


Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

That's not what you stated. You stated that it was my right to support the action for "questionable reasons." I support it for what I consider to be good reasons.

I meant that this war is based on questionable reasons.


Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Secondly, I could respond with the same indignation over your "thought exercise." Why? Because it really IS totally different and unrealistic.

So you say.


Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

We settled the fight over a secession a long time ago

Are you saying that no state has a right to secede from the U.S.?


Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

The US would not use active-duty military against it's population, particularly to slaughter people.

I hope you are right, but I'm not certain that you are.


Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

It is based on individual liberty and freedom consistent with law and order.

And less of both every day.


Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

It's a democracy.

Actually, it is a federal constitutional republic with aspects of representative democracy. At least it used to be.


Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Libya is nearly a rogue nation. It's leader has sponsored terrorism and violated human rights for 40 years.

As have others in other countries. But we're not doing anything about them. Therein lies the hypocrisy and the transparency that this action is about oil not humanitarian reasons.


Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Any "thought exercise" like the one you outlined is shallow and a waste of time.

Thanks for sharing your opinion.


Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Obama's problem here has been communication.

I disagree. Just like his problem with ObamaCare was not about communication. The policy was flawed. You can't just eloquently speak your way around that.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #127 of 222
The Iraq Effect
If Saddam Hussein were still in power, this year's Arab uprisings could never have happened.
By Christopher Hitchens

Quote:
Can anyone imagine how the Arab spring would have played out if a keystone Arab state, oil-rich and heavily armed with a track record of intervention in its neighbors' affairs and a history of all-out mass repression against its own civilians, were still the private property of a sadistic crime family? As it is, to have had Iraq on the other scale from the outset has been an unnoticed and unacknowledged benefit whose extent is impossible to compute. And the influence of Iraq on the Libyan equation has also been uniformly positive in ways that are likewise often overlooked.


This freedom made possible by The United States Military.
post #128 of 222
Hitchens
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #129 of 222
I am very conflicted on this whole Libya issue. The story is so convoluted just like all things are in real life conflicts. If they truly need help, I believe America should help; if asked. The help should not come in the form of Tomohawk missiles. Air support enforcing a no-fly zone is a great option in theory and to me seems like it would seriously limit civilian casualties. But the true help is on the ground. Red Cross style help. Food, medicine, comfort, rebuilding homes if needed. It is not up to us to ensure a victor, but to try to ease the pain of those civilians who are reeling during the fight. Does the US military belong there? Perhaps to protect our people who are doing humanitarian work, but even that carries a penalty of making them a "military target". At this point, we should pull out our military, let the rest of the world make their own decision on how to assist, and try to help the people on the ground. Use the same amount of money we would have spent on Tomohawks alone on aid and see how much good can be done.
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #130 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahJ View Post

I am very conflicted on this whole Libya issue. The story is so convoluted just like all things are in real life conflicts. If they truly need help, I believe America should help; if asked. The help should not come in the form of Tomohawk missiles. Air support enforcing a no-fly zone is a great option in theory and to me seems like it would seriously limit civilian casualties. But the true help is on the ground. Red Cross style help. Food, medicine, comfort, rebuilding homes if needed. It is not up to us to ensure a victor, but to try to ease the pain of those civilians who are reeling during the fight. Does the US military belong there? Perhaps to protect our people who are doing humanitarian work, but even that carries a penalty of making them a "military target". At this point, we should pull out our military, let the rest of the world make their own decision on how to assist, and try to help the people on the ground. Use the same amount of money we would have spent on Tomohawks alone on aid and see how much good can be done.

As you correctly point out these kind of situations get complicated.

I have several problems here. First, there's a certain degree of hypocrisy (or at least inconsistency) in the application of this alleged "humanitarian military aid" throughout the world. This kind of thing has been happening elsewhere, but not in countries where oil is factor and the leader is widely hated (instead of a "friend" of the US.)

So there's problems with the reasoning.

Next there are problems with the actual strategy and tactics as you've pointed out. As enamored we often are in the west with our great and sophisticated military technology, cruise missiles have become the proverbial hammer to every problem that looks like a nail.

A no fly zone? Sure. Maybe. This carries a variety of risks as well.

All in all I don't think this was very well thought through. It was hasty and a bit careless. Almost a knee-jerk reaction.

Finally, we don't really even know who it is that is rebelling against Libyan leadership. There have been numerous questions and concerns about this. Are we defending a group just as bad as the current leadership. This is a real question that needs to be asked and answered. We ought not assume that any rebellion in a country led by a terrible (even evil) leader is necessarily noble and righteous.

For example:

Who are Libya's rebels?

Anti-American Extremists Among Libyan Rebels U.S. Has Vowed To Protect

Q&A: Who are the Libyan rebels?

Libyan rebel commander admits his fighters have al-Qaeda links

WHO ARE THE REBELS?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #131 of 222
Well, apparently it is (also) about deposing Gadhafi:

Top diplomats agree: Gadhafi needs to go

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #132 of 222

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #133 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahJ View Post

I am very conflicted on this whole Libya issue. The story is so convoluted just like all things are in real life conflicts. If they truly need help, I believe America should help; if asked. The help should not come in the form of Tomohawk missiles. Air support enforcing a no-fly zone is a great option in theory and to me seems like it would seriously limit civilian casualties. But the true help is on the ground. Red Cross style help. Food, medicine, comfort, rebuilding homes if needed. It is not up to us to ensure a victor, but to try to ease the pain of those civilians who are reeling during the fight. Does the US military belong there? Perhaps to protect our people who are doing humanitarian work, but even that carries a penalty of making them a "military target". At this point, we should pull out our military, let the rest of the world make their own decision on how to assist, and try to help the people on the ground. Use the same amount of money we would have spent on Tomohawks alone on aid and see how much good can be done.

Yea. We could play the role of humanitarian and ship body bags straight to the firing squads. If the bulldozer runs out of fuel for the mass grave we could offer some barrels of diesel. I'm sure the red cross would have no qualms walking into a chaotic war zone with supplies. Maybe they can bring another nurse for the leader?
post #134 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by FloorJack View Post

Yea. We could play the role of humanitarian and ship body bags straight to the firing squads. If the bulldozer runs out of fuel for the mass grave we could offer some barrels of diesel. I'm sure the red cross would have no qualms walking into a chaotic war zone with supplies. Maybe they can bring another nurse for the leader?

So I take it you disagree with me.
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #135 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by FloorJack View Post

The Iraq Effect
If Saddam Hussein were still in power, this year's Arab uprisings could never have happened.
By Christopher Hitchens

This freedom made possible by The United States Military.[/QUOTE]

The only freedom given to Iraqis as a result of the 2003 invasion and occupation came to 1.2 million Iraqi civilians who were freed from their physical bodies.

This is 100% sour grapes from HItchens, having been proved so utterly and completely wrong about Iraq. He jumped onto what he thought would be the winning bandwagon, and he fell flat on his alcoholic ass. Now he's trying to concoct some more contrived BS to save his screwed-up take on the mid east. Go eat some more crow, Hitchens before you look even more stupid.

Its amazing how far someone can fall. His documentary on Kissinger was pretty good. Oh well.
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #136 of 222
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

No. Your assumption is that I think what I think because they simply haven't explained themselves well enough. That sounds like Barack Obama's excuse for why people were so opposed to Obamacare.

A good point. However, I think that here it's more about communication than it was with Obamacare. Don't get me wrong, I'm starting to see signs that they don't know what the policy is. Since we last communicate Obama gave that disaster of a speech.

Quote:

It doesn't represent me in this action.

Sorry, it does. It represents us all, as does Obama. I can't stand him for a whole host of reasons, but that's the way it is.

Quote:


I meant that this war is based on questionable reasons.

I think intervening to stop a slaughter and intervening to make sure the the oil supply is stable are two good reasons for the type of action we took.

Quote:




So you say.




Are you saying that no state has a right to secede from the U.S.?

That is what I understand, yes.

Quote:


I hope you are right, but I'm not certain that you are.




And less of both every day.

Agreed there.

Quote:




Actually, it is a federal constitutional republic with aspects of representative democracy. At least it used to be.

Yes, I understand. Democracy is used interchangeably...at least in modern times.

Quote:



As have others in other countries. But we're not doing anything about them. Therein lies the hypocrisy and the transparency that this action is about oil not humanitarian reasons.

I don't think this situation is quite the same. We had something different here. There was an uprising. G-boy responded with tanks and attack aircraft and stated he would target civilians and show no mercy. The international community pushed for a no-fly to stop him. Knowing Obama as we do, I doubt he would have acted alone on this.

Quote:




Thanks for sharing your opinion.




I disagree. Just like his problem with ObamaCare was not about communication. The policy was flawed. You can't just eloquently speak your way around that.

Again, two different issues. As of right now, what we're doing is pretty clear: Enforcing a no-fly zone in order to protect civilians and protecting our interests in the region (oil). But his communication of it has been horrible. He should have gone to airwaves from the Oval office the very day he ordered the operation. He should have explained his reasons with a short, to-the-point speech. Instead, we had was Obama is Brazil, on ESPN giving his NCAA picks, different admin officials saying different things, and general pandemonium.

Now, going forward? That's what I'm worrying about. They keep talking about regime change and that our official policy is that G must leave power. Then we hear about potential arms to rebels. At the same time we're told the mission is limited and we're not interested in regime change. Honestly, other than Obama not going on TV when he ordered the mission, I was supportive of this...until his rambling, lecturing, contradictory speech the other night. Now I I'm totally convinced that Obama another liberal-pseudo-intellectual that gets himself so twisted up in knots of circular logic that he doesn't know which way is "up" anymore. If we want regime change, state that, then target Ghadaffi full-on from the air. If we just want to stop him, then let's stop saying he needs to leave.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #137 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Sorry, it does. It represents us all, as does Obama.

No. And it doesn't become any more true by your repetition.


Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

I think intervening to stop a slaughter and intervening to make sure the the oil supply is stable are two good reasons for the type of action we took.

I think protecting Europe's oil supply and, probably, getting rid of Gadhafi are the reasons the US government took this action.


Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

That is what I understand, yes.

Interesting. I'd say you're wrong.


Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Now, going forward? That's what I'm worrying about. They keep talking about regime change and that our official policy is that G must leave power. Then we hear about potential arms to rebels.

Sounds like think might get messy.


Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

At the same time we're told the mission is limited and we're not interested in regime change.

Uh huh.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #138 of 222
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

No. And it doesn't become any more true by your repetition.

Dude, you can live in fantasy land and scream "NOT MY PRESIDENT!" all you want, but as a U.S. citizen, you are represented by the government. The actions taken are taken in the name of the American people, right or wrong. I'm not saying you agree with the action. I'm not saying you're directly involved. But you're still an American. I fail to see how this is even debatable.

Quote:


I think protecting Europe's oil supply and, probably, getting rid of Gadhafi are the reasons the US government took this action.

I think the first point is definitely part of it. The second point I find puzzling. We have a contradictory policy here: We want Gadaffi gone, but we're not willing to attack him directly. If we're not going to get involved in regime change, then let's not talk about it. It seems to me Obama is being pushed hard by the powers that be in Washington on this. I don't think he wants to go after Gadaffi. I don't think he believes our policy should be "he must go." I think he only wanted to stop the impending slaughter of civilians. But now, we've got half the administration running around talking about Gadaffi leaving power. Even Obama's talking about it. However, we're stating that we're not going to do anything to facilitate it. Mark my words...this has the potential to be a historic Vietnam-like embarrassment for this country. And it's not because we dropped some bombs a launched a few hundred Tomahawk missiles. It's because of Obama's complete and utter lack of leadership and vision. Soon we'll decide we need to send weapons and "advisors," if we're not doing that already. This is exactly the opposite of what we should have done. The President should have ordered the operation to protect the cities and attack advancing forces. Then he should have gotten on TV and explained what he did. He doesn't seem to understand that when the POTUS says a leader "must go," it has huge consequences.


Quote:


Interesting. I'd say you're wrong.

You're telling me a state has the right to secede?

Quote:


Sounds like think might get messy.

See above.
Quote:

Uh huh.

Again, we don't disagree. His handling of this is only getting worse from what I can tell. I support a limited military action for the reasons I listed. And, if we think this guy is bad enough that we want him out, take him out. We can decimate him from the air. But we've not done that. It's a total repudiation of the Powell Doctrine on Obama's part.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #139 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Dude, you can live in fantasy land and scream "NOT MY PRESIDENT!" all you want, but as a U.S. citizen, you are represented by the government. The actions taken are taken in the name of the American people, right or wrong. I'm not saying you agree with the action. I'm not saying you're directly involved. But you're still an American. I fail to see how this is even debatable.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this point.


Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Mark my words...this has the potential to be a historic Vietnam-like embarrassment for this country.

Agreed.


Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

You're telling me a state has the right to secede?

I believe absolutely, without question, yes.


Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

His handling of this is only getting worse from what I can tell.

Agreed.


Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

I support a limited military action for the reasons I listed.

I don't.


Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

And, if we think this guy is bad enough that we want him out, take him out.

I disagree.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #140 of 222
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

We'll have to agree to disagree on this point.

I think we can agree to disagree about the military action. You have your opinion and I have mine. But I don't see what you can disagree with re: "we." It's really not even debatable.

Quote:

Agreed.




I believe absolutely, without question, yes.


Please explain that one. The last time states tried to do that we had the bloodiest war in American history.

Quote:



Agreed.




I don't.




I disagree.


I'm not saying I support regime change here. I really don't think we should be involved in that unless he poses a real threat. We had him in his box for a decade, after all. What I'm saying is that IF "we" (hehe) choose to go that route, then let's just do it. If we're not going that route, then "we" should stop talking about it. THAT is what gets the world pissed off at us. We're talking loudly and carrying a small stick.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #141 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

I think we can agree to disagree about the military action. You have your opinion and I have mine. But I don't see what you can disagree with re: "we." It's really not even debatable.

I believe it is debatable. Ultimately we disagree here.


Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Please explain that one. The last time states tried to do that we had the bloodiest war in American history.

You are correct. But just because Lincoln chose this violent, coercive and, frankly, totalitarian approach doesn't mean the states didn't (and don't still to this day) retain the right to secede.

The fundamental issue here is a question of the right of self-rule, self-determination and association and/or disassociation. If the claim is that a group of people, as a state, don't have those rights, then the claim is that they are essentially permanently bound to the other states and to the federal government...basically slaves. This would be like saying no one has a right to give up their US citizenship, they are always a US citizen and always bound to the US government. The only difference is scale.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #142 of 222
Thread Starter 
[QUOTE=MJ1970;1839835]I believe it is debatable. Ultimately we disagree here.[/qupte]

You disagree that you're an American? You disagree that people of other nations associated American government actions with Americans themselves?

Quote:


You are correct. But just because Lincoln chose this violent, coercive and, frankly, totalitarian approach doesn't mean the states didn't (and don't still to this day) retain the right to secede.

Totalitarian? Wow. And frankly, I prefer to deal with this not in theory but in reality. In reality states do not have the "right" secede. Secession is also a matter of practical impossibility at this point. The states and federal governments are inextricably linked at this point.

Quote:

The fundamental issue here is a question of the right of self-rule, self-determination and association and/or disassociation. If the claim is that a group of people, as a state, don't have those rights, then the claim is that they are essentially permanently bound to the other states and to the federal government...basically slaves. This would be like saying no one has a right to give up their US citizenship, they are always a US citizen and always bound to the US government. The only difference is scale.

No, not "basically slaves." And it's not ANYTHING like renouncing citizenship. Come on dude...get real. States don't have the right to secede, no matter how much you try to history-professor your way to that conclusion.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #143 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

You disagree that you're an American? You disagree that people of other nations associated American government actions with Americans themselves?

No. But that's not at all what I was saying. What I'm saying that I think is debatable is this issue of "we." We just disagree here. I think we can leave it at that.


Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Totalitarian? Wow.

What do you call an action, particularly by a government, that uses violence to enforce one's will?


Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

And frankly, I prefer to deal with this not in theory but in reality.

This is an interesting dichotomy.


Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

In reality states do not have the "right" secede.

I'd say you're wrong.


Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Secession is also a matter of practical impossibility at this point. The states and federal governments are inextricably linked at this point.

Possibly.


Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

No, not "basically slaves." And it's not ANYTHING like renouncing citizenship. Come on dude...get real. States don't have the right to secede, no matter how much you try to history-professor your way to that conclusion.

Again, we disagree here. That's ok. I'm fine with that.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #144 of 222
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

No. But that's not at all what I was saying. What I'm saying that I think is debatable is this issue of "we." We just disagree here. I think we can leave it at that.

OK.

Quote:

What do you call an action, particularly by a government, that uses violence to enforce one's will?




This is an interesting dichotomy.




I'd say you're wrong.

States don't have the right to secede. If you doubt that, see what happens when one tries.

Quote:


Possibly.

I think definitely.

Quote:


Again, we disagree here. That's ok. I'm fine with that.

I am too, and I appreciate honest differences.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #145 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

States don't have the right to secede.

Again we disagree.


Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

If you doubt that, see what happens when one tries.

This brings us full circle back to what I said in this post, which was:

Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970

Let's say Texas wanted to secede and the US federal government did what most reasonable people expect they would do...threaten and even execute violence against this seceding faction.

Which is exactly what I would expect to happen.

But this action to prevent the secession doesn't mean they don't have the right to secede. It simply means that one faction (the US federal government) thinks it has a right to forcibly stop another faction (Texas in this example) from seceding.

It's important to realize that just because someone threatens to and even tries to bash you over the head for doing something doesn't mean you don't have a right to do it. You just might need to defend yourself against this violent aggression.

So, for example, getting back to the thread topic...if a group of people in a country (e.g., Libya) decide they no longer want their current ruler and want to revolt against his or her rule, just because that ruler wants to resist this rebellion by force and violence, doesn't mean they don't have the right to reject and rebel against his rule. This is just like secession in a different form. This is also, coincidentally, what the American colonists did a couple of hundred years ago. They seceded from their parent/central government to form a new nation.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #146 of 222
The very latest in the mismanagement of the Fukushima crisis.. the use of the chemical DHMO to cool the reactors.

What were they thinking?


"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #147 of 222
What would happen if ALL 50 states seceeded?
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #148 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

What would happen if ALL 50 states seceeded?

Good question. You have 50 new independent nations? Perhaps fewer if some chose to join together as a single nation. The US federal government is left standing there, naked, embarrassed going "WTF?!?"

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #149 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

What would happen if ALL 50 states seceeded?

Democrats would call them all racists.
post #150 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

What would happen if ALL 50 states seceeded?

Washington DC would become the new smallest nation like Vatican City?
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #151 of 222
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Again we disagree.




This brings us full circle back to what I said in this post, which was:



Which is exactly what I would expect to happen.

But this action to prevent the secession doesn't mean they don't have the right to secede. It simply means that one faction (the US federal government) thinks it has a right to forcibly stop another faction (Texas in this example) from seceding.

It's important to realize that just because someone threatens to and even tries to bash you over the head for doing something doesn't mean you don't have a right to do it. You just might need to defend yourself against this violent aggression.

So, for example, getting back to the thread topic...if a group of people in a country (e.g., Libya) decide they no longer want their current ruler and want to revolt against his or her rule, just because that ruler wants to resist this rebellion by force and violence, doesn't mean they don't have the right to reject and rebel against his rule. This is just like secession in a different form. This is also, coincidentally, what the American colonists did a couple of hundred years ago. They seceded from their parent/central government to form a new nation.


You're making a purely academic argument. States cannot secede. They do not have that legal right. And yes, sometimes legal mandates must be back up with the threat of force. This is true in criminal law (jail) and civil law (financial awards).

Comparing this hypothetical situation with Libya is flawed reasoning. Libya is not a Democratic Republic with a defining, guiding document like our Constitution. They are rising up against true tyranny and brutality...against a literal dictator. While we can certainly agree our government does things that intrude on our freedoms, our government is not tyrannical or brutal in the true sense of the words. If it was, I would agree that we have the moral right to overthrow it. Speaking of which, that is the problem. We are talking about moral rights (which are subjective) and that leads to a purely academic discussion. In reality, U.S. states cannot legally or practically secede (nor can foreign forces intervene. The federal government is simply too strong). Libyan rebels can perhaps overthrow the Tyrant of Tripoli. The two situations are just wholly different.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #152 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

You're making a purely academic argument. States cannot secede. They do not have that legal right.

You've made your opinion on this clear.


Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

We are talking about moral rights (which are subjective)...

Are they?


Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

In reality, U.S. states cannot legally or practically secede (nor can foreign forces intervene. The federal government is simply too strong).

As I said above: You've made your opinion on this clear.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #153 of 222
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

You've made your opinion on this clear.




Are they?




As I said above: You've made your opinion on this clear.


OK. Show me some legal justification for states seceding. Go ahead.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #154 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

OK. Show me some legal justification for states seceding. Go ahead.

I'm going to say that this right (capability is a different discussion because as you point out the "higher" power is likely to use force and violence to prevent it) to secede is based on the clear right to associate or dissociate. It is a very basic and fundamental right of freedom. If you don't have that then you, basically, have some form of slavery or serfdom.

Frankly, this is so obvious I can't see how anyone can deny it.

I can see disputing the likeliness of secession actually happening.

I can see debating whether it could be practically undertaken because of the likely violent reaction of some other group.

But as to the right? That seems so obvious like the sky is blue kind of thing.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #155 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

I'm going to say that this right (capability is a different discussion because as you point out the "higher" power is likely to use force and violence to prevent it) to secede is based on the clear right to associate or dissociate. It is a very basic and fundamental right of freedom. If you don't have that then you, basically, have some form of slavery or serfdom.

Frankly, this is so obvious I can't see how anyone can deny it.

I can see disputing the likeliness of secession actually happening.

I can see debating whether it could be practically undertaken because of the likely violent reaction of some other group.

But as to the right? That seems so obvious like the sky is blue kind of thing.

Seems pretty obvious to me that they can't. Is there a single instance in US law where a citizen was able to give up or have take away their constitutional rights? If not then a state cannot secede from the union.
post #156 of 222
The UN-resolution to intervene militarily in Lybia is imho very strange. Is the UN allowed to intervene? I mean it's a civil-war within a country and as far as I know as long as conflicts don't extend to other countries the UN has no rights to intervene.

The other strange thing is that a lot of civil wars are going on around the world and yet the UN doesn't intervene there, so what is so special about Lybia? Is it again the big oil-ressources that get the UN and Nato interested to engage?

The US has not taken part in bombarding Lybia yet, why? It was France and Britain that pushed this intervention the most? Is it because the US has already Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Afghanistan for its ressource-needs and therefore already satisfied while France and Britain feel the need to go for some of their own? Is it really all about ressources?

Was Gadaffis' regime putting too many restrictions and requirements for the oil-deals and maybe being a bit too cocky about the possibilities to deal with China and other asian countries instead? And the refuggee-situation, Gaddafis' regime told Europe blatantly to pay 5 million euros per year for Lybias' work to prevent refuggees from reaching Europe... maybe those things combined let Gadaffi fall out of favour with Europe.

But funnily as I just read, the Nato says it has not enough ammunition and planes and difficulties to continue the air-operation! And already asking the US to help out, which means the US would have to bombard Lybia cause the bombs from the US don't fit on the european planes.

Europe's airforce is too weak to deal with Gadaffi's regime, maybe ground forces are needed to really make a difference.

And what is the goal? The UN-resolution merely allows intervention to stop attacks on civilians, but the Nato already said they want regime-change, which conflicts with the resolution.
I disagree, and could prove you're wrong; care to offer any proof that you're not wrong?
Reply
I disagree, and could prove you're wrong; care to offer any proof that you're not wrong?
Reply
post #157 of 222
The US has heard the pleas of the Nato whose ammunition-reserves of precision-bombs got low and takes now part in the bombardment of Lybia, not with airplanes but with armed unmanned predator drones.
I disagree, and could prove you're wrong; care to offer any proof that you're not wrong?
Reply
I disagree, and could prove you're wrong; care to offer any proof that you're not wrong?
Reply
post #158 of 222
I wonder if the US will be going into Syria as it is in Libya and if not, why not.

Syrian security forces open fire on funeral procession

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #159 of 222
If some foreign nation dropped a bomb on your house, destroying your property and killing loved ones, would you accept the explanations "we're liberating you" and "it's not REALLY a war"?

The libertarian principle of non-aggression is the only consistent and moral position.

Just listen to all the Obamatons scrambling to justify clearly immoral and unconstitutional action the same way the Bush supporters did with Iraq and Afghanistan!

Frankly, it's disgusting.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #160 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

If some foreign nation dropped a bomb on your house, destroying your property and killing loved ones, would you accept the explanations "we're liberating you" and "it's not REALLY a war"?

The libertarian principle of non-aggression is the only consistent and moral position.

Just listen to all the Obamatons scrambling to justify clearly immoral and unconstitutional action the same way the Bush supporters did with Iraq and Afghanistan!

Frankly, it's disgusting.

Yep..
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider