#78499
08/17/2002 7:03 PM
|
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 3,439
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 3,439 |
Part Two of the incredibly long thread set up so you may share your inspirations.
|
|
|
#78500
08/17/2002 7:42 PM
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 4,189
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 4,189 |
Thanks, wow...
Well, FWIW, from an AP article today:
>Some fellow Republicans have in recent days strongly counseled Bush against military action.
Brent Scowcroft, who was national security advisor under Bush's father, and (former) President Ford, wrote in the Wall Street Journal this week, "An attack on Iraq at this time would seriously jeopardize, if not destroy, the global counterterrorist campaign we have undertaken."<
Scowcroft and Ford? That's pretty heavy artillery coming from his own camp. Strange isn't it, to see such dissension directed at the military plans of a sitting President from within his own party? I find these two guys speaking out particularly surprising. And the military leaders are said to be strongly against it. So who's for it? Dubya and Karl Rove? Sheesh! I always said that if Dubya ever gets to the point where he refuses counsel and decides to decide on his own...well, here we are I guess.
|
|
|
#78501
08/19/2002 10:23 AM
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,467
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,467 |
Er, I think you mean Scowcroft.
And you're correct about that being pretty heavy artillery. I'd REALLY like to know what the working relationship is between Powell and Rumsfeld. Or more specifically, is there a relationship? I've gotten the feeling a couple of times that Powell may have had to threaten resignation to keep this administration on a half-way even keel.
TEd
|
|
|
#78502
08/19/2002 4:35 PM
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 4,189
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 4,189 |
To be fair, TEd, here's the best complete article on the Scowcroft reaction I could find. The original was in the The Wall Street Journal, but I don't have access (including the longer statement, from which the "global terrorist campaign" quote was taken, which elaborated a little more on wounding the sensitive intelligence web with our allies created to defend againt terrorism, and destroying the trust and support of that network by ignoring the effects of an Iraqi invasion on our friends and allies. If anyone could bring up that original quote, I'd appreciate it.) Evidently it's Bush, Rove, Rice, Rumsfeld, and, of course, Wolfowitz, in the pro-attack camp against the rest of the poltical establishment, including high-ranking sitting and former members of the Republican Party (Kissinger spoke out against an attack, too, BTW). It's certainly an odd situation. And I'm wondering if Rumsfeld, having been tight with Scowcroft, is so solid on this either. http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,775532,00.html
|
|
|
#78503
08/20/2002 8:21 PM
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 161
member
|
|
member
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 161 |
>>For every $ spent in 'aid' many dollars are grabbed in crippling debt payments in the less developed areas >>of the globe.
(TEd)
>WHOA!!! Are you saying that we forced loans on people against their will and then charged them interest >on the loans against their will? I must have missed that one. In my experience what we have done is lent >massive amounts of money to countries all over the world and then we wrote off most of the loans as >good will. I challenge you to support your statement that we have "grabbed crippling debt payments in the >lesser developed areas of the globe.
Your words, TEd are an apology of all creditors from Babylonian changers to Gobsek and Christoper Nicklby. Of course, loans are not forced on people but I wouldn’t say that about the interest. There are situations when one would take a credit on any conditions. And countries are not men in terms that almost always a government that took (and spent or as it often happens stolen) the money is not the same as that has to pay the debt plus the interest.
>I believe you will find on closer inspection of the books that this is not the case.
I never thought about this before I red a translation of the engaging book by Paul Johnson “The history of modern world” (ISBN 954-426-084-6). He describes the world political and economical history of XX century. The book is full of unexpected facts but I’d like to say only about the sources of “humanitarian aid” provided by Western countries, for example US to the developing countries.
Imagine some Saudi Arabian Prince that sells oil to an American Company, say, American Oil, Inc . Both the Prince and the Company keep their money in The Bankers Trust Bank so “selling” means just writing off some figures form the account of the Company and adding them to the account of the Prince. And as the Prince doesn’t immediately spend his money on buying racing horses and sport cars or whatever princes spend their money on, the Bank can use his money as a loan to some African country. This loan as a rule is used to pay for goods like medicaments and food produced in US. Result: money did not leave the territory of US, US producers got rich, food is eaten by Africans, which have to pay both the debt and the interest e.g. to ask for new credits.
I realize that this is an oversimplified interpretation but if you really want to know what books say, please, read this one.
|
|
|
#78504
08/22/2002 11:50 AM
|
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 3,146
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 3,146 |
Don't you get the impression that DumbDubya would have done his best work in the milieu of the 1920s Chicago gangland?
The idiot also known as Capfka ...
|
|
|
#78505
08/22/2002 8:52 PM
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,467
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,467 |
Vika:
International aid, from the perspective of the US anyway, basically serves two purposes, which go hand in hand. Maybe only one purpose, but as administrations change the priority of one purpose over the other frequently changes.
One is to help developing or emerging nations to raise their standards of living. We may lend money and expertise to develop new schools. The stated purpose is to raise the educational level of the average citizen. Unstated, but just as important, is that we believe educated citizens tend to demand democracy. And I use here democracy in the most general sense, not in the sense of having the people directly run the government. Perhaps a better word would be republicanism. We believe that in the long run the world is better off if the people control their government, rather than vice versa. I know I will get a bit of flak from people who say that this isn’t what the US is about, but they’ll be wrong. While we may have problems at home with leaders who want us to move towards a semi-theocracy where certain of our hard-won liberties are proscribed, that’s a temporary aberration. We’ll get beyond it, as we have other times.
The other reason we want to help other nations to develop is, as I have said before, to make them better markets for our goods. We’re a nation of shopkeepers. We buy and sell, and we believe that as a general rule our own standard of living is raised if we have nice toys and the leisure time to enjoy them. Whether that’s for good or ill, that’s they way most of us are. Myself included. I LIKE having a stereo so I can listen to music. I LIKE having a DVD player so I can rent a movie and watch it. I LIKE having a table saw and some other tools so I can build heirloom quality furniture for my kids. I LIKE having a computer where I can communicate with others like you people here and where I can sit down someday and write the great American novel.
I hear people here and elsewhere decrying the consumerism of the average American. That’s not a meaningful lifestyle, they say. I wonder what they want me to do. Sit around and contemplate my navel? I keep asking these questions and no one gives me any answers. Perhaps it’s because the people I’m asking the questions of don’t want to admit that they may have been wrong. Like the question about the loans to developing nations.
You said “Your words . . . are an apology of all creditors . . ..” Vika, whether we like it or not, it’s money that makes society and civilization work. Money IS property, no different from a car or a house or a piece of land. The profit motive runs deep in the human psyche. Say I own a piece of land and there are several people who want a place to live. I can build an apartment block on that piece of land and rent out the apartments for people to live in. Or I can sit there and watch my raw land grow weeds.
Now, what’s gonna make me go to the trouble and expense of building those apartments? So I can give them away for people to live in without paying me something for the roof over their heads? I don’t think so. I do it because I intend to make a profit out of it.
EXACTLY the same thing happens with money. If I have a handful of gold coins sitting in a strongbox it’s doing neither me nor anyone else a bit of good. But if I lend that money to someone else to build an apartment house, then it’s doing a bunch of people a favor. I’m going to get back more money than I lent out (hopefully), the person I lent it to has the capital to build an apartment house, and the people that rent the flats have a place to live. Dolly Levi said it best, “Money’s like manure, it has to be spread around to do any good.” But should I give that money to someone to build those apartment houses so he can give the apartments rent-free to someone who wants a roof over his head? Again, I don’t think so.
But, some people say, this isn’t about individuals lending money to other countries, it’s about governments lending money to other countries. Not true. There exists no money unless people earned it. There exists no money in a government’s treasury unless the people gave it to the treasury to use. We’ll hear some people disagree and say that the government just up and took (translated STOLE) it but that’s patently not true. If enough people don’t want the government to have money all the people have to do is install a new government, or just get rid of the government entirely. WE ARE THE GOVERNMENT. When the US government lends money to another country they are lending our money. They didn’t just print the stuff.
And, as I’ve said, in the majority of the cases when the US lends money it knows it isn’t going to get it back. We spend tens of billions, no, more like hundreds of billions of dollars every year in loans to other countries that we fully intend to forgive. Basically it’s humanitarian aid. The US is the most giving country in the history of the world. And you know, I think that a great deal of the anti-American stuff you hear, particularly currently, is based on jealousy.
I know who Paul Johnson is, so I think I should warn you: take what that man says with a very large grain of salt. He believes and preaches that an out-of-control Ben Bradlee (the editor of the Washington Post during the Watergate era) railroaded an innocent Richard Nixon out of office. He believes and preaches that JFK was a gangster who was under the control of his father (perhaps only the first half of that belief is true.) He believes and preaches that FDR was a pitiful shell of a man who prolonged the Depression and fostered a world war to get the US out of it.
I’m assuming that what you said in your next-to-last paragraph came from Johnson. It misses several points. Commercial banks don’t make loans to emerging or developing nations unless there’s a loan guaranty. Way up above I talked about governments being the only ones who make the loans. Not strictly true, from a technical sense, but true from a realistic sense, since the guaranteeing government is on the hook if there’s a default or if there’s a decision made to write off the loan as humanitarian aid. So the money does eventually come through the Government from the taxpayer.
And you said that as a rule the loan proceeds are used to buy medicine and food from the US. I think you will find that’s just plain not true. Most of those loans go to building infrastructure within the borrowing country. Sometimes with less than salubrious results, I’m afraid. I recently read about how we sent money to Bangladesh or another of that tier of countries to help them drill wells for clean drinking water. Worked like a charm, except that no one noticed the water was laced with arsenic, so people are dying of arsenic poisoning rather than cholera and dysentery.
TEd
TEd
|
|
|
#78506
08/22/2002 10:28 PM
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,400
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,400 |
the last paragraph of you comments struck me, I recently read about how we sent money to Bangladesh or another of that tier of countries to help them drill wells for clean drinking water. Worked like a charm, except that no one noticed the water was laced with arsenic, so people are dying of arsenic poisoning rather than cholera and dysentery. -- as all to typical..
great western civilization comes in, looks at a situation (ie, people dying of water born bacteria,) and says "Look at these backward,(un educated, non-scientific, what ever) people, don't they realize, that ground water like the river they drink from will get contaminated every time it rains.. Well leave it to good old american know how, we'll have these people drinking well water in no time!
i suspect that a long time ago, the local people figured out, that every one who drank well water got sick and died, but only 20 or 30% of the people who drank river water did.. an they took there chances with dysentary.
So what have we done? we have in many cases forced "technological" improvement on people, that really didn't improve their lives, and oh, by they way, even though its we were only willing to give money to dig wells as a sourse of improved water supply, and now we know it doesn't work, well too bad, but the third world people still owe us for the cost the money we "loaned" them to dig the wells.
I don't think we (americans) are cruel or hard-hearted, but i do think we often rush into a place and impose our "solutions" that others have to pay for. I think that local people know their local problems very well, and can come up with local low tech solutions that will work for them, better than we can. but we often don't allow that. we rush in, and we are trying to be good, trying to be helpful, but... maybe, what works best for us, is not the best solution.
I think sometimes we are our own worst enemies. and i think the example you sited TEd is a perfect example of our going in, coming up with a "solution" that doesn't really work..
What the town really needed was a good sess pool system, the would help keep the river cleaner. or a simple clorination plant, to help purify the river.. i suspect, there were local tales about how health the river water was.. and these local tales re-inforced drinking the river water over wells, which were inhabited by demons, or some such nonsense to our scientific ears.. but the what ever the means, the local population had learned that well water was bad.. and right they were!
|
|
|
#78507
08/23/2002 9:33 AM
|
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 475
addict
|
|
addict
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 475 |
The Bangladeshi are being poisoned by drinking well water, usually without knowing it. Only three decades ago health and development experts, and small local contractors, dug between 7-11 million deep tube wells throughout Bangladesh. The experts encouraged the whole nation to drink well water because it was safe. It was free of the bacteria that caused water-borne diseases such as diarrhoea and other intestinal maladies that have long plagued tropical Bangladesh. It has been suggested that there are between 8-12 million shallow tube-wells in Bangladesh. Up to 90% of the Bangladesh population of 130 million prefer to drink well water. Piped water supplies are available only to a little more than 10% of the total population living in the large agglomerations and some district towns. Until the discovery of arsenic in groundwater in 1993, well water was regarded as safe for drinking. The people of Bangladesh exchanged water-borne diseases for arsenicosis. In the 1970s public health specialists and government policy-makers did not think of arsenic. It was only in 1993 that the "clean" well water was discovered to contain dangerous quantities of the poison. However, there is a relatively inexpensive solution. The STAR method developed by a New Jersey team of scientists. This method can easily be learned and used by individuals. It requires a bucket and a packet of chemicals. Unfortunately, Bangladesh cannot afford to buy the equipment from the United States. A health worker says "Instead of paying $10 for the buckets and importing the chemical packets from the United States, we could easily manufacture them here in Bangladesh in huge quantities and sell them at a far lower price. To do this we need substantial funding. I’m often told that health funding is available if it’s for a good cause. Coping with the arsenic poisoning of millions of women, children and men –‘the largest mass poisoning of a population in history’ -- is a good cause, is it not?" further Arsenic-contaminated water is not restricted to developing countries. In the western states of the United States of America about 13 million people drink arsenic-tainted water, albeit less contaminated than the well water in Bangladesh. Australia, too, has arsenic-contaminated water. So do Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Hungary, Mexico, Taiwan (Province of China), Thailand, Viet Nam, and the eastern areas of India in Bengal collated from various websites, WHO, Water Aid, Global sustainability. to find out about the water purifier, which could save the lives of many millions of people click this link http://www.oneworld.org/ips2/august99/03_53_003.html
|
|
|
#78508
08/23/2002 10:00 AM
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,400
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,400 |
thanks Dody-- i made my supposistion based on years of reading about "good works" project that the US has funded.. all too often, things done with the best of intentions, and that sound good, haven't been done because there are real significant problems with the solution.
I am actually quite aware of the problem of arsnic in NJ-- and about the federal laws that cover the problem.. but i was not aware of the simple solution!
|
|
|
#78509
08/23/2002 8:13 PM
|
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 3,146
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 3,146 |
Just in case you think that I'm anti-American, which I'm not, let me state here and now that I don't fault American foreign aid programs. Yes, some of them are misguided - as are the aid programs of many countries - but they are rarely, if ever, deliberately used to hurt other people. American aid, as Ted said above, is often in the form of a non-returnable "loan". America has given away many billions of dollars over the years, and many parts of the world are better for it. Perhaps some suffer, like the Bangladeshis. But be that as it may, not even in my most paranoid moments would I consider that the well-digging program was designed to poison people. The intent was good, the execution well done, but the outcome was unforeseen.
The idiot also known as Capfka ...
|
|
|
#78510
08/23/2002 8:48 PM
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 6,296
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 6,296 |
Well, thanks, CapK, for that. Really.
There was a horrible flood somewhere in the South here years ago. All kinds of organizations gathered supplies and UPS offered to ship the supplies free-of-charge to flood victims.
I personally knew a UPS supervisor who took a truckload of goods down to one of the hard-hit locations. He returned disgusted with the results. People at the contact point unloaded the supplies, began talking about what looked good, what they could take home, and carelessly tossed many supplies into a big heap. A storm was coming up and they made no provision to protect the supplies.
Now I'm sure this doesn't always happen, but the person I knew said he'd never again be party to such unorganized, poorly managed efforts--and he really felt bad for the churches and schools that had gone to the trouble to load up the tractor trailer.
Not to report something disturbing, but.
|
|
|
#78511
08/26/2002 2:35 PM
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 4,189
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 4,189 |
"White House lawyers have told President Bush he would not need congressional approval to attack Saddam Hussein's Iraq, sources said Sunday night...." Huh?...what Constitution are they reading?...the Bush Abridged Edition? full story: http://usatoday.com/news/washington/2002-08-26-bush-iraq_x.htm
|
|
|
#78512
08/26/2002 3:23 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858 |
I saw a news item recently that a Bangladeshi scientist had devised a simple
inexpensive way of removing arsenic from drinking water. Hope it really
solves the problem.
|
|
|
#78513
08/29/2002 1:31 AM
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 1,094
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 1,094 |
Huh?...what Constitution are they reading?...the Bush Abridged Edition?
Congress hasn't officially declared war since World War II and they didn't even formally authorize military force in Kosovo until after the fact. Last year Congress authorized Bush "to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons . . . ." If he justifies a war with that, then they're not sharing all of their information. In addition, his aides apparently cited the terms for Persian Gulf War, which they say have still not been met. Therefore, they conclude, the Gulf War never actually ended. Whatever. . .
|
|
|
#78514
08/29/2002 1:48 AM
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 4,189
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 4,189 |
Congress hasn't officially declared war since World War II
'Xactly...ain't 'sposed to be that way.
|
|
|
#78515
08/29/2002 4:19 AM
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 4,189
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 4,189 |
Jazzo, it is expressly provided in the Constitution that the Congress, alone, has the power to declare war; and that the President has the power to wage war only after a Congressional declaration of war. YCLIU. There is absolutely no ambiguity here. This is not a partisan issue of any kind, BTW; the Executive Branch has been moving increasingly in this direction for the past 50 years. Here's a excellent look at this issue, and please pay special attention to the James Madison quote which I italicized: Declaring and Waging War: The U.S. Constitutionby Jacob G. Hornberger, April 2002 >Excuse me for asking an indelicate question in the midst of war, but where does President Bush derive the power to send the United States into war against another nation? The question becomes increasingly important given that the president has indicated that once the Afghan War has been brought to a conclusion, he intends to use U.S. military forces to attack other sovereign nations. It is important to keep in mind that our system of government was designed to be unlike any other in history. First, the federal government was brought into existence by the people through our Constitution. Second, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land that controls the actions of our public officials in all three branches of the federal government. Third, the powers of the federal government and its officials are not general but instead are limited to those enumerated in the Constitution. Fourth, the government is divided into three branches, each with its own enumerated powers, and one branch cannot exercise the powers of another branch. Fifth, the Constitution expressly constrains democratic, majority rule. Sixth, public officials are not legally permitted to ignore any constitutional constraint on their power but must instead seek a constitutional amendment from the people to eliminate the constraint. Why did the Founders implement such a weak, divided government? One big reason: they clearly understood that historically the greatest threat to the freedom and well-being of a people comes not from foreign enemies but instead from their own government officials, even democratically elected ones. And they understood that that threat to the citizenry was always greatest during war. Consider the words of James Madison, the father of our Constitution: “Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few.” What does our Constitution say about war? Our Founders divided war into two separate powers: Congress was given the power to declare war and the president was given the power to wage war. What that means is that under our system of government, the president cannot legally wage war against another nation in the absence of a declaration of war against that nation from Congress. Again, reflect on the words of Madison: “The Constitution expressly and exclusively vests in the Legislature the power of declaring a state of war [and] the power of raising armies. A delegation of such powers [to the president] would have struck, not only at the fabric of our Constitution, but at the foundation of all well organized and well checked governments. The separation of the power of declaring war from that of conducting it, is wisely contrived to exclude the danger of its being declared for the sake of its being conducted.” Therefore, under our system of government although the president is personally convinced that war against a certain nation is just and morally right, he is nevertheless prohibited by our supreme law of the land from waging it unless he first secures a declaration of war from Congress. That was precisely why presidents Wilson and Roosevelt, who both believed that U.S. intervention in World Wars I and II was right and just, nevertheless had to wait for a congressional declaration of war before entering the conflict. And the fact that later presidents have violated the declaration-of-war requirement does not operate as a grant of power for other presidents to do the same. What about the congressional resolution that granted President Bush the power to wage war against unnamed nations and organizations that the president determines were linked to the September 11 attacks? Doesn’t that constitute a congressional declaration of war? No, it is instead a congressional grant to the president of Caesar-like powers to wage war, a grant that the Constitution does not authorize Congress to make. Therefore, when a U.S. president wages what might otherwise be considered a just war, if he has failed to secure a congressional declaration of war, he is waging an illegal war — illegal from the standpoint of our own legal and governmental system. And when the American people support any such war, no matter how just and right they believe it is, they are standing not only against their own principles and heritage, not only against their own system of government and laws, but also against the only barrier standing between them and the tyranny of their own government — the Constitution. Mr. Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation in Fairfax, Va.< http://www.fff.org/comment/com0204a.aspYesterday Ari Fleischer issued this statement from the Bush Whitehouse: "The president will consult with the Congress because Congress has an important role to play." Huh? Well, duh! Thank you for granting the Congress, the Representative of the People, a consideration of importance, a gratuitous inclusion in your decision, since this was founded as a government "of the people, by the people, for the people".....Is it now perishing from the Earth?
|
|
|
#78516
08/29/2002 6:50 PM
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 1,094
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 1,094 |
I wasn't disagreeing with you, just saying how it is, not how it's meant to be.
|
|
|
#78517
08/29/2002 8:10 PM
|
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 3,146
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 3,146 |
War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few.
Sounds like a Republican welfare program to me, doncha know?
The idiot also known as Capfka ...
|
|
|
#78518
08/29/2002 8:16 PM
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,467
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,467 |
WO'N:
Interesting editorial, but the average person reading it isn't going to note several things. First and foremost, the website whence it came is one of the mainstay pushers of the "philosophy" of our fringe group called the Libertarian Party. So what you have put forth IS a partisan issue. I'm not familiar with the Madison quote, but I'm willing to put my dollars against your crullers that the context does not support the point that Hornberger's trying to get you to believe.
As to whether a war is "declared" or not, the question is absolutely moot. The last declaration of war by the US was in 1941; we've been in plenty of other conflicts since then, the main ones being Korea (a "police action" by the UN), Vietnam, and most recently Desert Storm, though there have been perhaps a couple of dozen others, depending upon how you classify them. Grenada, Somalia, etc etc ad nauseam.
What HAS happened is that the Congress has given the President the backing of the Congress in his decision to wage war. Semantically, this is nothing short of a declaration of war but without the words that say, "Hey, buddy, we're gonna whip your butt." Following is the text of the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, which gave LBJ (and Nixon) all the authority needed to get up to our asses in SE Asia.
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
That the Congress approves and supports the determination of the President, as Commander in Chief, to take all necessary measures to repel any armed attack against the forces of the United States and to prevent further aggression.
Section 2. The United States regards as vital to its national interest and to world peace the maintenance of international peace and security in southeast Asia. Consonant with the Constitution of the United States and the Charter of the United Nations and in accordance with its obligations under the Southeast Asia Collective Defense Treaty, the United States is, therefore, prepared, as the President determines, to take all necessary steps, including the use of armed force, to assist any member or protocol state of the Southeast Asia Collective Defense Treaty requesting assistance in defense of its freedom.
Section 3. This resolution shall expire when the President shall determine that the peace and security of the area is reasonably assured by international conditions created by action of the United Nations or otherwise, except that it may be terminated earlier by concurrent resolution of the Congress.
You need to bear in mind that a President does have the authority to wage war, but he doesn't have the authority to pay for it. That's where Congress steps in. If they don't fund a war or police action or whatever euphemism you want to place on it, the hostilities are just not going to occur. The power of the purse is awesome in a republic like ours.
Also, Congress can impeach a President for waging war without approval. It can, though our recent history showes we're more interested in the wages of sin than the waging of war.
As to whether the war is "illegal" or not, pretty much every conflict we've been involved in since WW II has been subjected to scrutiny by the Supreme Court. Note how many times the Notorious Nine have said the President is engaging in an illegal war. And if the Supremes say it's legal, then by definition it is.
As with most of the stuff coming out of the Libertarian Party, this editorial is unconvincing at best, and seditious garbage at worst.
One last point: If two countries are engaged in hostilities, does it make one darned iota of difference if they have not "declared war" on one another. Declaration of war is SO 18th century! I could never figure out how two nations who were at the point of trying to beat each other senseless could be so civil as to send someone to deliver a formal declaration of war.
TEd
TEd
|
|
|
#78519
08/29/2002 8:40 PM
|
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 3,146
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 3,146 |
I have to agree with Ted's analysis of the realities. Effectively, the political culture is such that even if only Bush, Cheney and that NSA twit of theirs want a war and Bush starts one in Iraq with or (preferably) without a valid rationale for doing so, it would be seen as unpatriotic not to back it up with the dosh.
And to some extent it's true in most other places, too.
But not in Zild. We appear to have emasculated our armed forces. These days, I doubt if the NZ armed forces could deal with Round 2 of the Maori Wars. We'd just about die laughing if Zild declared war on anywhere ...
The idiot also known as Capfka ...
|
|
|
#78520
08/29/2002 9:22 PM
|
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 742
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 742 |
>But not in Zild. We appear to have emasculated our armed forces.
Strictly in the interests of accuracy, it would be neaerer the mark to say that NZ has emasculated its Air Force. The Army is now using post WWII communications gear, a giant leap forward, and is receiving some very nice modern APCs. The Navy has pretty much escaped the neuteress' ax, given that public opinion would never have let any government proceed with the extra frigates, and the new Antarctic patrol vessel will be a nice toy to keep the bluewater boys happy for awhile.
|
|
|
#78521
08/29/2002 10:03 PM
|
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 3,146
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 3,146 |
You misunderstand me, sjm. I wasn't referring to hardware. Our boys in uniform are not to be aggressive under any circumstances. When they're not peacekeeping on someone else's dime, they are to crochet lace doilies and knit teapot covers for A&P shows around the country, although the navy lark will be allowed to do scrimshaw provided it doesn't portray anything warlike.
They're not even allowed to enter competitions - they're there for display purposes only. Can't go messing up their new toys, which do have to last them another fifty years, can they?
Helen hath spoken ....
The idiot also known as Capfka ...
|
|
|
#78522
08/29/2002 10:27 PM
|
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 742
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 742 |
> Can't go messing up their new toys, which do have to last them another fifty years, can they?
Helen hath spoken ....
Loathe as I am to break with long-standing tradition, I find myself once more forced to concur. 8^)
|
|
|
#78523
08/29/2002 11:05 PM
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 1,346
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 1,346 |
I find myself once more forced to concur. 8^)
Heck, you two are practically integritous!
Damn, wrong thread.
And wrong forum.
"Time for bed", said Zebedee.
|
|
|
#78524
08/31/2002 3:38 PM
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 2,661
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 2,661 |
...and the new Antarctic patrol vessel will be a nice toy to keep the bluewater boys happy for awhile...
Penguins need their lace doilies protected, too!
|
|
|
|
Forums16
Topics13,915
Posts230,285
Members9,208
| |
Most Online4,606
Sep 17th, 2025
|
|
|
|
