Liberals will live with war as long as their other issues are making "progress"?

idontlikebeingrightaboutshitlikethisbutiam



Edited 21 time(s). Last edit at 5/31/1967 05:57AM by WingNut.

Last edit at 11/30/2015 01:37PM Last edit at 5/14/2015 03:52PM Last edit at 1/28/2014 05:57AM Last edit at 11/29/2015 01:10PM Last edit at 3/14/2011 11:52PM Last edit at 7/20/2012 04:07AM
Last edit at 6/29/2013 11:18PM Last edit at 3/19/2011 01:02PM Last edit at 3/26/2012 09:07PM

They have splintered. Evidently, about half of the movement was upset that the other half failed to invite them to a rally on the Mall. So now they are protesting each other for a lack of equality in the anti-war demonstrations.

I was thinking about that the other day. When was the last time you heard about GITMO, too?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I was thinking about that the other day. When was
> the last time you heard about GITMO, too?

Oh, us haters talk about it from time to time to show how phony Obammy is, but I'm personally pretty happy it's open and hope it's at full capacity.

idontlikebeingrightaboutshitlikethisbutiam



Edited 21 time(s). Last edit at 5/31/1967 05:57AM by WingNut.

Last edit at 11/30/2015 01:37PM Last edit at 5/14/2015 03:52PM Last edit at 1/28/2014 05:57AM Last edit at 11/29/2015 01:10PM Last edit at 3/14/2011 11:52PM Last edit at 7/20/2012 04:07AM
Last edit at 6/29/2013 11:18PM Last edit at 3/19/2011 01:02PM Last edit at 3/26/2012 09:07PM

Maximum intensity can only be maintained for so long--how much have you heard about the "Ground Zero Mosque" lately? There are still a fair number of people who feel like the wars should be stopped immediately and that Obama is basically "Bush lite". Others, like myself, believe that Obama would like it if he could end them but will only do so if he can do it safely. Bush seemed to be pre-disposed towards conflict, Obama away from it. As far as Gitmo goes, what can you do? Congress is pushing back hard on that and there isn't much he can do.

Voter_____ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Maximum intensity can only be maintained for so
> long--how much have you heard about the "Ground
> Zero Mosque" lately? There are still a fair
> number of people who feel like the wars should be
> stopped immediately and that Obama is basically
> "Bush lite". Others, like myself, believe that
> Obama would like it if he could end them but will
> only do so if he can do it safely. Bush seemed to
> be pre-disposed towards conflict, Obama away from
> it. As far as Gitmo goes, what can you do?
> Congress is pushing back hard on that and there
> isn't much he can do.


Anyone can end a war. It's called surrender. Do you leftists want to end it or win it? Do you think we are going to reason with these 10th century thugs who believe a woman can not legally be raped or strapping bombs onto their mentally disabled children is a good thing? I say step it up a couple of notches and fight to win ala WWII. We bombed the crap out of the Japanese and Germans, not just their military, their whole country. Now their our bestest friends. When someone beats the hell out of you, then offers you and hand up, fixes you up and puts their arm around you in friendship it is called common sense when you don't try and start another fight with them. Somehow, the pansy left has robbed us of that with the rise of the useless baby boomers.

The anti-Afghan war movement was never that big, because most people felt it was a necessary war. Essentially, all you had was people who are just against war itself and people against "American Imperialism."

The anti Iraq war movement was much bigger, but once the powers-that-be ignored the movement and went to war anyways, it lost a lot of steam, because people figured the war exists now. It's a reality and we kick ass so now we should just be concerned with "supporting troops." And we do, in fact, kick ass. We took that country in no time, and then we were stuck. That was also reality. Even if you didn't support the invasion we were there and it didn't seem right for us to just up and leave. So there you go.

The video is a little misleading. The VO says attendance went down after the invasion in 2003, then they show a graph showing attendance going down since 2007. No doubt attendance did go down since 2007, but the real drop-off was after 2003.

However, I will grant you that there are a lot of people just not paying attention because they think Obama is ending the wars and dealing with the mess he's inherited, which is not really true. Also, the wars have been overshadowed by the financial crisis. And quite honestly most people don't have a dog in the fight. You or your kid isn't gonna get drafted, and even if they're in the military the casualty rates aren't THAT bad. Those numbers are deceptive though, since they focus on deaths and not injuries.

Also, LOL at ANSWER being called "left-leaning."

Oh, one thing about the video that was RIGHT ON TARGET was the overbearing agenda of the organizations that organized the anti-war protests. ANSWER was essentially formed by the International Action Center after September 11. I know this because I had just started volunteering with them before this preparing for the World Bank/IMF protests (I was a bit more radical in my youth). 9/11 happened, and they formed this new group and shifted to anti-war on the surface, but really they were all about all their other shit. I, after 9/11, wanted to get even more involved in actual anti-war activism (I saw enough death when those buildings fell), but it was the same stuff at their meetings and at their rallies. These weren't messages of peace they were offering, but mostly politically-charged diatribes. Certainly they had some real anti-war speakers and groups working under their organizational umbrella, but they were the big ones. I quickly got tired of this and, while I continued to attend the rallies because they were the only game in town, I was disillusioned and stopped volunteering.

I can't say I entirely disagree with them on a lot of what they complain about, but they certainly are a far-left group. Too far for my tastes. Or at least they were at the time. Like I said I haven't been "involved" with them in nearly a decade.

What happened? Obama got elected. So the anti-war movement, which was really an anti-Bush movement, all packed up and went home, except for a few principled die-hards, and even they don't get much press coverage because Obama is a press darling.

There's this wierd effect in the US everytime an election causes the Oval Office to change hands. People think that "now that our man is in" that it's all better now, as if things change overnight. The questions about human rights abuses and wiretapping, for instance, have actually gotten worse as the Obama administration dug in its heels to protect government positions held by the previous administration. But to those who thought it was a bad idea under Bush, it's suddenly a good idea. Same goes for all the liberals cheering on the TSA child-touchers; they never would've stood in favor of that 2 years ago under Bush.

And the right is the same way. Suddenly republicans think the TSA has "govne too far" and they are questioning our purpose in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I have decided it doesn't matter who gets elected, as long as Americans have no principles to stand on we are fucked either way. Few Americans would adopt the consitution as it's currently worded, they just pick and choose the parts they like and try to weasel out of the rest. Unless we can be honest with ourselves and act like adults this crap will just go on and on until...

They were hypocrites, obvi. As long as their guy is continuing Gitmo and escalating the way, they don't care. As soon as it's a Republican, it's Nazi this and Nazi that.

I miss all the fuzzy, warm, nice anti-war folks. Their screams of agony at the dispensing of tear gas will forever be etched in my mind.

==================================================================================================
"And if any women or children get their legs torn off, or faces caved in, well, it's tough shit for them." -2LT. Bert Stiles, 505th, 339th (On Berlin Bombardier Mission, 1944).

maybe they all realized they were wrong. :)


"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."

Anybody ever take a trip into DC while a protest is going on? What a freak show.
Especially the code pink crew. Its hard to look tough in pink.

Voter_____ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
As far as Gitmo goes, what can you do?
> Congress is pushing back hard on that and there
> isn't much he can do.

Yeah, what can you do?

The President of the United States can send the Army to invade other countries, and even launch nuclear missiles all by himself, without even asking Congress (which violates the Constitution, but who cares about that old thing?), but he can't close a prison on a Navy base in Cuba?

tomahawk Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The President of the United States can send the
> Army to invade other countries, and even launch
> nuclear missiles all by himself, without even
> asking Congress (which violates the Constitution,
> but who cares about that old thing?), but he can't
> close a prison on a Navy base in Cuba?


Proof please regarding your assertion about violating the Const?

Dingus Bag Colostomy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Proof please regarding your assertion about
> violating the Const?


United States Constitution, Article 1, Section 8:

Section 8 - Powers of Congress

The Congress shall have Power...[snip]

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

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress...[snip]

...To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Full text: http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

Next time find your own proof. Google is your friend.

tomahawk Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Dingus Bag Colostomy Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Proof please regarding your assertion about
> > violating the Const?
>
>
> United States Constitution, Article 1, Section 8:
>
> Section 8 - Powers of Congress
>
> The Congress shall have Power...
>
> ...To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and
> Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on
> Land and Water;
>
> To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation
> of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term
> than two Years;
>
> To provide and maintain a Navy;
>
> To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of
> the land and naval Forces;
>
> To provide for calling forth the Militia to
> execute the Laws of the Union, suppress
> Insurrections and repel Invasions;
>
> To provide for organizing, arming, and
> disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such
> Part of them as may be employed in the Service of
> the United States, reserving to the States
> respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and
> the Authority of training the Militia according to
> the discipline prescribed by Congress...
>
> ...To make all Laws which shall be necessary and
> proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing
> Powers, and all other Powers vested by this
> Constitution in the Government of the United
> States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
>
> Full text:
> http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html
>
> Next time find your own proof. Google is your
> friend.

Congress approved the invasions of AFG and Iraq, you dumb shit. There is no requirement that a formal declaration of war be undertaken for constitutional use of force. The War Powers Act, which is undoubtedly constitutional, sets forth the requirements for the constitutional use of force by the executive. In both AFG and Iraq, that threshold was met. Think before you speak, imbecile.

The president is currently shooting missiles and sending troops into Pakistan, without congressional authorization. In addition, congress is not authorized to delegate their war-making powers to the executive branch.

tomahawk Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The president is currently shooting missiles and
> sending troops into Pakistan, without
> congressional authorization. In addition, congress
> is not authorized to delegate their war-making
> powers to the executive branch.


Congress has de facto approved our presence and activities in PAK by defeating the Paul/Kucinich resolution to end the "unauthorized" war there. The Admin's position is that Congress gave broad authority to prosecute the war in AFG, including approval of a major escalation. Seems that Congress and the executive agree that our activities there are warranted, or else the resolution would have passed. You think the Supreme Court will disagree?

Dingus Bag Colostomy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Congress has de facto approved our presence and
> activities in PAK by defeating the Paul/Kucinich
> resolution to end the "unauthorized" war there.
> The Admin's position is that Congress gave broad
> authority to prosecute the war in AFG, including
> approval of a major escalation. Seems that
> Congress and the executive agree that our
> activities there are warranted, or else the
> resolution would have passed. You think the
> Supreme Court will disagree?


Nothing congress does has more authority than the consitution.

As for the Supreme Court, maybe, maybe not. Does it matter? The Supreme Court is not infallible. Nor has it been authorized by the constituion to be the sole interpreter of that document.

Everything you cite is based on precedent, none of it is backed up by actual documentation. Telling the president he has to obey the constitution is squarely outside of your comfort zone, because you have become accustomed to things being the way they are since WWII. But the law is what it is and there was never an ammendment to change it, so it stands.

tomahawk Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Dingus Bag Colostomy Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Congress has de facto approved our presence and
> > activities in PAK by defeating the
> Paul/Kucinich
> > resolution to end the "unauthorized" war there.
> > The Admin's position is that Congress gave
> broad
> > authority to prosecute the war in AFG,
> including
> > approval of a major escalation. Seems that
> > Congress and the executive agree that our
> > activities there are warranted, or else the
> > resolution would have passed. You think the
> > Supreme Court will disagree?
>
>
> Nothing congress does has more authority than the
> consitution.

That's correct, but they are acting within Const. authority.

> As for the Supreme Court, maybe, maybe not. Does
> it matter? The Supreme Court is not infallible.
> Nor has it been authorized by the constituion to
> be the sole interpreter of that document.

Ummmmm, yes it matters because they are the AUTHORITATIVE interpreter of the Const, meaning the final arbiter.

>
> Everything you cite is based on precedent, none of
> it is backed up by actual documentation.

You're clearly not a lawyer.

Telling
> the president he has to obey the constitution is
> squarely outside of your comfort zone, because you
> have become accustomed to things being the way
> they are since WWII. But the law is what it is and
> there was never an ammendment to change it, so it
> stands.

Sorry, you're sorely mistaken. You're clearly a smart kid, but you need a little more experience and training in the law. Precedence is just important, it's often determinative of an action's constitutionality. Congress and the Pres. are well within those bounds.

Oh, so you have to be a lawyer now to understand the constitution. I see. I guess only lawyers can be real citizens. What was I thinking?

No I have to agree. Congress has delegated much of its war-making powers to the executive and that is not as it should be. They did this because they don't have the balls to put their money where their mouth is. We haven't had a "declared" war since WWII, but look at all the wars we've fought since then. As long as they don't have to actually declare war they can still have the CYA of being against it when shit goes down, and they can pretend, as they have, that we don't have to sacrifice some on the home front in order to pay for these wars, yet they still have the whole "We can't do this now we're at war!" argument to fall back on when it's convenient. It's sickening.

Our representatives should have to actually declare war for anything besides when immediate response is necessary, and that immediate response should be limited to the immediate response. Meaning, someone blows up our embassy somewhere or something, the president shouldn't have to wait for Congress to say it's OK to strike back; however, if he wants to invade a country and overthrow the government with a massive mobilization of our resources that's another story altogether.

It also shows we are united in this together.

Johnny Walker Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Meaning, someone blows up our embassy somewhere or
> something, the president shouldn't have to wait
> for Congress to say it's OK to strike back;
> however, if he wants to invade a country and
> overthrow the government with a massive
> mobilization of our resources that's another story
> altogether.

I agree with you except I would be more restrictive: the president should only be allowed to strike if there is an immediate threat to the US. If an embassy blows up in Beruit, say, like in the 1980s, there is no real threat to the US itself. Plenty of time for Congress to decide what to do and who to go to war with.

Same thing post 9/11. Iraq was thought by many to be a threat. It wasn't, of course, even if they had nukes they weren't about to attack the US. Again, going to war with Iraw was the classic case of "going to war". Lots of time to decide if, when, and how to do it, so no excuse for Congress not to have declared it. What we did in Iraq was certainly more than just a few airstrikes, it was an out and out war, where we were invading a country to knock out its army and its government. Same thing with Korea and Vietnam.

tomahawk Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Oh, so you have to be a lawyer now to understand
> the constitution. I see. I guess only lawyers can
> be real citizens. What was I thinking?


Not at all. All citizens are equal and thoughtful citizens who make great contributions can be of any background, persuasion or profession. But, to make an argument about something constitutionality according to the law, you probably should have a law degree. That's who gets to decide those issues--the lawyers.

How can there be an anti-war movement with no war? Last I checked The Media had stopped reporting on war.

Dingus Bag Colostomy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ...to
> make an argument about something constitutionality
> according to the law, you probably should have a
> law degree. That's who gets to decide those
> issues--the lawyers.


It doesn't say that in the constitution, either. Or does it? I'm not a lawyer, so maybe I missed it...

tomahawk Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Dingus Bag Colostomy Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > ...to
> > make an argument about something
> constitutionality
> > according to the law, you probably should have
> a
> > law degree. That's who gets to decide those
> > issues--the lawyers.
>
>
> It doesn't say that in the constitution, either.
> Or does it? I'm not a lawyer, so maybe I missed
> it...

It's actually not in the Const. It's called judicial review, which is established precedent and part of our Const. system of government, thought it's not explicitly in there. In fact, the Const. existed for 11 years without it. Marbury v. Madison. That's something else they teach in law school.

tomahawk Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What we did in Iraq was
> certainly more than just a few airstrikes, it was
> an out and out war, where we were invading a
> country to knock out its army and its government.
> Same thing with Korea and Vietnam.

It's a huge stretch to compare Iraq and the Korean War. Communists had just taken control of China, and North Korea invaded the South (not the US invading the North). While the US and Russians had recently withdrawn, and the UN resolution recommended military support be provided and established a United Nations Command.

-------------------------------------------------
“We don’t have any rude, unpleasant people here. We’re different!”

Yeah, but they were both wars overseas that did not threaten US territory in any way, so it's not that huge a stretch. But you are correct that North Korea was at least a real threat to its neighbors, whereas Iraq in 2003 was a total wreck economically and militarily and none of its neighbors were seriously worried about it.

But that touches on another aspect of US foreign policy: the fact that most of the wars we fight are bullshit, in terms of the reasons given for them.

Getting back to the topic, the "anti-war" movement is really an "anti-Republican war" movement. When Democrats start wars they usually don't protest much. They play the same game as the politicians with regard to motives and reasons for war.

tomahawk Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yeah, but they were both wars overseas that did
> not threaten US territory in any way, so it's not
> that huge a stretch. But you are correct that
> North Korea was at least a real threat to its
> neighbors, whereas Iraq in 2003 was a total wreck
> economically and militarily and none of its
> neighbors were seriously worried about it.
>
> But that touches on another aspect of US foreign
> policy: the fact that most of the wars we fight
> are bullshit, in terms of the reasons given for
> them.
>
> Getting back to the topic, the "anti-war" movement
> is really an "anti-Republican war" movement. When
> Democrats start wars they usually don't protest
> much. They play the same game as the politicians
> with regard to motives and reasons for war.

Was the Civil War a justified war? The South would not have arguably been a military threat to the North had they accepted secession. Moreover, the reason why Lincoln gave in fighting the war initially was different from that he adopted later on.