|
How is saying your quote was stupid attacking the messenger? Do you even know what the phrase means?
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2011 01:57
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 03:40 |
|
|
Why do peole care about or mention Alinsky? Was he just trolling or did Alinsky have some magical influence on my thought that I am unaware of? I am guessing trolling.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2011 02:13
|
|
|
farraday posted:Actually, I believe this is more accurately a red herring; an appeal to authority should have a connected conclusion. Yeah. I also detect a reference to/fear of the worldwide Jewish socialist conspiracy. Same with the Soros hate.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2011 02:19
|
|
|
straw man posted:Astute. I took this quote from a teabagger on Facebook. Maybe you should have included that context originally.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2011 02:31
|
|
|
In 2002 2003 Bush et al made the argument that we had to invade because Saddam was a bad man who "gassed his own people". They made lots of arguments. The "humanitarian intervention" angle was definitely there. Even more so in Afghanistan.Shimrra Jamaane posted:Well in a way that may be true. With the invasion of Iraq and the continuation of forceful US intervention in the region the people are finally pissed off enough at all the bullshit to finally rise up and try to gain self governance. Pissed off enough at the continued US intervention and dictator supporting in the region I mean. When is the revolution in Iraq going to happen? If the neocon theory had any credibility you'd think we'd see revolution in Iraq eventually. Not asking you to answer for neocons. Just thinking out loud. euphronius fucked around with this message at 18:20 on Mar 29, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2011 18:17
|
|
|
Iraq had significant anti Saddam forces such as the Sadrist milita and the Kurds. IIRC Hussein was barely if at all in control of what is called Kurdistan in Iraq in 2003.
euphronius fucked around with this message at 18:26 on Mar 29, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2011 18:23
|
|
|
DevNull posted:First off, they were not making any type of progress at over throwing Saddam. They would not have been able to. Second, if you think the two countries are anything alike, then you are just completely ignorant on the region. Stop trying to compare them at all. I wasn't saying they were alike. I was trying to talk about what actually happened in Iraq. But continuing on this line of thinking, what are the chances that the next government of Libya will privatise the nationalized oil company? I would say they are quite high.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2011 18:31
|
|
|
The one major difference between this war and Iraq is that there is broad and bilateral international support for it. The UNSC's resolution is clear. I personally think the reasons behind them* are similar but I am a horrible cynic. *the reasons for US involvement.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2011 18:42
|
|
|
ChaosSamusX posted:While this is at the very least mostly true, there is still a difference in context because Gaddafi was actively pursuing the murder of many thousands of civilians and barely trained/equipped 'militants' with only the aforementioned barely trained/equipped 'militants' to stop him. I am not arguing with your overall point but for B are you referring to the Iraqi National Congress headed by our good friend Chalabi? Because that was more or less not authentic.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2011 18:54
|
|
|
I am as cynical as they come but setting up organs of state is highly important for rebellions so that they can more credibly claim they are in fact a state and then collect diplomatic support in the way of being recognized and funded etc etc.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2011 19:04
|
|
|
That sucks. HRW is usually pretty good so that is most likely true. loving kids will be blown up 20 years from now. gently caress.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2011 04:32
|
|
|
^^^ Agreed. So despicable if true. (Most likely true). Maybe in a small agrarian republic with no standing army the President is not supposed to start wars. That horse left the barn long ago though.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2011 04:40
|
|
|
OwlBot 2000 posted:True, but it seems kinda dumb to even have a constitution if you can just dismiss it as old-timey and irrelevant one day but use it as a sacred text the next, and at the very least makes 99% of American politicians liars and hypocrites. I guess we're all cool with the President deciding when and where the law should be followed? Yo the president is commander in chief of the armed forces. He and Congress have JOINT control over the armed forces (based on the consul/senate model from Rome in part). This is in the Constitution. It is as much an error to say Congress has complete and unilateral control over the armed forces as it is to say the executive does. They work in tandem and currently Obama is working within the confines of the resolution passed by Congress. This issue is not all that clear. The Constitution is not all the clear. It is disingenuous to say that it is clear. Mostly we have to rely on traditional approaches to the issue. euphronius fucked around with this message at 05:06 on Mar 30, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2011 04:48
|
|
|
DevNull posted:Ask any person in the military for their chain of command and they won't list Congress. They will tell you the President is at the top. It is pretty clear to the people holding the guns. But yet it is Congress's responsibility to pass the regulations and laws organizing the military* and to fund it as well. Funding is a huge power: I would argue it is almost equal to the CIC's power to order units and armies around. Look at how much effort the Pentagon puts into keeping Congress informed and happy. I think the analogy to the Roman Republic is good: In the Roman Republic the Consul had command power over the Legions under his command but it was the Senate that had the responsibility for raising and funding the legions and for granting command authority to consuls. The military power was divided to keep from one man or faction from dominating the state. (This is a simplification of how the Roman Republic worked). * if you remember the whole torture issue was being debated in Congress. They were responsible for passing the laws which defined or allowed torture. (this is a simplification of the process and issues). euphronius fucked around with this message at 15:11 on Mar 30, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2011 15:06
|
|
|
Brown Moses posted:
There is an old saying in the Middle East that a the first casualty of war is the truth.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2011 15:15
|
|
|
Young Freud posted:I think only Congress can affect their own pay. Good luck with that. Only Congress can change the President's pay too. THe President can't cut his own pay.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2011 19:13
|
|
|
Is it just me or has the Fog of War been much thicker in this war than in Egypt? It is hard to tell what is going on and every source is questionable. I mean sometimes the source is Robert Gates!
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2011 22:04
|
|
|
pylb posted:
That's actually a very nice site with easy to read French. I passed it on to my French teacher wife to use in class. Thanks. It's amamzing how many military terms in French an English are similar. (I mean I know why they are, it is just cool.)
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2011 23:19
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:Surely no one actually believes NATO intends to run a no-fly zone over Libya for years? A stalemate favors Gaddafi because the West will eventually withdraw as the interventions become increasingly unpopular. Iraq NFZ was enforced from 1991-2003. That was not NATO technically but it was enforced by NATO members.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2011 22:48
|
|
|
IRQ posted:They weren't bombing tanks and technicals or anything on a daily though were they? AA units and MiGs mostly it seems.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2011 22:58
|
|
|
Unicorns are rumoured to be in India not Cyrenaica. edit Got my rumors of antiquity wrong. euphronius fucked around with this message at 18:50 on Apr 7, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2011 18:47
|
|
|
I dont think they could get that goal through the UNSC.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2011 18:50
|
|
|
Interesting teche. When does Obama have to get formal Congressional approval? I guess he gets 60 "free" days.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2011 01:33
|
|
|
June 20th hmmm. While I agree with you that no executive has viewed the WPR as constitutional, hasn't it been followed anyway? I mean the fact that Obama sent a letter under the WPR is . . . a fact.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2011 01:40
|
|
|
I can't even imagine American troops in Libya. jesus chist Obama would be all in at that point. If it did not work out he would have a really hard time being reelected.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2011 02:08
|
|
|
Is Hamas even unofficially involved, or is it a total diplomatic blockade? The headline in my newspaper this morning could not have been more misleading.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 29, 2013 18:42
|
|
|
I seriously doubt that as the US is continuing an Anglo-US foreign policy that has been in effect a long, long time.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 29, 2013 20:46
|
|
|
They have the possibility to earn over 100,000 a year don't they.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2013 16:57
|
|
|
I really hope Obama cools his heels and does not go it alone on this. While the alleged chem attacks are bad, I do not believe it is the US's role to act alone in the way Obama is reported to be thinking. I mean this is exactly the same thinking, well close to exact, that could be used by the US or other states to bomb the poo poo out of Iran.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 30, 2013 14:44
|
|
|
Cippalippus posted:"Give them up or we'll bomb you". If he doesn't give them up, you have your casus belli, if he does give them up, you solve the situation without wasting money (and possibly american lives). That is not a casus belli, that is a flimsy excuse for imperial action. Syria is not acting aggressively against the USA at all. Unless the UN approves action, the US acting alone would be pretty bad and certainly the US would not acting under any casus belli.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 30, 2013 16:59
|
|
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:
If the UN agrees to do it, then I can kind of support that idea, though I really worry about it just resulting in more death and destruction.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 30, 2013 17:14
|
|
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:So basically never because Russia is on the SC. I never said the UN was worthless. In the modern environment there are two basic casus belli. Either you are being attacked, or the UN approves of your use of force. The US attacking Syria would be an aggressive use of force without UN approval. I do not see how the objection "But Russia is going to veto!" somehow gets you to the conclusion that the proposed US aggression is proper. Also the US most likely use WP on Iraqis.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 30, 2013 17:21
|
|
|
Well if you don't think the UN works, I guess we are just back to might makes right and imperial prerogatives. I think the UN works ok.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 30, 2013 17:24
|
|
|
The USA has forfeited the right to exclusively enforce the international norm on the ban of chemical weapon use.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 30, 2013 17:26
|
|
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:So I assume you think it's 100% just and fair when the US uses their veto to stop any actions, no matter how mild, condemning Israeli actions? No it's horrible. And maybe Russia's veto is horrible. I think unilateral imperial aggression (ie what Obama is proposing) is worse though.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 30, 2013 17:27
|
|
|
Russia isn't proposing to bomb Syria? I don't know. What exactly are you asking. Influencing governments in your (alleged) sphere of influence is just how things are. Certainly Russia is an imperial power. Is that what you want me to say?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 30, 2013 17:30
|
|
|
People not taking US threats of unilateral aggression seriously sounds like a better world to live in and a triumph of post world war 2 diplomacy.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 30, 2013 17:37
|
|
|
Vladimir Putin posted:Dude, might makes right even in the UN. What about those other rear end in a top hat countries not on the security council who don't get to veto? And who do you think decided who would be on the security council? They are part of larger UN process at least and can influence customary law. The UNSC should definitely be reformed/opened up though. I think most people would agree on that? No? The US, Russia and China are all too big anyway.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 30, 2013 17:43
|
|
|
Or reform the veto.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 30, 2013 17:44
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 03:40 |
|
|
I was only mentioning reforming the UN to point out that I don't think it is perfect at all. We should probably have a UN thread. The UN has been the forum on countless checks on imperial aggression, and other aggression, so I don't think "might makes right even in the UN" is a true general statement, even though might influences the outcomes through the UNSC process.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 30, 2013 17:49
|
|