Political Crossfire Forums

[sLiPpY]

Heinz wrote: Quote: What war?

I say this speaking from a military point of view, but a "war" according to the US military is when the nation is under extreme danger in such a way that it might make the US a part of history in a bad way. If something is presenting an obvious threat to our homeland, the US military decalres a state of war nation-wide.

Put simply.....according to the US military September 11th was a war.

Where was the military on Sept 11th? MIA?


I think it's stupid to consider the present state of affairs a war.

It belittles the concept of what war really is.

[Heinz]

Quote: Where was the military on Sept 11th? MIA?

Protecting US citizens from immigrants, who came here LEGALLY, that happen to hop on planes and ram them into buildings isn't our job, unless you want us to check those who enter legally into our nation.

That's a CIA/FBI thing.

They issued "war" nation-wide afterwards in order to put us on status alert....Meaning I could have been DEPLOYED to New York.

Quote: I think it's stupid to consider the present state of affairs a war.

It belittles the concept of what war really is

Don't tell me that......Go tell the current secretary of defense.

[sLiPpY]

Heinz wrote: Quote: Where was the military on Sept 11th? MIA?

Protecting US citizens from immigrants, who came here LEGALLY, that happen to hop on planes and ram them into buildings isn't our job, unless you want us to check those who enter legally into our nation.

That's a CIA/FBI thing.

They issued "war" nation-wide afterwards in order to put us on status alert....Meaning I could have been DEPLOYED to New York.

Quote: I think it's stupid to consider the present state of affairs a war.

It belittles the concept of what war really is

Don't tell me that......Go tell the current secretary of defense.

Bill Clinton sure as hell ran a superior military. When Clinton was in office, they practiced for things like intercepting commercial and private aircraft...you know "aka terrorist attacks."

Put a Republican in charge of the Military and everything goes to hell in a towel. :lol:

[Heinz]

Quote: Bill Clinton sure as hell ran a superior military. When Clinton was in office, they practiced for things like intercepting commercial and private aircraft...you know "aka terrorist attacks."

Hmm........could it be that the CIA/FBI were slow in getting the info out? What about the flight operators? They thought one of the flights was still in the air even though the nation watched it ram into a building. Maybe if you were actually in the military and saw how much we are FORCED to rely on other branches of our government for information you wouldn't be so quick to judge.

Quote: Put a Republican in charge of the Military and everything goes to hell in a towel.

I make ten times the amount I made under Clinton. At least Bush gave me a pay raise before I went to war. Can't say the same for those who went to Kosovo under Clinton.

[baleyg]

thefranzkafkafront wrote: I'll make a proper response later, but i'd just like to say Kant and the german idealistists in general were the masters of massive asumptions.
I suppose they would stand in fair contrast to the current US thinking, then.. (sorry, Kant).

[Ayn Randian]

Wow, this is a pretty absurd thread. Warmongering? The Islamo-fascists have repeatedly declared war on the United States, both verbally and in action. America is so peace loving we even ignored their attacks and declarations for years. Finally, when they came and killed thousands of our citizens in a sneak attack, we decided we would fight back. Geez, we sure are evil. We should really just lay down and let them kill us all or just give them what they want- lets all become Muslim fanatics. Then, we can focus on just killing Muslims who are in the other sect than us, and that is far superior to having to kill infidels after all. Eventually, the whole world can become one sect or another of Muslim nut cases and we will have peace.

[thefranzkafkafront]

letsgooilers wrote: thefranzkafkafront wrote: The American wrote: sLiPpY wrote: If it were up to me, we'd keep the Coast Guard. Disband the Army and Marines...disband the Navy.

The National Guard units would remain and meet once a month as usual.

Fund NORAD, and the Air Force to the extent it defends North America.

Close all military bases on Foreign soil.

That would eliminate the Budget Deficit and let us pay down the debt x 10. :-D

Disbandment of military to reduce debt would not be logical in a time of war. You would increase the size of the target x 10 on the backs of Americans here and abroad. An exchange of policy in military force would invite disaster.

Trig.

What war?

Iraq?
Afghanistan?
The War on Terror?

First two have been over for quite some time, 5 and 3 years respectively. The final the 'war on terror' is a foriegn policy not a war, is as much an armed conflict as the war on drugs or proverty.

Nothing more than Pure Rhetoric, there is no war on currently.

[psholtz]

Nathyn wrote: sLiPpY wrote: If it were up to me, we'd keep the Coast Guard. Disband the Army and Marines...disband the Navy.

The National Guard units would remain and meet once a month as usual.

Fund NORAD, and the Air Force to the extent it defends North America.

Close all military bases on Foreign soil.

That would eliminate the Budget Deficit and let us pay down the debt x 10. :-D
I don't think anybody realizes how we've got a Pax Americana going on:


Interesting map..

At least now we know why the media makes such a big deal out of Iran/Sudan/NK..

I'm surprised Qadaffi over in Libya isn't attracting more attention these days.. :lol:

[Nathyn]

Heinz wrote: Nathyn wrote: sLiPpY wrote: If it were up to me, we'd keep the Coast Guard. Disband the Army and Marines...disband the Navy.

The National Guard units would remain and meet once a month as usual.

Fund NORAD, and the Air Force to the extent it defends North America.

Close all military bases on Foreign soil.

That would eliminate the Budget Deficit and let us pay down the debt x 10. :-D
I don't think anybody realizes how we've got a Pax Americana going on:



Most of those countries have only a handful of troops. The big ones are Germany (Rammstein Air Base), Turkey, and Kuwait. There is a website online that tells you how many we have and where, but I think it hasn't been updated since 2004. I don't think having 1,200 troops in bosnia is going to start a pro-Americana revolution in the Balkans.
That doesn't say much, though, because some of those country's armies consist of a mule and a guy with a pitchfork.

And OK, if in fact 1,200 troops isn't a very large force, then what's the point in keeping them there? Let them police themselves.

lovebush wrote: Nathyn wrote: The following list is from Kant's work, "Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch."

Immanuel Kant, a renowned philosopher, listed several conditions necessary for everlasting peace. The non-bolded text is my commentary.

1. "No Treaty of Peace Shall Be Held Valid in Which There Is Tacitly Reserved Matter for a Future War" -- We invaded Iraq, not because of any new criminal acts, but because of what happened in the past. This would be the equivalent of committing a crime, facing a jail sentence, and then years later, having the police randomly arrest and jail you again for the same crime. We cannot claim to be at peace if we do not at the same time put past grievances behind us. If Iraq had suddenly invaded Bosnia again or gassed its citizens, or even if we had invaded immediately following one of our planes being shot down, war would've been justified. But the only precursors to war were in President Bush's mind.

2. "No Independent States, Large or Small, Shall Come under the Dominion of Another State by Inheritance, Exchange, Purchase, or Donation" -- Aside from subjugating smaller countries through our alliances, America has conquered nations. We invaded Hawaii and conquered their people. Stealing land from the mid-western natives was not enough. We had to steal from the eskimos of Alaska as well. And today, America has countless territories, such as Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands, where they are governed by America yet have no Constitutional rights. The Marianas Islands have now become notorious for their sweatshops. These are nothing more than modern vassal-states. Anyone who opposes their freedom are the ideological descendants of those who opposed American freedom. Oh, and of course, I should mention our continuing occupation of Germany and Japan.

3. "Standing Armies (miles perpetuus) Shall in Time Be Totally Abolished" -- Oh, and this sure as hell isn't going to happen. Despite the fact that Costa Rica and Switzerland have proven that a nation doesn't need an army to exist peacefully, we're still too stubborn to change.

4. "National Debts Shall Not Be Contracted with a View to the External Friction of States" -- Today, America has contracted substantial debt for precisely the reason Kant described: to make war.

5. "No State Shall by Force Interfere with the Constitution or Government of Another State" -- I need not explain this one.

6. "No State Shall, during War, Permit Such Acts of Hostility Which Would Make Mutual Confidence in the Subsequent Peace Impossible: Such Are the Employment of Assassins (percussores), Poisoners (venefici), Breach of Capitulation, and Incitement to Treason (perduellio) in the Opposing State" -- The intelligence community's budget has skyrocketed in recent years (the NSA's budget is more than both the CIA's and FBI's). We tried to assassinate Saddam Hussein in previous years and though I'm no fan of Hugo Chavez, we're no doubt trying to assassinate him now too. I really don't think anyone can deny that America employs assassins and spies who do more than look around.


each of these might have made a good thread, but its to daunting to deal with the America bashing shotgun approach. Perhaps you would enlighten us with Kant's views on torture. I found them to be interesting.
Kant was a deontologist, so torture, even if it could save millions, would not be justified because, he would argue, you cannot achieve a good through an evil and people cannot be treated as a means, but as an ends in themselves.

“Never treat humanity, either in your own person or in the person of others, merely as a means, but always also as an end.”

[Heinz]

Quote: And OK, if in fact 1,200 troops isn't a very large force, then what's the point in keeping them there? Let them police themselves.

NATO feels that those troops are neccessary to restore order....so we keep them there. Is it a good idea? Probably not, but it's not my call to make.

[Nathyn]

Heinz wrote: Quote: What war?

I say this speaking from a military point of view, but a "war" according to the US military is when the nation is under extreme danger in such a way that it might make the US a part of history in a bad way. If something is presenting an obvious threat to our homeland, the US military decalres a state of war nation-wide.

Put simply.....according to the US military September 11th was a war.
A state of war can only consist of a conflict between organized factions, whether between governments or militias. The "terrorists," are no organized faction. Al-Qaeda has been virtually eliminated. But rather, the threat we face now is from an ideological movement which has caused various disaffected groups to want to cause mass destruction in America. The difference between war and this conflict being that, in the former case, there is a possibility of a conclusion. War cannot be defined as when a nation is under extreme danger because most nations usually are, which is why "national security," is established. If we define war the way you do, then this "war on terror," is likely to last at least a hundred years or more.

[lovebush]

sLiPpY wrote: Heinz wrote: Quote: What do productivity, salaries, equitable wealth distribution, luxury-goods consumption, trading strength, poverty, personal and national indebtedness, inflation control, business strength and credit-worthiness.

Have to do with Socialism?

Switzerland is a democratic-socialism. So even if they aren't parts of socialism in general, since the nation in which they are being applied to is, that makes them semi-socialist in a way.

Quote: Sure the US has more people than Switzerland, but to have twice as many two income families as Japan and France...?

The cost of living is higher in the US. Most poor in Europe own the box they live in, while most poor in the US have a TV, car and a house that they at least rent. In order for the US to get better standards of living on an income basis they must go backwards.

Quote: No wonder families here are disentigrating. Two incomes and families with the highest level of debt, and the lowest savings rate out of the entire G8?

Families are disenegrating because American society does not hold them in such high regards as it did before. Families are a thing of the past...Being a single mom is where it's at.

Quote: When I wake up in the morning, having a Superpower government doesn't do me a damn bit of good.....[....]How many Americans do you think there are sitting around saying to themselves, well I'm in hock up to god's eyeballs...I don't have anything to fall back on? But thank god, our government is a "super power!'


Of course it won't but it's more of a label anyway, and one that most nations who partake in the poltiical realm take to heart. They think we're top-dog so we have to defend ourselves accordingly. Since they think it's important, we are forced to do the same.

Quote: That whole concept and level of global manipulation is inherently anti-Republic. It runs contrary to the "we the people" concept...but there are a lot of folks who would agree with you, in preferring "we the global government."

Read above.......Nice try at a straw man though.

Quote: By 2028 if not sooner, there will be an economic collapse domestically, that will make Argentina look prosperous in comparison.

You can thank SS for that.

I'd disagree on SS, in that it's not SS that has ever been the problem. It's the governments mismanagement of SS that is the problem.

Primarily that Congress has almost always taken the money and issued itself an IOU.

How often in discussions of social securtiy reform do you ever hear a politician be honest and say...well we spent your retirement on something else....and now you need to bail the government out of the damn mess it's created. We're sorry, but even with private accounts you still won't have the opportunity to retire.

I have to agree with you there, how ironic they just passed a law requiring the private sector to fully fund pension programs while they continue the shell game with SS.

[lovebush]

Nathyn wrote: [
Kant was a deontologist, so torture, even if it could save millions, would not be justified because, he would argue, you cannot achieve a good through an evil and people cannot be treated as a means, but as an ends in themselves.

“Never treat humanity, either in your own person or in the person of others, merely as a means, but always also as an end.”


Well I must have the wrong guy, who was the utilitarian, who said what ever causes the least pain for the greatest # of people?

[lovebush]

Nathyn wrote: Heinz wrote: Quote: What war?

I say this speaking from a military point of view, but a "war" according to the US military is when the nation is under extreme danger in such a way that it might make the US a part of history in a bad way. If something is presenting an obvious threat to our homeland, the US military decalres a state of war nation-wide.

Put simply.....according to the US military September 11th was a war.
A state of war can only consist of a conflict between organized factions, whether between governments or militias. The "terrorists," are no organized faction. Al-Qaeda has been virtually eliminated. But rather, the threat we face now is from an ideological movement which has caused various disaffected groups to want to cause mass destruction in America. The difference between war and this conflict being that, in the former case, there is a possibility of a conclusion. War cannot be defined as when a nation is under extreme danger because most nations usually are, which is why "national security," is established. If we define war the way you do, then this "war on terror," is likely to last at least a hundred years or more.


So the hundred year war wasnt a war because it lasted too long? :P

[Black Sheep 5]

Nathyn wrote: The following list is from Kant's work, "Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch."

Immanuel Kant, a renowned philosopher, listed several conditions necessary for everlasting peace. The non-bolded text is my commentary.

1. "No Treaty of Peace Shall Be Held Valid in Which There Is Tacitly Reserved Matter for a Future War" -- We invaded Iraq, not because of any new criminal acts, but because of what happened in the past. This would be the equivalent of committing a crime, facing a jail sentence, and then years later, having the police randomly arrest and jail you again for the same crime. We cannot claim to be at peace if we do not at the same time put past grievances behind us. If Iraq had suddenly invaded Bosnia again or gassed its citizens, or even if we had invaded immediately following one of our planes being shot down, war would've been justified. But the only precursors to war were in President Bush's mind.

2. "No Independent States, Large or Small, Shall Come under the Dominion of Another State by Inheritance, Exchange, Purchase, or Donation" -- Aside from subjugating smaller countries through our alliances, America has conquered nations. We invaded Hawaii and conquered their people. Stealing land from the mid-western natives was not enough. We had to steal from the eskimos of Alaska as well. And today, America has countless territories, such as Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands, where they are governed by America yet have no Constitutional rights. The Marianas Islands have now become notorious for their sweatshops. These are nothing more than modern vassal-states. Anyone who opposes their freedom are the ideological descendants of those who opposed American freedom. Oh, and of course, I should mention our continuing occupation of Germany and Japan.

3. "Standing Armies (miles perpetuus) Shall in Time Be Totally Abolished" -- Oh, and this sure as hell isn't going to happen. Despite the fact that Costa Rica and Switzerland have proven that a nation doesn't need an army to exist peacefully, we're still too stubborn to change.

4. "National Debts Shall Not Be Contracted with a View to the External Friction of States" -- Today, America has contracted substantial debt for precisely the reason Kant described: to make war.

5. "No State Shall by Force Interfere with the Constitution or Government of Another State" -- I need not explain this one.

6. "No State Shall, during War, Permit Such Acts of Hostility Which Would Make Mutual Confidence in the Subsequent Peace Impossible: Such Are the Employment of Assassins (percussores), Poisoners (venefici), Breach of Capitulation, and Incitement to Treason (perduellio) in the Opposing State" -- The intelligence community's budget has skyrocketed in recent years (the NSA's budget is more than both the CIA's and FBI's). We tried to assassinate Saddam Hussein in previous years and though I'm no fan of Hugo Chavez, we're no doubt trying to assassinate him now too. I really don't think anyone can deny that America employs assassins and spies who do more than look around. Wasn't Kant into moral absolutism too? Its never ok to lie, its never ok to kill; even if it means saving someones life.

[Heinz]

Quote: A state of war can only consist of a conflict between organized factions, whether between governments or militias.

That's the Geneva conventions. The military issues "war" when we are under extreme danger. Notice that I put war in quotations. It's not literally a war. It's used more to prepare the military just in case an invasion occurs after the initial attack. That's why it was used on 9/11.

[Nathyn]

lovebush wrote: Nathyn wrote: Kant was a deontologist, so torture, even if it could save millions, would not be justified because, he would argue, you cannot achieve a good through an evil and people cannot be treated as a means, but as an ends in themselves.

“Never treat humanity, either in your own person or in the person of others, merely as a means, but always also as an end.”


Well I must have the wrong guy, who was the utilitarian, who said what ever causes the least pain for the greatest # of people?
John Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham were the leading proponents of utilitarianism, but I think both of them opposed torture too out of a support for individualism. I'm checking now.

[cap'n queasy]

Quote: Speaking of Switzerland, they've obviously got a better plan than the US does.

Switzerland has the benefit of existing in a natural fortress that is practically impossible to invade.

[Ozzone]

cap'n queasy wrote: Quote: Speaking of Switzerland, they've obviously got a better plan than the US does.

Switzerland has the benefit of existing in a natural fortress that is practically impossible to invade.

Switzerland has banks that contain anonymous accounts where billions are stored legally or illegally.

That is another reason Switzerland is safe from attack.

[Nathyn]

lovebush wrote: Nathyn wrote: Heinz wrote: Quote: What war?

I say this speaking from a military point of view, but a "war" according to the US military is when the nation is under extreme danger in such a way that it might make the US a part of history in a bad way. If something is presenting an obvious threat to our homeland, the US military decalres a state of war nation-wide.

Put simply.....according to the US military September 11th was a war.
A state of war can only consist of a conflict between organized factions, whether between governments or militias. The "terrorists," are no organized faction. Al-Qaeda has been virtually eliminated. But rather, the threat we face now is from an ideological movement which has caused various disaffected groups to want to cause mass destruction in America. The difference between war and this conflict being that, in the former case, there is a possibility of a conclusion. War cannot be defined as when a nation is under extreme danger because most nations usually are, which is why "national security," is established. If we define war the way you do, then this "war on terror," is likely to last at least a hundred years or more.


So the hundred year war wasnt a war because it lasted too long? :P
The 100 Years' War was, in fact, a series of wars.

Also, it was Jeremy Bentham which advocated torture, though it's particularly problematic for a Conservative to cite him because he and John Stuart Mill were, for all intents and purposes, modern American Liberals. Bentham was an avowed atheist and supported animal rights, feminism, gay rights, anti-trust law, universal healthcare, and universal education. John Stuart Mill was once quoted as saying of Britain's Conservative Party (largely of the same ideology as today), "While it is not true that all Conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are Conservatives," and before John Stuart Mill died, he openly advocated Socialism

When Bentham died, he requested that his corpse be stuffed, preserved, and placed in a wooden box, on public display at the University of London (The idea seems to be that if he wasn't going to live forever, at least people would have something interesting to remember him by -- and also, it was probably meant as a joke.)

Black Sheep 5 wrote: Nathyn wrote: The following list is from Kant's work, "Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch."

Immanuel Kant, a renowned philosopher, listed several conditions necessary for everlasting peace. The non-bolded text is my commentary.

1. "No Treaty of Peace Shall Be Held Valid in Which There Is Tacitly Reserved Matter for a Future War" -- We invaded Iraq, not because of any new criminal acts, but because of what happened in the past. This would be the equivalent of committing a crime, facing a jail sentence, and then years later, having the police randomly arrest and jail you again for the same crime. We cannot claim to be at peace if we do not at the same time put past grievances behind us. If Iraq had suddenly invaded Bosnia again or gassed its citizens, or even if we had invaded immediately following one of our planes being shot down, war would've been justified. But the only precursors to war were in President Bush's mind.

2. "No Independent States, Large or Small, Shall Come under the Dominion of Another State by Inheritance, Exchange, Purchase, or Donation" -- Aside from subjugating smaller countries through our alliances, America has conquered nations. We invaded Hawaii and conquered their people. Stealing land from the mid-western natives was not enough. We had to steal from the eskimos of Alaska as well. And today, America has countless territories, such as Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands, where they are governed by America yet have no Constitutional rights. The Marianas Islands have now become notorious for their sweatshops. These are nothing more than modern vassal-states. Anyone who opposes their freedom are the ideological descendants of those who opposed American freedom. Oh, and of course, I should mention our continuing occupation of Germany and Japan.

3. "Standing Armies (miles perpetuus) Shall in Time Be Totally Abolished" -- Oh, and this sure as hell isn't going to happen. Despite the fact that Costa Rica and Switzerland have proven that a nation doesn't need an army to exist peacefully, we're still too stubborn to change.

4. "National Debts Shall Not Be Contracted with a View to the External Friction of States" -- Today, America has contracted substantial debt for precisely the reason Kant described: to make war.

5. "No State Shall by Force Interfere with the Constitution or Government of Another State" -- I need not explain this one.

6. "No State Shall, during War, Permit Such Acts of Hostility Which Would Make Mutual Confidence in the Subsequent Peace Impossible: Such Are the Employment of Assassins (percussores), Poisoners (venefici), Breach of Capitulation, and Incitement to Treason (perduellio) in the Opposing State" -- The intelligence community's budget has skyrocketed in recent years (the NSA's budget is more than both the CIA's and FBI's). We tried to assassinate Saddam Hussein in previous years and though I'm no fan of Hugo Chavez, we're no doubt trying to assassinate him now too. I really don't think anyone can deny that America employs assassins and spies who do more than look around. Wasn't Kant into moral absolutism too? Its never ok to lie, its never ok to kill; even if it means saving someones life.
Yes. As I said, he was a deontologist. Something is only right or wrong because it is objectively wrong. The main part of his moral philosophy was the categorical imperative, which meant that everything was either good or bad because of how universally applicable it is. In other words, murder is bad because if everybody commit murder, society would be unstable. On the other hand, charity is good, because if everybody gave to charity, society would be far better off.

Heinz wrote: Quote: A state of war can only consist of a conflict between organized factions, whether between governments or militias.

That's the Geneva conventions. The military issues "war" when we are under extreme danger. Notice that I put war in quotations. It's not literally a war. It's used more to prepare the military just in case an invasion occurs after the initial attack. That's why it was used on 9/11.
Only Congress has the power to declare war. Putting it in quotations does not give the Executive any extra power, because of "the Constitution" which has given us "civil rights" through "limitations upon governmental power."

This idea that -- well, it's not a war, it's a "war" (*wink-wink-nudge-nudge*) is rather silly and quite Orwellian.