10-10-2002 00:56									#91
	Tired of ads?

Chris,

Saddam is a nasty SOB, I know, but I don't agree with calling him a lunatic. Was Stalin a lunatic? He was a nasty SOB who had nukes.

I agree that nuking Iraq would be a crime against humanity, but that's what the principle of MAD works on - the assumption that if you nuke your opponent, they will nuke you back. You are saying this does not apply to Saddam. Why? Because you think he's nuts?

I do agree that Hamas is a terror group. It was my understanding that the Iraqi government was paying money to suicide bomber's families. Is that what you are talking about, or are you saying that he is directly funding Hamas operations? If so, where did that info come from?

Marcus - shut up you nasty little troll.

-Arrian

	10-10-2002 00:59									#92
	More nitpicking Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by David Floyd The US has funded various organizations in the past as well, including Saddam's regime, the Mudjahedin who became the Taliban, and various other militaristic anti-democracy forces around the world.

The Mudjahedin aren't the Taliban. If anything, they'd be the Northern Alliance. If you insist on listing US crimes, at least do us the coutesy of listing the correct ones.

	10-10-2002 01:06									#93
	Increase the size of your Attachments

Fine. The point I was making is that the US has funded terrorist organizations as well, to say nothing of authoritarian regimes.

	10-10-2002 01:15									#94
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Arrian Chris, Saddam is a nasty SOB, I know, but I don't agree with calling him a lunatic. Was Stalin a lunatic? He was a nasty SOB who had nukes.

Stalin is of a different world, and a different time.
He was paranoid, and prone to killing close friends, so lunatic may well describe him, but he would never provoke the US so blatently as a Saddam would.
Terrorists are most akin to small evil children, who try to hurt and see what they can get away with, and have no reguard of civilized behavior.
I believe Saddam falls into this catigory, he may believe he's the Islamic most able to weild a global islamic sword, and one fine day begin by nuking Israel.

quote: I agree that nuking Iraq would be a crime against humanity, but that's what the principle of MAD works on - the assumption that if you nuke your opponent, they will nuke you back. You are saying this does not apply to Saddam. Why? Because you think he's nuts?

The MAD concept was intended as a last resort, both the US and USSR never considered a limited nuclear war, but a full scale exchange, and since both sides were rational, it thankfully never happened.
I don't see that restraint with Saddam, but what would killing 5 million Iraqis net us if say, NY were destroyed?
Certainly it would disturb many people in the extreme, but would not a conventional invasion followed by the fall of Saddam be a better opition then obliteraing millions of humans to prove a point?

quote: I do agree that Hamas is a terror group. It was my understanding that the Iraqi government was paying money to suicide bomber's families. Is that what you are talking about, or are you saying that he is directly funding Hamas operations? If so, where did that info come from?

I was referring to the family thing, yes.

quote: Marcus - shut up you nasty little troll.

Saved me the trouble.

	10-10-2002 01:17									#95
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: he would never provoke the US so blatently as a Saddam would.

You have it backwards. We have been provoking Iraq ever since the Gulf War.

quote: both the US and USSR never considered a limited nuclear war

Actually, I believe that NATO envisioned and planned for the US of tactical nuclear weapons against Soviet breakthroughs and bridgeheads in Germany. Can't provide a source for this, but I'm pretty positive about it.

	10-10-2002 01:24									#96
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by David Floyd You have it backwards. We have been provoking Iraq ever since the Gulf War.

The Gulf War never ended Floyd, they signed a stipulated cease-fire, which Saddam has broken ever since.
You can't "provoke" a war which never ended.

quote: Actually, I believe that NATO envisioned and planned for the US of tactical nuclear weapons against Soviet breakthroughs and bridgeheads in Germany. Can't provide a source for this, but I'm pretty positive about it.

And it was feared that this would lead to a full scale nuclear exchange, it was the heart of the European "no nukes" movement of the 80s, Reagan wanted to deploy IMBM in Europe and make battlefield nukes standard procedure, and Europe (Germany especially) wanted no part of this, and I supported the movement also.
Nukes will kill us all if they are used.

	10-10-2002 01:24									#97
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Marcus - shut up you nasty little troll.

why? cause I'm right? The US opposes an international court that may try Americans who commited warcrimes. The Americans don't want their warcriminals to be prosecuted. And we all know the US commited warcimes. Just look at Vietnam, which is the most obvious example. But also various (cia) ops in loads of south american countries, assasinations of foreign leaders, backing anti-democratic coups, etc. Kissinger is wanted by two countries for alleged warcrimes, yet the US lets him walk free. Don't even try to make it seem like the US is a peaceloving nation, who wouldn't think of commiting warcrimes if it suited it's needs. The US has commited warcrimes on numerous occasions, and judging by their oposal of the ICC, they'll continue to do so.

	10-10-2002 01:26									#98
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: The Gulf War never ended Floyd, they signed a stipulated cease-fire, which Saddam has broken ever since. You can't "provoke" a war which never ended.

Oh excuse me. The US entered a conflict that was none of our business. Killed 100,000+ Iraqis, destroyed billions of dollars worth of Iraqi equipment, invaded Iraq, and forced them through superior force to do whatever we wanted. Now they're trying to regain their sovereignty, and we're getting all pissy

	10-10-2002 01:27									#99
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Furthermore, Chris, we were never legally at war, since we never legally declared war. Therefore, it can be stated that the war never actually started, it was just the Executive Branch usurping Congress' exclusive powers in order to kill people.

	10-10-2002 01:30									#100
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Oh excuse me. The US entered a conflict that was none of our business. Killed 100,000+ Iraqis, destroyed billions of dollars worth of Iraqi equipment, invaded Iraq, and forced them through superior force to do whatever we wanted. Now they're trying to regain their sovereignty, and we're getting all pissy

In your opinion, a known isolationist.

quote: Furthermore, Chris, we were never legally at war, since we never legally declared war. Therefore, it can be stated that the war never actually started, it was just the Executive Branch usurping Congress' exclusive powers in order to kill people.

Tell it to the UN, it was their idea.

	10-10-2002 01:34									#101
	Got spare money?

quote: In your opinion, a known isolationist.

How is the fact that we killed over 100,000 Iraqis, destroyed billions of dollars worth of equipment, invaded Iraq, and forced them to do what we wanted through superior force my opinion? Those things are facts.

Granted, it's my opinion that it was none of our business, but that is the only opinion in that segment of my post. Furthermore, it's the only opinion that makes logical sense.

quote: Tell it to the UN, it was their idea.

The UN can't give the US Executive Branch permission to violate the Constitution.

	10-10-2002 01:38									#102
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Write your congressmen Floyd.

	10-10-2002 01:40									#103
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Boris Godunov I know Ned is in favor if international interventionalism regardless of threats to national interests or security, but I wonder if others who supported the war can continue to do so now?

I can't be the only one here, though, that supports Bill Clinton's intervention in Kosovo. It was simply the right thing to do regardless of whether Kosovo had any oil, etc. Kissinger's criticism of Bill Clinton's intervention were entirely correct - the US had no strategic interest in intervention, yet still the past genocidal record of Milosovic and his barbarian generals compelled Clinton to act.

	10-10-2002 01:43									#104
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Write your congressmen Floyd.

Just because Congress is complicit in violating the Constitution doesn't make those violations Constitutional.

	10-10-2002 01:49									#105
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

Chris,

Your turn on responding to Marcus. I don't have the energy.

I guess our disagreement comes down to 2 things:

1) You do think Saddam is insane - or at least irrational enough to actually use WoMD against us (or give to terrorists for use against us). I don't.
2) You seem to think that might makes right. I don't.

Let me ask you this: If Saddam lets the UN weapons inspectors back in and complies with their requests and basically plays by the rules, do you still think we should invade and change the regime? I ask that because it sure seems that Bush & Co. are hell bent on invading and regime change no matter what happens with the WoMD inspection issue.

-Arrian

	10-10-2002 01:51									#106
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

On the main point, I think Bush is fully aware that if Saddam is backed into corner he is is more likely than not to order the use of weapons of mass destruction. This is why he bluntly stated in his speech that if Saddam were to give any such order to his generals that the general should pause and consider that United States would prosecute all war criminals.

But the concern about Saddam using weapons of mass destruction in one final bid to maintain power or to cause as must destruction as he could before the end does give one pause. I would be in favor of a back-channel offers to Saddam to guaranty is safety in exile if the war is concluded without the use of weapons of mass destruction.

	10-10-2002 02:00									#107
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by David Floyd Just because Congress is complicit in violating the Constitution doesn't make those violations Constitutional.

David, was watching the debate last night. One Republican congressmen stood up and made same argument that you do that it would be unconstitutional even for Congress to declare war on Iraq under these circumstances.

	10-10-2002 02:05									#108
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: One Republican congressmen stood up and made same argument that you do that it would be unconstitutional even for Congress to declare war on Iraq under these circumstances.

Really? Which one, was it Ron Paul?

If he said that, though, I'd have to disagree - a Congressional declaration of war, by definition, cannot be unconstitutional. It is an exclusive Constitutional power of Congress, and can be done anytime for any reason.

	10-10-2002 02:26									#109
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Chris, Your turn on responding to Marcus. I don't have the energy.

I'm waiting patiently

	10-10-2002 02:27									#110
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

btw Chris, do you honestly think the US won't launch nukes against Iraq, if Saddam strikes first with WoMDs? Warcrime or not, the current US governement won't think twice about firing a nuke right back aimed at Baghdad (or whereever the Iraqi weapon was fired from).

	10-10-2002 02:34									#111
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Don't get goofy(ier) on us Markus.
The only thing that would cause the U.S. to launch nukes, would be a response.
Guaranteed.

	10-10-2002 02:38									#112
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

I agree, but Chris thinks the US won't fire one in return cause it's a warcrime.

	10-10-2002 02:39									#113
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Saint Marcus you're talking like the US cares about commiting warcrimes or not.

Of course we care about war crimes -- as long as we can't be charged with any. That is the Bush admin's main concern with the World Court: we would only endorse it if American peacekeepers were given a blanket exemption from charges being brought against them.

(Edit: apologies - I misread the quote above. First time I read it I didn't catch the word 'commiting')

	10-10-2002 02:40									#114
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

that's basically what I said.

	10-10-2002 02:52									#115
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Saint Marcus I agree, but Chris thinks the US won't fire one in return cause it's a warcrime.

In response to the United States being launched on.
Otherwise, he's probably right.

	10-10-2002 03:27									#116
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by David Floyd Furthermore, Chris, we were never legally at war, since we never legally declared war.

Can you show me, in the Constitution, the official format a DoW is supposed to take?

	10-10-2002 03:36									#117
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by David Floyd Really? Which one, was it Ron Paul? If he said that, though, I'd have to disagree - a Congressional declaration of war, by definition, cannot be unconstitutional. It is an exclusive Constitutional power of Congress, and can be done anytime for any reason.

I don't remember his name. Be he wove "common defense" from the preamble into his argument.

	10-10-2002 03:39									#118
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Can you show me, in the Constitution, the official format a DoW is supposed to take?

Nope. All it says is that Congress must declare war. Yes, Congress can declare war using whatever words they want to, as long as they inform everyone that what they are doing is declaring war. It's nonsensical to assume that the Constitution was written in a manner to allow Congress to declare war while avoiding responsibility for that action.

Yes, that's the beginnings of an Original Intentist argument, and is impossible to prove, but don't you think it's fairly reasonable that the writers of the Constitution didn't intend for the US to fight many wars, and thus made it fairly difficult to do so?

	10-10-2002 03:43									#119
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by DinoDoc Can you show me, in the Constitution, the official format a DoW is supposed to take?

If you want original intentist arguments, I'd say the manner in which war was declared in the declaration of independence.

	10-10-2002 03:43									#120
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

The President's Message
To the Congress of the United States:
On the morning of Dec. 11 the Government of Germany, pursuing its course of world conquest, declared war against the United States. The long-known and the long-expected has thus taken place. The forces endeavoring to enslave the entire world now are moving toward this hemisphere. Never before has there been a greater challenge to life, liberty and civilization. Delay invites great danger. Rapid and united effort by all of the peoples of the world who are determined to remain free will insure a world victory of the forces of justice and of righteousness over the forces of savagery and of barbarism. Italy also has declared war against the United States.

I therefore request the Congress to recognize a state of war between the United States and Germany, and between the United States and Italy.

Franklin D. Roosevelt



The War Resolution
Declaring that a state of war exists between the Government of Germany and the government and the people of the United States and making provision to prosecute the same.

Whereas the Government of Germany has formally declared war against the government and the people of the United States of America:

Therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, that the state of war between the United States and the Government of Germany which has thus been thrust upon the United States is hereby formally declared; and the President is hereby authorized and directed to employ the entire naval and military forces of the government to carry on war against the Government of Germany; and to bring the conflict to a successful termination, all of the resources of the country are hereby pledged by the Congress of the United States.

----------------------------------------------------------------


JOINT RESOLUTION Declaring that a state of war exists between the Imperial Government of Japan and the Government and the people of the United States and making provisions to prosecute the same.
Whereas the Imperial Government of Japan has committed unprovoked acts of war against the Government and the people of the United States of America: Therefore be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the state of was between the United States and the Imperial Government of Japan which has thus been thrust upon the United States is hereby formally declared; and the President is hereby authorized and directed to employ the entire naval and military forces of the United States and the resources of the Government to carry on was against the Imperial Government of Japan; and, to bring the conflict to a successful termination, all of the resources of the country are hereby pledged by the Congress of the United States.

Approved, December 8, 1941, 4:10 p.m. E.S.T.