 |
|
HershOstropoler
|
|
Hard to tell what really drives Bush personally on this issue. I'd bet on some strange form of bigotry, rather than madness.
So the Bushies are shifting to war without SC resolution? Will be fun to watch Blair trying to hold that **** together...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
HershOstropoler
|
|
If Bush were respecting the constitution, he'd have less trouble abroad too. Like the little thing Art VI says about international treaties...
I'd assume though that "the ONLY reason we need to support ousting Saddam is the liberation of the people under his rule" means you do not support Bush's war?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Berzerker
|
 |
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:26
|
|
I do support ousting Saddam, but I could care less if Bush, Clinton, or the man on the moon was the one in charge. And those international treaties don't mean squat when they conflict with the Constitution. IF Congress declares war on Iraq, then the UN is irrelevant. So the question is whether or not Congress declared war on Iraq. IMO, Congress did not, but if we listen to Congress, they did authorise the President to use force against Iraq if he wants and there's nothing I can do to get Congress to grow a spine. Now, how did you conclude I oppose a war in Iraq if led by Bush? Do you see another way to liberate the Iraqi people?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
HershOstropoler
|
|
"And those international treaties don't mean squat when they conflict with the Constitution."
That's nonsense, but irrelevant anyway. The UN charter does not conflict with the US constitution.
"Now, how did you conclude I oppose a war in Iraq if led by Bush?"
Because there's a 99 % chance that this liberation will be by chaos and/or another dictator, just one more to the US' liking. Of course, if Chile was liberated in 1973...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Berzerker
|
|
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:26
|
|
Hersh - quote:
That's nonsense, but irrelevant anyway. |
Calling it nonsense is not a rebuttal.
quote:
The UN charter does not conflict with the US constitution. |
Yes it does, the Constitution says Congress has the power to declare war. The UN charter says the UN must approve invasions for regime change.
quote:
Because there's a 99 % chance that this liberation will be by chaos and/or another dictator, just one more to the US' liking. Of course, if Chile was liberated in 1973... |
That's your proof for why you concluded that I allegedly oppose a war in Iraq after I said I support that war? I can't speak to the motives of others pushing for this war, and I'm frankly tired of the lies and half truths being told to get support for the war, but I have no doubt that liberating the people there is just after what we did to them in 1991. What I can't understand is why so many liberals who trumpet human rights would rather see Saddam stay in power. I can understand skepticism about motives, but just as moral people should want Saddam removed, moral people should oppose installing a puppet dictator. Look at Germany and Japan today - both a result of US actions. And I wouldn't point to Chile as an example of chaos, it has the best economy in S America.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
HershOstropoler
|
|
"Calling it nonsense is not a rebuttal."
Well it's not really worth a rebuttal. I'm not going into a monism/pluralism debate now.
"Yes it does, the Constitution says Congress has the power to declare war. The UN charter says the UN must approve invasions for regime change."
And congress has the power to make laws - treaties can limit the exercise that power. That's at the heart of international treaties, as adopted by Art VI. Same with declaring war, international treaties can limit the exercise of that power without being in conflict with the constitution. Under your interpretation, there would be hardly any treaty left that could be made.
"That's your proof for why you concluded that I allegedly oppose a war in Iraq"
Proof? An assumption, hence I asked.
"Look at Germany and Japan today"
Useless analogy.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Elden
|
|
Gone Mad ???
He's been mad forever.
But at least in a few years this political turmoil will be over
-=-=-=-=-=-
BRITAIN - Blair has lost most of the government and peoples support.
AUSTRALIA - Howard commited political suicide by describing the 90% of Australia who disagrees with him as a mob that is incapable of making a descision.
AMERICA - Bush has no support outside of America and little within.
-=-=-=-=-=-
So after the next election in each country the world will be very different !
|
|
| |
|
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by HershOstropoler
"Yes it does, the Constitution says Congress has the power to declare war. The UN charter says the UN must approve invasions for regime change."
And congress has the power to make laws - treaties can limit the exercise that power. That's at the heart of international treaties, as adopted by Art VI. Same with declaring war, international treaties can limit the exercise of that power without being in conflict with the constitution. Under your interpretation, there would be hardly any treaty left that could be made.
|
BUT, The US constitution reserves the power to accept or reject treaties to the congress. Thus trumping any and ALL UN treaties if they so desire.
They so desired in the case of KYOTO, in which up to 80% of congress critters voted to out of hand reject, WHEN BILL CLINTON was the President.
In short, the UN amounts to nought. The same is true in almost every country of the world. The countries reserve the right to accept or reject UN resolutions/treaties. In fact in almost all jurisdictions, the treaty must be backed up by passed legislation to provide for enforcement of treaty obligations.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jac de Molay
|
 |
Detroit
Sep 2001
time: 05:26
|
|
quote:
support the goal of removing Saddam Hussein, but not under the present circumstances - uppity DPRK, lack of international support, lack of a clear plan for a post-war occupation and transition to a post-Saddam government, sluggish (at best) economy, overcommitment of US military forces, and lack of an immediate threat from Hussein's weapons programs. |
My state alone is running a 2 bill$ deficit right now, and school systems around the state are describing the current funding environment to the Depression.
Suddenly, there's 100 bill$ + to throw around on some far-flung expedition ? 
I like how we're being told that bombing the sh*t out of Iraq is going to somehow plant the seeds of democracy, which will somehow spread like a beautiful flower across the region 
The idea of our country "spreading democracy" reminds me of what Henry Ford said about the Model T - "They can have any color they want, as long as it's black".
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ozz
|
|
Canada
Mar 2002
time: 05:26
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by CICSMaster The countries reserve the right to accept or reject UN resolutions/treaties. |
You gave that up when you joined the UN which must have passed congress , or is this just a fancy lawyer way of saying your treaties are worthless?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
chegitz guevara
|
 |
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000
time: 00:26
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by SlowwHand
Don't bogart that joint, my friend. Pass it over, to me. |
Definately a fun tune, however, during actual actions, I become not only drug-free, but I preach abstinence to anyone who'll listen. It gives the government an easy way to get you for something completely unrelated to your political activity.
Berzerker, a war soley for the purpose of liberating the Iraqi people, while a good thing in and of itself, would set a horrible precident. Given that all of the world's governments are oppressive, we establish a permenant causi belli of all against all. One merely need claim that they are fighting a war to liberate the X people, and they have a legitimate cause for war.
They could even claim that America needs to be liberated. After all, we had a coup d'etat, the government is ever more infringing upon civil liberaties, and is now preparing to wage aggressive war to the detriment of his own people.
From a practical matter, a war of liberation for another people would mean that the US should be invading pertty well most of the world. Or do you think the Iraqis are the only people who deserve liberty?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
chegitz guevara
|
|
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000
time: 00:26
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ozz
You gave that up when you joined the UN which must have passed congress , or is this just a fancy lawyer way of saying your treaties are worthless? |
The Constitution is the highest law of the land. Any treaty which attempts to abrogate any part of the Constitution is invalid on that point.
edit: spelling fixes
Last edited by chegitz guevara on 05-03-2003 at 19:54
|
|
| |
|
|
|
chegitz guevara
|
|
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000
time: 00:26
|
|
quote:
Turk Military Backs U.S. Troops Move, Warns Kurds
Mar 5, 7:26 am ET
By Ayla Jean Yackley
ANKARA (Reuters) - Turkey's powerful armed forces on Wednesday backed a tentative government move to submit a fresh motion to parliament allowing U.S. troops to open a "northern front" against Iraq from Turkey.
Chief of the General Staff Hilmi Ozkok said Turkey would be better off in any war than out of it, and argued that opening an extra front against Iraq from Turkey would mean a short war.
"The Turkish armed forces' view is the same as the government's and is reflected in the motion our government sent to parliament," Ozkok said in televised remarks.
"The war will be short if a second front is opened from the north."
Ozkok also issued a veiled warning to Iraqi Kurds that Turkey was prepared to intervene in the region to prevent the establishment of a Kurdish state.
The government has signaled it could table a second motion after its first was narrowly defeated by lawmakers at the weekend, surprising NATO ally the United States, and upsetting military planning for a war against Iraq.
The motion would have allowed more than 60,000 U.S. troops to use Turkey as a launchpad for an assault on Iraq's northern border and led to the deployment of Turkish troops in Kurdish-run northern Iraq.
Turkey's armed forces wield significant influence on policy, particularly where national security is concerned.
Ozkok's remarks were welcomed by markets, where the weekend vote rejecting the proposal led to sharp falls.
MINIMIZING DAMAGE
The government has not yet issued any timetable for the second motion to parliament but lawmakers from the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) said it was unlikely to take place before a by-election on Sunday.
Ozkok said Turkey would suffer damage in a war whether it was involved or not, and would be better placed to minimize that damage if it sided with the United States, which is offering up to $30 billion in aid for Turkey.
"We will suffer the same damage if we do not participate in a war, but we will not see compensation for the damage after the war," he said.
Open support from the military will strengthen the hand of AKP leader Tayyip Erdogan as he battles rebellion in his party.
A meeting last week of the National Security Council, where generals advise elected officials, did not end in a strong statement of support for U.S. deployment, which raised doubts on whether the military backed the idea of U.S. troops on Turkish soil.
Erdogan and the military rarely see eye-to-eye, partly as the secularist generals suspect him of harboring Islamist policies.
Turkey has spent months negotiating with the United States over the war aid package, which is designed to compensate Turkey for an expected drop in tourism revenue and rises in the price of oil and cost of borrowing.
The second motion before parliament is expected to insist on a major deployment of Turkish troops to Kurdish-run northern Iraq, which Turkey sees as an area of strategic interest.
Turkey is concerned the Kurds of northern Iraq will use a war to entrench the autonomy from Iraqi control they have enjoyed since the end of the 1991 Gulf War.
Turkey fears an independent Kurdish state on its southern border could rekindle a violent separatist movement among Turkey's own sizeable Kurdish population.
Ozkok said in a veiled warning to Iraqi Kurds: "I would remind them that we have the right to defend our legitimate national interests and would request them to be measured and co-operative." |
So, the Turkeish military (which is almost a government unto itself) is basically telling the Turkish government what laws to pass. Furthermore, this ally of the United States is declaring its anti-democratic intentions to crush any attempt by the Iraqi Kurds to establish their own state.
War of liberation my ass.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Joseph
|
 |
Ca. USA
Feb 2000
time: 21:26
|
|
Some on these boards think that I'm one of the biggest hawks that ever lived, oh well.
Slowhand, just so you will know. I want Saddam dead, has in not living anymore. However I don't want a single US Military person to died making sure that Saddam is dead. I also want OBL dead, but the above still applies.
Also I would not talk to North Korea, but in secret I would send in everything we have and about 3:00am, Mr. Kim would be woke up as the bombs fell with his home as ground zero.
However what Che wrote was correct and I just said so, and the little "so what else is new" was to say, there is nothing you or anyone else can do about it. Maybe you forgot that I worked for the US Government for 33 years 4 mos. 9 days. US Navy and then the Dept. of the Navy.
I, m very pro US Military, however I don't trust the US Gov for a moment. I have seen to much of it in action.
Now would I died for this country, hell no, but I would fight for this country in millisecond and make sure our enemy dies for me.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
SlowwHand
|
 |
of The Cooler
Sep 1999
time: 23:26
|
|
Joseph, you're an, well, a mistaken individual.
Where in the wide, wide, world of sports do you get the notion I want U.S. service people dead?
Unlike you, however, I also have dread of killing general population in Iraq, or N. Korea.
BEST solution? The madmen go into exile.
NEXT best? Assassination once the war starts.
NEXT best? They've had their warning, and that's the way it is.
BTW, I'd rather die for my country than many other ways.
It's not the goal certainly, just another fact that remains.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ozz
|
|
Canada
Mar 2002
time: 05:26
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by chegitz guevara
The Constitution is the highest law of the land. Any treaty which attempts to abrogate any part of the Constitution is invalid on that point.
edit: spelling fixes |
You made an international agreement then spout a lot of lawyer doublespeak to renige. Your the only one who
cares about the US constitution
Worthless? Right?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
HershOstropoler
|
|
Guess I can't avoid a small excursion to the wonderful land of law...
"BUT, The US constitution reserves the power to accept or reject treaties to the congress. Thus trumping any and ALL UN treaties if they so desire. They so desired in the case of KYOTO..."
You are confusing the ratification stage (Senate, btw) as was the case for Kyoto with ending ratified treaties. Two very different issues.
"The Constitution is the highest law of the land. Any treaty which attempts to abrogate any part of the Constitution is invalid on that point."
It is not invalid, it may just be no more applicaple domestically. The obligation on the state is in no way changed by this, unless there is a severe and obvious violation of the constitution during ratification.
Anyway, the UN charter is in no conflict with the US constitution.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:26.
Apolyton Time is 00:26. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
05-03-2003 12:58
|