BHS Posted August 10, 2005 Report Posted August 10, 2005 There is a rather sizable difference between simply being an optimist, and "choosing to focus on the positives" to try and salvage a weak political position. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I don't think I'm the one who has to do the salvaging. Quote "And, representing the Slightly Silly Party, Mr. Kevin Phillips Bong." * * * "Er..no. Harper was elected because the people were sick of the other guys and wanted a change. Don't confuse electoral success (which came be attributed to a wide variety of factors) with broad support. That's the surest way to wind up on the sidelines." - Black Dog
Black Dog Posted August 10, 2005 Report Posted August 10, 2005 It's all spin, dude. If you choose to focus on relatively small losses and temporary setbacks to justify your theory, good for you. I'm looking at the big picture, where the real story of the intervention is playing out. Rebuilding a nation takes time. Go ahead and point to circumstantial difficulties and bury your head in the sand. Your input isn't needed, and you won't be missed. Problem with you ahistorical ninnies is that you are incapable of seeing patterns or trends. What we've seen in Iraq is a pattern of incompetence, underestimation, and corruption that has resulted not only n the wa being persecuted on false pretenses in the first place, but has subsequently led to the rise of the insurgency, the glacial pace of reconstruction and the inability of U.S. and Iraqi forces to create a secure environment (let alone assure basic necesstities like water and electricity). To the willfulyy blind, those may seem like "temproaray setbacks", but to the eye with a brain behind it, its part of a pattern that has torepoed any chance of the Iraq experiment succeeding in the manner in which its architects envisioned. Quote
BHS Posted August 10, 2005 Report Posted August 10, 2005 Brilliantly argued. I'll go throw away my dictionaries. Seriously, without a formal declaration of war (which is legal), and a resolution authorizing invasion and deposition of the leader of a soveriegn nation, the US' actions were technically both illegal internationally and in the US. Incidentally, they had no legal right to invade Afghanistan either, but they did have world sympathy. Most expected that it would be OK if they 'crossed the 't's and dotted the 'i's after the fact in the UN. However, they squandered that sympathy with hubris and short-sighted arrogance. * * * Your 'half-witty' replies do little to address fact. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Incidentally, the US Constitution doesn't require a declaration of war, only that if one is made it is made by Congress. The practice in the US since WWII, including Korea and Kosovo, has been to allow the Commander and Chief of the USAF to send in military forces as needed without a formal declaration. In fact, Congress specifically denied authorization for Kosovo but Clinton sent the forces in anyway, without political or legal backlash. What is world sympathy worth? How do you measure it? What can it be traded for?Is it worth adjusting your foreign policy to maintain it? Especially in light of the certain fact that it will diminish in short time, regardless of what you do? "Squandering sympathy" is a meaningless partisan attack strategy. Quote "And, representing the Slightly Silly Party, Mr. Kevin Phillips Bong." * * * "Er..no. Harper was elected because the people were sick of the other guys and wanted a change. Don't confuse electoral success (which came be attributed to a wide variety of factors) with broad support. That's the surest way to wind up on the sidelines." - Black Dog
BHS Posted August 10, 2005 Report Posted August 10, 2005 Problem with you ahistorical ninnies is that you are incapable of seeing patterns or trends. What we've seen in Iraq is a pattern of incompetence, underestimation, and corruption that has resulted not only n the wa being persecuted on false pretenses in the first place, but has subsequently led to the rise of the insurgency, the glacial pace of reconstruction and the inability of U.S. and Iraqi forces to create a secure environment (let alone assure basic necesstities like water and electricity). To the willfulyy blind, those may seem like "temproaray setbacks", but to the eye with a brain behind it, its part of a pattern that has torepoed any chance of the Iraq experiment succeeding in the manner in which its architects envisioned. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> You go ahead and get all peeved. We'll see who the ninny is, my friend. We'll see. Quote "And, representing the Slightly Silly Party, Mr. Kevin Phillips Bong." * * * "Er..no. Harper was elected because the people were sick of the other guys and wanted a change. Don't confuse electoral success (which came be attributed to a wide variety of factors) with broad support. That's the surest way to wind up on the sidelines." - Black Dog
Black Dog Posted August 10, 2005 Report Posted August 10, 2005 You go ahead and get all peeved. We'll see who the ninny is, my friend. We'll see. Singing... Quote
BHS Posted August 10, 2005 Report Posted August 10, 2005 I'd rather be nailed to a cross and singing about it, then complaining about the stuff that drives you lefties crazy. BUSH FOREVER!!! Quote "And, representing the Slightly Silly Party, Mr. Kevin Phillips Bong." * * * "Er..no. Harper was elected because the people were sick of the other guys and wanted a change. Don't confuse electoral success (which came be attributed to a wide variety of factors) with broad support. That's the surest way to wind up on the sidelines." - Black Dog
Guest eureka Posted August 10, 2005 Report Posted August 10, 2005 The US Constitution does require a formal declaration of war. Period! No debate! No one but a "serpent" would claim otherwise. But this is not the Garden of Eden and we are all on the watchout for the "Devil's Disciples." Stating that it doesn't over and over again is a "Bushism." It is the tactic of the neolibs and the "war party" in the US. And it is total and utter BS. It has no place in the debate or discussion that these Forums are supposed to be about. Argue from fact not spin. By the way, what song would you sing with the nails through various parts of your body? Quote
BHS Posted August 10, 2005 Report Posted August 10, 2005 Didn't you follow the link? As always, it would be nice if you could back up your words with something other than more of your words. But in this case you can't. I've reviewed the US Constituion on this matter, and there is no requirement therein of a formal declaration for the nation to proceed in war. All that sections 2 and 8 have to say on the matter are that Congress has the power to declare war and the President has the power to wage war. Repeat: No Requirement Of A Declaration. The US Supreme Court had three opportunities to review the Vietnam War "police action" (war was not declared) and turned down all three opportunities. It hasn't been presented with an opportunity since. So as it stands, the status quo procedure of allowing the president to operate militarily without a formal declaration is not illegal or unconstitutional. By the way, since when are you the authority on what is appropriate for posting in these forums? It seems to me you'd be the last person any sane moderator would call upon for such a postition. Quote "And, representing the Slightly Silly Party, Mr. Kevin Phillips Bong." * * * "Er..no. Harper was elected because the people were sick of the other guys and wanted a change. Don't confuse electoral success (which came be attributed to a wide variety of factors) with broad support. That's the surest way to wind up on the sidelines." - Black Dog
theloniusfleabag Posted August 10, 2005 Report Posted August 10, 2005 Dear Black Dog, We'll see who the ninny is, my friend. We'll see. I'd rather be nailed to a cross and singing about it, then complaining about the stuff that drives you lefties crazy.BUSH FOREVER!!! The ninny rears it's ugly head... For a while, I actually thought BHS was a competent right-winger capable of reasonable debate...my mistake. The practice in the US since WWII, including Korea and Kosovo, has been to allow the Commander and Chief of the USAF to send in military forces as needed without a formal declaration.While the USA has not officially declared war since WWII, I know that the head of the air force (being only one of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) can not unilaterally make a call such as that.eureka, By the way, what song would you sing with the nails through various parts of your body? Monty Python's song (I have that album!) in BD's quote can't really be usurped as the #1 appropos song, however I am also quite fond of Leslie Gore's "Sunshine & Lollipops", and "Chitty Chitty Bang Bang". Quote Would the Special Olympics Committee disqualify kids born with flippers from the swimming events?
BHS Posted August 10, 2005 Report Posted August 10, 2005 The ninny rears it's ugly head... For a while, I actually thought BHS was a competent right-winger capable of reasonable debate...my mistake. I see. So it's okay to compare me to a ridiculous Monty Python character, but I'm not allowed to respond with a likewise meaningless and frivolous post. In your little game I'm the only one who stands to lose credibility. Which makes sense, since I'm the only one with credibility to lose. While the USA has not officially declared war since WWII, I know that the head of the air force (being only one of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) can not unilaterally make a call such as that.<{POST_SNAPBACK}> USAF being short for US Armed Forces, not Air Force. My mistake. The term Commander and Chief is traditionally reserved for the President, so I thought you'd catch on regardless. Another mistake on my part. If you're picking songs for me, why not Carly Simon's "You're So Vain?" I always did think that that song was about me. Quote "And, representing the Slightly Silly Party, Mr. Kevin Phillips Bong." * * * "Er..no. Harper was elected because the people were sick of the other guys and wanted a change. Don't confuse electoral success (which came be attributed to a wide variety of factors) with broad support. That's the surest way to wind up on the sidelines." - Black Dog
Black Dog Posted August 10, 2005 Report Posted August 10, 2005 I see. So it's okay to compare me to a ridiculous Monty Python character, but I'm not allowed to respond with a likewise meaningless and frivolous post. In your little game I'm the only one who stands to lose credibility. Which makes sense, since I'm the only one with credibility to lose. Martyrdom now? I didn't think the crucifixion thing would go to your head so fast. Quote
BHS Posted August 10, 2005 Report Posted August 10, 2005 Martyrdom now? I didn't think the crucifixion thing would go to your head so fast. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I'm shallow like that. Quote "And, representing the Slightly Silly Party, Mr. Kevin Phillips Bong." * * * "Er..no. Harper was elected because the people were sick of the other guys and wanted a change. Don't confuse electoral success (which came be attributed to a wide variety of factors) with broad support. That's the surest way to wind up on the sidelines." - Black Dog
Guest eureka Posted August 10, 2005 Report Posted August 10, 2005 Congress has the power to declare war and the President has the power to wage war. Repeat: Is this really so hard to understand! The Prssident has the power to wage war in his role as Commander-In-Chief. He wages war that Congress has declared and NO other. Do you think you should consider giving up yout "Constitutional studies: since even the simplest passages seem to be beyond your grasp. Quote
BHS Posted August 10, 2005 Report Posted August 10, 2005 As I mentioned in my previous post, I'm well aware of what the US Constitution has to say on the matter. The person here who appears to be incapable of grasping the situation is YOU. Get your nose out of the theory and have a look at the practical effect of law, for a change. Laws are meaningless until they are put into practice. Quote "And, representing the Slightly Silly Party, Mr. Kevin Phillips Bong." * * * "Er..no. Harper was elected because the people were sick of the other guys and wanted a change. Don't confuse electoral success (which came be attributed to a wide variety of factors) with broad support. That's the surest way to wind up on the sidelines." - Black Dog
Guest eureka Posted August 10, 2005 Report Posted August 10, 2005 You look at the practical effect - as if that changed constitutionallity. The US has never gone to war without a declaration of war by Congress.There have always been other reasons for committment when action has been taken. That is part of the reason for the attempt to portray this as not a war but an international action under the warrant of the United Nations, That does not wash and Bush did this in defiance of Comgress. That is why there is an action slowly making its way - or being stalled - before the Courts to bring Bush to justice. Quote
BHS Posted August 10, 2005 Report Posted August 10, 2005 When it happens, I'll be right here admitting I was wrong. Until then, I'm certain Bush will get away with it, as did Clinton before him. Any court action that happens will be without the support of either the Dems or the Repubs, because both parties have an interest in keeping the war option open for their own candidates. And as I've mentioned, the Supreme Court has a historic reluctance to review the matter. Quote "And, representing the Slightly Silly Party, Mr. Kevin Phillips Bong." * * * "Er..no. Harper was elected because the people were sick of the other guys and wanted a change. Don't confuse electoral success (which came be attributed to a wide variety of factors) with broad support. That's the surest way to wind up on the sidelines." - Black Dog
Guest eureka Posted August 10, 2005 Report Posted August 10, 2005 He will get away with it, in m opinion. That is what I said first time round. That makes it no less a crime - a crime in the US and a crime against humanity. Quote
BHS Posted August 10, 2005 Report Posted August 10, 2005 Oh, the melodrama of it all. The US is the big bad wolf of the world and nothing can stop the inevitable onslaught of their global domination scheme. Yawn. Wake me up when I get to vote Republican. Quote "And, representing the Slightly Silly Party, Mr. Kevin Phillips Bong." * * * "Er..no. Harper was elected because the people were sick of the other guys and wanted a change. Don't confuse electoral success (which came be attributed to a wide variety of factors) with broad support. That's the surest way to wind up on the sidelines." - Black Dog
Guest eureka Posted August 10, 2005 Report Posted August 10, 2005 Why not wake up now? Get the sleep out of your eyes and see the world beyond your window. Quote
Black Dog Posted August 11, 2005 Report Posted August 11, 2005 Oh, the melodrama of it all. The US is the big bad wolf of the world and nothing can stop the inevitable onslaught of their global domination scheme. Yawn. Wake me up when I get to vote Republican. There's the highway. There's the border. I'll even get you started on the citizenship thing: ta da! Bye! Quote
BHS Posted August 11, 2005 Report Posted August 11, 2005 Oh, the melodrama of it all. The US is the big bad wolf of the world and nothing can stop the inevitable onslaught of their global domination scheme. Yawn. Wake me up when I get to vote Republican. There's the highway. There's the border. I'll even get you started on the citizenship thing: ta da! Bye! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> You obviously didn't get the gist of my post. (Hint: I won't have to move for it to come true.) Update: That would really suit your agenda of turning Canada into a Third World socialist cesspool, wouldn't it? Having all the hard-working, taxpaying citizens move to the States to leave your kind up here to try to committee your way into paradise. Quote "And, representing the Slightly Silly Party, Mr. Kevin Phillips Bong." * * * "Er..no. Harper was elected because the people were sick of the other guys and wanted a change. Don't confuse electoral success (which came be attributed to a wide variety of factors) with broad support. That's the surest way to wind up on the sidelines." - Black Dog
Black Dog Posted August 12, 2005 Report Posted August 12, 2005 You obviously didn't get the gist of my post. (Hint: I won't have to move for it to come true.) Right: just what the U.S. would want: another 30 million Democrats. That would really suit your agenda of turning Canada into a Third World socialist cesspool, wouldn't it? Having all the hard-working, taxpaying citizens move to the States to leave your kind up here to try to committee your way into paradise. No, but it would help us hardworking, taxpaying citizens get rid of some of the obnoxious whiners who complain endlessly about this country (even as they reap the benefits of living here) and extoll the virtues of another country, but lack the courage of their convictions to actuially move there. Quote
BHS Posted August 13, 2005 Report Posted August 13, 2005 You obviously didn't get the gist of my post. (Hint: I won't have to move for it to come true.) Right: just what the U.S. would want: another 30 million Democrats. That would really suit your agenda of turning Canada into a Third World socialist cesspool, wouldn't it? Having all the hard-working, taxpaying citizens move to the States to leave your kind up here to try to committee your way into paradise. No, but it would help us hardworking, taxpaying citizens get rid of some of the obnoxious whiners who complain endlessly about this country (even as they reap the benefits of living here) and extoll the virtues of another country, but lack the courage of their convictions to actuially move there. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Actually, I put more into this country than I take out of it, thanks. Quote "And, representing the Slightly Silly Party, Mr. Kevin Phillips Bong." * * * "Er..no. Harper was elected because the people were sick of the other guys and wanted a change. Don't confuse electoral success (which came be attributed to a wide variety of factors) with broad support. That's the surest way to wind up on the sidelines." - Black Dog
Shady Posted August 14, 2005 Report Posted August 14, 2005 but lack the courage of their convictions to actuially move thereIn my opinion, staying in Canada, and fighting for what's right, is having the true courage of our convictions. Not running away from the problem by moving away. Quote
theloniusfleabag Posted August 15, 2005 Report Posted August 15, 2005 Dear Shady, In my opinion, staying in Canada, and fighting for what's right, is having the true courage of our convictions.That is a large claim, for what you believe to be 'right' may or may not be right at all. Quote Would the Special Olympics Committee disqualify kids born with flippers from the swimming events?
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.