Thread: A question on the constitution

Is very true Gugi,both were never declared wars.

I believe the politicians write the laws to give them more control over the people not for the people. I think eventually the US will be no different that Europe. With out the rights we enjoy today. I think at some point in time we here in the US will not have the right to defend our selves & will have no say in the governing of this country that our fathers and for fathers created for us. I know that at my age I want have to worry about it much longer and am glad I have no kids to leave with this mess. If I go into some things I believe in a lot of folks want agree with me, I believe in equal rights not preferred rights. I believe when people protest and loot and burn and the police are afraid to stop it because of the political part of it is wrong. A lot of what I am against is because of politicians and lawyers who a lot of are politicians. I guess you might say that I'm just an angry old man who remembers how this country use to be and wish it could go back to when it was better. now there are things that was wrong then as it is now but then again there was a lot of things right. The bad thing about it is even though the US has it's problems to me it's still better than a lot of other places in the world I've been. As I'm sure they think the same of there country. I guess you have to love your country to be up set when there's something wrong or at least to your thinking. All in all I'm still proud to be an American. I've had fun with this discussion thanks.

I doubt that any "terrorist group" has ever been a signatory to the Geneva Convention and don't feel the least bit bound by it. Nor do they generally represent a recognized geographical area, country, but an ideal for lack of a better word. Pretty hard to pin down the "proper" way to deal with them.

Add to that if you do invade a country to "liberate" that country from "terrorists" you are automatically disliked as foreign invaders. The longer you stay after "mission accomplished" the greater the anger and resentment becomes. You win the war but loose the peace. That is the trouble with applying conventional warfare in fighting terrorism. There has to be a better method that does not create more problems than it solves.

Bob

I just hope the folks in our government realize the scope of the situation in the middle east as these dudes sweep across the region and take over. If they don't do something rite quick in a few years we will have ground troops in Israel fighting off the onslaught. That will be WWlll.

Originally Posted by BobH

There has to be a better method that does not create more problems than it solves.

Bob

Well we have tried the "Let them have it all back" after we invest $Billions$ in propping them up system a couple of times now and failed

So I vote for the "Let's actually invade and take over everything" routine and give it back after we take all the oil it takes to pay us back for our costs, and if they want our help after that they have to pay us for keeping the peace...

Let's give that a try and see what happens

That way we are not leaving a "Power Vacuum"

Originally Posted by gssixgun

Well we have tried the "Let them have it all back" after we invest $Billions$ in propping them up system a couple of times now and failed

So I vote for the "Let's actually invade and take over everything" routine and give it back after we take all the oil it takes to pay us back for our costs, and if they want our help after that they have to pay us for keeping the peace...

Let's give that a try and see what happens

That way we are not leaving a "Power Vacuum"

Much as I sympathise with the sentiment Glen, your argument supposes that the vanquished are of one mind. Unfortunately, the countries in question are so fractured that minorities will always be able to take liberties and power at the same time so that the enemy you are fighting keeps changing.

Originally Posted by pixelfixed

Is very true Gugi,both were never declared wars.

I suppose there's that but Bush wasn't impeached over it, and whether the US congress declared a war or didn't the fact remains that what US conducted with these two countries was war.

Originally Posted by gssixgun

See they blurred the line, we didn't, so the entire legal system whether Military or Civilian has been obscured...

It seems to me any blurring of lines falls squarely on US, starting with invading countries and toppling their governments without officially declaring a war.
Plenty of countries have had terrorist attacks, US isn't special. The only thing special is that it has enormous military power and on occasion acts outside of the established norms. Russia just did similar thing with Ukraine this past year - they wouldn't do anything like that with China for example.

Originally Posted by gssixgun

Basically an International set of rules for Terrorists/Mercenaries that work outside of a Country's Uniform we managed to work out the Geneva Conventions of War this should be a seperate part of it

The thing is that they do not operate in no-man's land - typically there's a government in charge of an area that is supposed to control it. In the case of Afganistan the government wasn't overly cooperative with the US government on handing over Bin Laden (as is the right of every government). There was some proposal to extradite him in Pakistan and that becomes Pakistan's problem, but Musharaf ultimately declined.
So, it was a problem between two countries - Afganistan and USA and US decided it has no more patience for negotiations and will start a war with Afganistan over that. Won the war, and then what? Put a new government in place that was more cooperative on Bin Laden but that government couldn't control the country even with the help of US and Bin Laden went somewhere else (apparently Pakistan). Meanwhile all that destabilisation and lack of control led to more ill will towards US and more terrorists willing to fight it.

Seems to me somebody is seriously fumbling on the wold stage and keeps biting way more than they can chew.

Originally Posted by rhensley

I believe the politicians write the laws to give them more control over the people not for the people.

Again in the US system when the people don't like how the politicians do their job they get to replace them. You'd think that with reelection rate of about 90% in congress the voters think the politicians are doing an outstanding job.

Originally Posted by rhensley

I think eventually the US will be no different that Europe. With out the rights we enjoy today.

Are you familiar with European Convention on Human Rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia?

Originally Posted by rhensley

The bad thing about it is even though the US has it's problems to me it's still better than a lot of other places in the world I've been. As I'm sure they think the same of there country. I guess you have to love your country to be up set when there's something wrong or at least to your thinking. All in all I'm still proud to be an American. I've had fun with this discussion thanks.

Yes most people love their country and sometimes that is exploited by the rulers to make them kill other people who love their own country just as much. Historically it seems we're doing a lot better job of getting along and resolving our conflicts peacefully.
Of course, the TV makes up for the decrease in overall conflicts violence by focusing on the existing one and creating a narrative that sells better.

Originally Posted by gssixgun

Well we have tried the "Let them have it all back" after we invest $Billions$ in propping them up system a couple of times now and failed

Yea, it is pretty frustrating.

So I vote for the "Let's actually invade and take over everything" routine and give it back after we take all the oil it takes to pay us back for our costs, and if they want our help after that they have to pay us for keeping the peace...

Let's give that a try and see what happens

Basically tried after WWI and had a good deal to setting up WWII.

That way we are not leaving a "Power Vacuum"

Some how managed not to leave a "power vacuum" in Germany after WWII. Unfortunately the current war on terrorism is not conventional in any sense of the word. The old recipes don't seem to have the desired effect.

Maybe the current attempt at getting the regional players to sort their own problems out, with support, will have longer lasting success or not.

Bob

After WW2 both Germany and Japan had Allied Occupational armies left in place... we (the Allies) also decimated their warfighting capabilities so the threat was pretty low.. By then the civilian populations were ready for the end of hostilities


Now leaving the whole region alone is definitely an option I can get behind but somehow I do believe that TBS's scenario of defending Israel and WW3 will be the outcome and things might be too far gone after that...

We also need to remember that simply trying to blame the US for invading Iraq like a few here are leaning on, is basically being blind to who we knocked out of power.. He was after all called the Butcher of Baghdad for a reason , he did after all invade Kuwait and also gassed over 200000 Kurds .. we should have taken him out in 1991 that was a mistake

A convenient lapse of memory,

Much like ISIS and Boko Harum, and many others practicing Genocide in the Dark corners of the world, I feel that is what we "The Western World" agreed to never let that happen again after 1945, yet we seem to forget so much..

Perhaps the answer is actually a International Warfighting Force / Merc's that instead of a UN peacekeeping mission, they are deployed by the UN to go in and hunt down and kill groups like ISIS and Boko then leave ???? If the UN can't handle that responsibility perhaps Nato,

I don't know the answer but we (The Western World) tend to sit way to long while people die, I don't think that is right or moral

Originally Posted by gssixgun

Well we have tried the "Let them have it all back" after we invest $Billions$ in propping them up system a couple of times now and failed

I think it stats by figuring out what's your objective and if it's even achievable by war; secondly with the potential consequences and whether they would create far bigger problem than the one you're trying to solve.
For example the war in Afganistan was to destroy Bin Laden's organization - utter failure. In Iraq it was about getting rid of that country's WMD's.

Perhaps the lesson for US is that a 'war on terror' is unwinnable, at least not in the way of conan

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xAdzBaPDmJk

Originally Posted by gssixgun

So I vote for the "Let's actually invade and take over everything" routine and give it back after we take all the oil it takes to pay us back for our costs, and if they want our help aft

That sounds like doubling down on what keeps failing. Just think about it - the dictators in these countries hold them together by terrorizing the people and when the government oppression is weakened you get violence and chaos. What would US do differently when it's in charge?
Colonialism ended over half a century ago, do you really think US can do better than the past failures and build a colonial empire that will work? What would you do differently from England, France, Spain, Portugal, Italy... ?