Has Bush Gone Mad?

[David Floyd]

There's nothing I can do about other people forcing you to pay for the military regardless of peace or war. I don't vote for Democans...

Right, but war costs more than peace. Supporting war means supporting increased costs, which, in the end, will come back to me. Especially in a war like this, which will really hit the economy.

We have a voluntary force.

Yes, but I'm not voluntarily paying for it.

Besides, you'll have to convince me forced taxation for the military is immoral, it can reasonably be viewed as a user fee just like a gas tax for highway maintenance.

Ah, but why should a user-fee funded organization be used to benefit someone other than the user? Going to war and deposing Saddam does not benefit me, and it could easily be argued that it harms me, through both increasing theft of my property and contributing to a more dangerous environment for terrorism, and the like.

If our military was a purely defensive one, that operating ONLY inside the borders of the US, you could possibly make a user fee argument. However, I still probably would not buy it because a large standing military could easily be dispensed with in favor of a non-belligerent foreign policy.

To extend your example of roads, it is sort of like taxing me to build a road in Iraq - sure, you might say taxing me for a road in the US is OK because it is a user fee, and I'll be using the road, but I certainly won't be using the road in Iraq.

I'm not forcing you, other people have done that.

Sure, but by supporting war, you are by extension supporting the coercion of others.

[SlowwHand]

David, why in Hell would you want the military operating on our soil?
Have you no conception what that means?

Damn it. That's the kind of statement by you that drives me to utter distraction.
Think!

[David Floyd]

David, why in Hell would you want the military operating on our soil?
Have you no conception what that means?

I don't want the military operating, period, except in the case of an invasion in which case the military would be operating on US soil.

[SlowwHand]

I'll ask a favor of you.
Go read posts by, for instance, Sirotnikov or Eli.
Then come back, and repeat your statement.

You think I stay on your ass, just to stay on your ass.
That's ridiculous.

You say you want the military operating on our soil, I'm telling you, you most certainly do not.

You'll probably just turn around and flame my ass, but that's cool.
I have broad shoulders. I can handle it.
Just look, and think.

[David Floyd]

You say you want the military operating on our soil, I'm telling you, you most certainly do not.

No ****, but the ONLY circumstance in which I want the military operating is during a direct attack on the US - this means an invasion or something similar.

[SlowwHand]

That last post, makes zero sense, David.
Zip. Zilch. Notta.

[Imran Siddiqui]

But, as has been pointed out to you before, this renders the enumerated powers superfluous. If the Founders intended the federal government to do whatever it wanted for the "general welfare", then that would have been the only enumerated power necessary, and it would have been a power on its own, not one combined with defense.

Take it up with the Supreme Court, which is the body that determines constitutionality. I won't promise that they won't laugh in your face when you come to them though.

2ndly, as much as you like twisting my words around, can you show me where I said Congress can DO anything? I said Congress can SPEND in anyway it wishes. That is totally different. Nice try though.

--

Berz has to come back... we need to see a Libertarian fight .

[David Floyd]

That last post, makes zero sense, David.

What it means is that I never, ever want the military to attack anyone. It's only purpose should be defense from invasion.

Imran,

Take it up with the Supreme Court, which is the body that determines constitutionality. I won't promise that they won't laugh in your face when you come to them though.

SCOTUS has made some pretty horrible decisions before, nothing is stopping them from doing so again.

2ndly, as much as you like twisting my words around, can you show me where I said Congress can DO anything? I said Congress can SPEND in anyway it wishes. That is totally different.

Yes, different in the way ordering someone to commit murder and committing murder yourself are different - the end result is the same.

[Ramo]

David can you clean out your pm's?

[HershOstropoler]

Berzerker:

"Ah yes, those without rebuttals claim rebuttals are not needed."

I'd have a field day with you on this issue, but if someone starts propagating the earth is flat, I can't be arsed to discuss it in detail either.

"A treaty cannot limit Congress' power to declare war without granting some foreign entity a veto of that power"

Of course it can. It is intrinsic of international treaties to limit what a state can do.

"You seem to think no treaty can violate the Constitution"

Of course it can.

"what about a treaty allowing a foreign country to export slaves to the US for sale to Americans? Wouldn't the 1808 prohibition on slave importation and the 13th Amendment, i.e., the Constitution, forbid such a treaty?"

It would be unconstitutional, the courts would have to refuse applying it, but its validity can only be judged by international law (which would render it absolutely void as a violation of ius cogens).

What you claim, however, is that every power enumerated in the constitution cannot be subject to limitation by an international treaty, which is simply bollocks.

"You didn't ask, you concluded"

You are free to "understand" what you want.

"Yeah, useless because it refuted your claim that there was a %99 likelyhood of chaos"

Refuted?
You have a serious problem with logic.

[David Floyd]

Ramo - done and done!

[Berzerker]

David - Is coercion to fund a military allowable? Is that a user fee based on the reality that the military benefits us all? I'd prefer seeing if the miltary can be funded voluntarily, but I wouldn't complain if the funding was coerced because I view that tax as a user fee. User fees should be directed to the primary users, whenever possible, because certain services benefit some people more than others - like a gas or auto tax to hit the people who use the roads more, but we all benefit from roads even if we don't drive. And those paying the tax end up transfering some of the cost to people who don't use the roads via the marketplace and the cost of living. But the military benefits us all "equally", so a general tax to support the military is IMO allowable.

So the question becomes whether or not action in Iraq is valid. The military is voluntary, so that's not a problem. Will action benefit us? I believe it will by eliminating a potential, if not actual, base for terrorists. And by sending a message to other countries that allowing terrorists to operate within, and with the blessings of those countries, comes at a heavy price, we will reduce the operating abilities of terrorists.

Now, you and I know we wouldn't be in this mess if it wasn't for the fact that the Democrats and Republicans think the world is their playground and seemingly have no problem creating enemies abroad. You and I know this would not have happened if libertarians were running foreign policy. But we are stuck with what the Democans have created, so what is the best option given this reality? I still believe that if we just left the region, lifted the sanctions on Iraq, and withdrew from entangling alliances (Israel), the attacks would cease. So ideally this is what I would want, but the Democans won't do what I think is best for Americans. The next best option is war, just getting it over with, and that is one of two feasible options the Congress is supporting. Besides, as I said before, we owe the Iraqi people for Bush's backstab, that's what tips the balance for me...Btw, there are many roads you will never use here too.

[aaglo]

Was he ever sane?

[Berzerker]

Hersh -

I'd have a field day with you on this issue, but if someone starts propagating the earth is flat, I can't be arsed to discuss it in detail either.

Not without first offering a rebuttal. Btw, that wasn't a rebuttal either.

Of course it can. It is intrinsic of international treaties to limit what a state can do.

Isn't that what I just said? I'll repeat myself, a treaty cannot limit Congress' power to declare war without granting some foreign entity a partial veto of that power. Now, are you suggesting a treaty can limit Congress' power to declare war without granting a foreign entity veto power? And if this foreign entity has, via treaty, a veto power over the Congress, then Congress no longer has the power to declare war. That means the treaty is in violation of the Constitution. We the people did not grant foreign entities veto power over the congressional power to declare war nor did we the people authorise Congress to give foreign entities veto power over Congress' power to declare war. The Constitution says the President has the power to nominate judges and the Senate has the power to confirm or reject those nominees. If a treaty gave a foreign country the power to confirm or reject judges nominated and confirmed by the President and Senate, wouldn't that violate the Constitution?

It would be unconstitutional, the courts would have to refuse applying it, but its validity can only be judged by international law (which would render it absolutely void as a violation of ius cogens).

So a treaty can violate the Constitution? Earlier you said this:

international treaties can limit the exercise of that power without being in conflict with the constitution

But now you say a treaty can violate the Constitution? Isn't that what I've being saying? So, the question becomes whether or not giving the UN veto power over congressional declarations of war violate the Constitution. And it does for the reason I've stated.

What you claim, however, is that every power enumerated in the constitution cannot be subject to limitation by an international treaty, which is simply bollocks.

I didn't say that, I said the power to declare war resides with Congress and no treaty can give a foreign entity veto power.

Refuted? You have a serious problem with logic.

Let's see, you claim there is a %99 chance regime change in Iraq will result in chaos and then added a somewhat incomprehensible comment about Chile. I cited 2 examples of regime change that did not result in this chaos you predict. Wouldn't that mean, if you are basing your prediction on history and not pie-in-the-sky speculations, that the US has brought about regime changes that resulted in chaos 198 times with only 2 regime changes that did not?

[HershOstropoler]

I know this is like talking to a wall, but well...

"Isn't that what I just said? I'll repeat myself, a treaty cannot limit Congress' power to declare war without granting some foreign entity a partial veto of that power."

A strict limitation would not require a veto power. All depends on how the threaty is structured.

"And if this foreign entity has, via treaty, a veto power over the Congress, then Congress no longer has the power to declare war. That means the treaty is in violation of the Constitution."

It has the power, it just cannot exercise it at will. That is at the heart of classic international treaties.

"If a treaty gave a foreign country the power to confirm or reject judges nominated and confirmed by the President and Senate, wouldn't that violate the Constitution?"

Art II says the president shall nominate etc. The procedure is already prescribed by the constitution, adding another party to formally confirm would be unconstitutional. A limitation by treaty could be not to appoint an in internationally sought war criminal as judge. That would not conflict with Art II, the procedure would not be affected, only its outcome.

"But now you say a treaty can violate the Constitution?"

I said as you quote:

"international treaties can limit the exercise of that power without being in conflict with the constitution"

Don't know how to translate this. Maybe "international treaties can limit the exercise of that power without being necessarily, automatically, without further consideration in conflict with the constitution"

"I didn't say that, I said the power to declare war resides with Congress and no treaty can give a foreign entity veto power."

The power to make laws for theD.C. resides with Congress, exclusively. Does that mean an international treaty about say consular protection, or free trade, cannot include DC without being unconstitutional?

"Wouldn't that mean, if you are basing your prediction on history and not pie-in-the-sky speculations, that the US has brought about regime changes that resulted in chaos 198 times with only 2 regime changes that did not?"

And I did not say 99 % of all tried regime changes end that way, I said Iraq would end that way. If you were relying on history, you could identify some crucial differences between Iraq vs germany or japan. What you try is refuting the shape of apples by pointing out the shape of bananas.

[Joseph]

David; Do you really want another 9-11 before we fight?
I do not understand why one american would like to have other american died before we react.

[Grandpa Troll]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Most of the rest of the people on the planet seem to care about it, that's who.

I think your a wee bit off track there chegitz guevara , if indeed the fact that MOST of the rest of the World did care, then why would we be having so many humanitarian relief missions or Military Interventions Worldwide?

If indeed the rest of the World did care for the UN then why dont more people get involved in assisting and funding the Police Actions of the World?

It seems mighty darned convenient when the so-called leaders of the World need the U S Punch of Power to resolve an issue, its ok, but because the U S Decides enough is enough and deciseds to rectify a bad situation, these so called leaders and voters so no no no..or wait wait wait...

I say take him out, help stop the terrorist network from funding and having a place to hide and seek.


I am not calling you out or starting a flamewar, just merely stating the pure facts, the "Most of The World" cant make its mind up.

The U S gave plenty of time, patiently waiting 12 years......

The countdown started a year and a half ago.....




Grandpa Troll9-11-01


Peace

Grandpa Troll

[Berzerker]

Hersh -

I know this is like talking to a wall, but well...

You want to get nasty, then FU a$$hole.

[SuperSneak]

Now, now, let's all settle down here.
Maybe we should talk about something else? Who's watching "American Idol"?

[HershOstropoler]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Hersh -

You want to get nasty, then FU a$$hole.

Nasty?

[Berzerker]

Yes, nasty, had you mouthed off to my face I'd kick your teeth in, you snide little pr!ck.

David - I changed my mind, I believe far too many US soldiers are going to be subjected to bio/chem weapons to justify the war.

[HershOstropoler]

You're one happy little drama queen...

[Berzerker]

I'm in Topeka if you want a live performance.

[MRT144]

berzerker, you really are like talking to a brick wall though sometimes, not all but some. i highlighted this in a previous thread where you werent making rebuttles to any arguements, rather just quoting and making self serving assertions.

this is the first time ive seen you give up and talk of physical force though. im amazed

[Berzerker]

MRT, you lied in that thread and admitted you were trolling. You never supported your BS there and here you are again with more BS you won't support. I've had you on ignore ever since, so do me a favor and don't address me anymore.

[MRT144]

but i like you and the way you think. you along with Imran are one of the few people that i respect even though a lot of your opinions run completely contrary to me.

[SuperSneak]

Isn't that Simon just a pill? I can't believe the way he talks to people.
It's disgraceful.

Hey, how about a group hug?

[Imran Siddiqui]

I Simon

[David Floyd]

Berz, I know you already changed your mind, but I owe a response anyway:

David - Is coercion to fund a military allowable? Is that a user fee based on the reality that the military benefits us all?

Coercion to fund the US military in this day and age is certainly not allowable. If the US followed a non-interventionist, non-aggressive foreign policy - which is free - a military would not even be needed.

I'd prefer seeing if the miltary can be funded voluntarily, but I wouldn't complain if the funding was coerced because I view that tax as a user fee.

But surely you see the difference between a heavily offensive force and a totally defensive force, no?

But the military benefits us all "equally", so a general tax to support the military is IMO allowable.

How does an invasion of Iraq benefit me? Actually, it hurts me insofar as it drives up oil prices, and increases the risk of terrorism against the US.

So the question becomes whether or not action in Iraq is valid. The military is voluntary, so that's not a problem.

Agreed, yet at the same time, the fact of a voluntary military doesn't make any action the military takes moral. Starting a war with an all-volunteer force is just as bad as starting one with a conscript force.

Will action benefit us? I believe it will by eliminating a potential, if not actual, base for terrorists.

First of all, the US is both a potential and an actual base for terrorists, as are many countries in Europe. Second of all, even if I agreed with your terrorist argument, the costs, both economic and political, certainly outweigh the potential gains.

And by sending a message to other countries that allowing terrorists to operate within, and with the blessings of those countries, comes at a heavy price, we will reduce the operating abilities of terrorists.

Except we will likely increase the number of terrorists, if not immediately against the US, than certainly against countries such as Israel and states that support the US.

But we are stuck with what the Democans have created, so what is the best option given this reality? I still believe that if we just left the region, lifted the sanctions on Iraq, and withdrew from entangling alliances (Israel), the attacks would cease. So ideally this is what I would want, but the Democans won't do what I think is best for Americans. The next best option is war, just getting it over with, and that is one of two feasible options the Congress is supporting.

So we have an obligation to choose the lesser of two evils, just because Congress says those are the only feasible options? If that's your view, then I fail to see who you wouldn't choose the "lesser of the two evils" in the Push Button Dilemma thread in which we successfully out-argued Agathon. My choice is to opt out of ANY immoral option.

Besides, as I said before, we owe the Iraqi people for Bush's backstab, that's what tips the balance for me...

I owe people I've never met for the unkept promises of another man I've never met? I don't understand why I would.

[Pekka]

I just saw interesting program about Bush admin. There are two different sides fighting over Dubyas attention, chickenhawks and pigeons. Well you guys know how it works of course, but I'm not always familiar with other systems than ours, so excuse my ignorance. Powell is more pigeon, who believes world politics are made in long relationships and all. And chickenhawk leader Wolfowitz is more 'let's roll' type of guy.. It was interesting program, and the system is pretty good. It was funny that all the army guys were against the action at first, but chickenhawks won and now it's 'let's roll' time. Good program.