IAP Political Forum

Kelley Beaucar Vlahos, in the October 8th edition of The American Conservative, takes a hard look at the foreign policy advisors on the major presidential campaigns of both parties. It is not very encouraging for Americans tired of foreign entanglements and adventurism. Depressing proof that we need an effective third party!

OswaldTheOsprey

http://www.amconmag.com/2007/2007_10_08/print/articleprint.html

Not the best choice for a source when you want to pretend you're concerned about who's advising who, no?

"...served in Iraq as an occupation devotee..."

You go, girl!

As the body count piles up, there is a dramatic decline in occupation devotees-at least among the people. Remember "cakewalk"? >:( ::)

OswaldTheOsprey

Unless you exprees it as a percentage and compare it to any other war.

Compare it to other wars? OK. Like every war since Korea it is unconstitutional. Like every war since 1861 it is for the benefit of international high finance and mammonistic capitalism. As to a percentage, I will leave it to you to break death and misery into percentages. ::) ::) ::)

OswaldTheOsprey

Uh...yeeeah...where's my windex?...death and misery arent numbers, and even if they were, you have no way of knowing there's a "dramatic decline in occupation devotees" [read:Iraq war vets]among the people without looking at that way....and no business ranting frothily about it, if it so bothers you that people do that.

What bothers me are the people Ms. Vlahos discusses in her article. Bipartisan internationalism! ::) ::) ::)

OswaldTheOsprey

I've heard this point made before, and in fact it is very true. The death rate for our troops is low comparatively. We have a tremendous advantage technologically and strength-wise over pretty much any foe we would face. IMO, it would mean that something is going very, very wrong if we were taking casualties in Iraq like we did in N Korea or Vietnam.

The fact that less soldiers are dying in this war than in other wars does not in any way change the fact that we're still losing thousands of men.

If a deranged killer who took 30 lives every month decides he'll slack up for Oct. and only take 10, does it mean less resources should be put into stopping those ten deaths? Do you tell the families: "Well, you should just be happy that your daughter was one of ten instead of one of thirty"?

The fact that less soldiers are dying in this war than in other wars does not in any way change the fact that we're still losing thousands of men. Nor does it make that loss of life any less undesirable.

Nor does it make the war any less wrong.

OswaldTheOsprey

 "If a deranged killer who took 30 lives every month decides he'll slack up for Oct. and only take 10, does it mean less resources should be put into stopping those ten deaths? Do you tell the families: "Well, you should just be happy that your daughter was one of ten instead of one of thirty"?

Definatley not, nor should you claim to be any closer to catching the killer because less people were killed.
as such, even if you connsider these rates unacceptably high...for whatever reason...you should not consider it to mean anything more than an idicator of the TEMPO, not who is winning what...If the serial killer kills 100 people next month, does that mean you didn't try as hard last month to catch him?..look at the Battle of the Bulge in WWII, where we took comparatively outrageous casualties, yet it was a huge strategic victory. Troops can pull back to garrisons and the casualties go down while you lose objectives. If you're looking for a big, fat zero, then you're just insane.


"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." ---John Stuart Mill, 1868

I understand that death is a part of war, and that warfare at some point is inevitable. To me, this is even more reason to get our troops out of the way of the internal strife in Iraq. There will be enough deaths already without us engaging in strategic blunders of this sort.

BTW nice quote, but if you think my stance is entirely against war, you're mistaken. My problem is with sending American troops off to die in the middle of Iraqi civil strife. Had it been a response to an attack, as in Afghanistan, it would be a different story for me.

You still avoid the question of whether the war is justified or not. Like every war since Korea it is undeclared and hence unconstitutional. Like every war since at least The War of the Northern Aggression in 1861 it is done at the behest of international bankers and industrial combines. In other words, "A rich man's war and a poor man's fight".

OswaldTheOsprey

Public Law No: 107-40.

Authorization for Use of Military Force --S.J.Res.23--

S.J.Res.23

One Hundred Seventh Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE FIRST SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,

the third day of January, two thousand and one

Joint Resolution

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.

Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and

Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad; and

Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence; and

Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and

Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force'.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements-

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supercedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.


...you don't have to like it, and it doesn't mean that I do...but there it is in black and white.

I can understand your position. I lean more towards the way it was explained. A preemptive doctrine against the inevitable nexus of WMD's, their delivery capabilities and terrorists, facilitated mainly by the little hitlers in Iraq, Iraq and N. Korea.

It hasn't followed the path I expected either, but I find it to be the legal, justified, necessary, noble thing to do.

I certainly don't like it and it is not the same as a declaration of war.

OswaldTheOsprey

Noble motives perhaps. However, I do not consider it necessary or justified. Legal? Not as I understand the Constitution. We just disagree. I am an isolationist of the strict 1919 Legion of Death variety. I respect your opinion, but can not agree with it.

OswaldTheOsprey