If China, Russia, France and England got the UN's approval to launch cruise missiles

[Charles_Main]

If the Nazi regime was a creature of our present day, and if Nazi fucking Germany was killing Jews and Russians and Gypsies and all the rest of us inferior types, and assuming we knew it was going on, I presume it would be considered a justifiable action by us to take them on, militarily.

Let's put a fine point on it. It would be "justified" in almost every real sense of that term.

Now, would it be something other than "war" if it were completely justified? Or would it still be "war?" In fact, isn't that a pretty good example of a justified or "just war?"

The point is: not all war is "bad" even if it's always deadly and tragic. And even so, war is still war.

That takes me to Libya. Maybe it is "justified" to prevent Mohammar Kaddafy-fuck from killing his own people to "take him on militarily." Maybe. But even if it is "justified," is it our place to be the policeman of the world?
And even if we have some undefined right to act like the world's good cop, isn't that the kind of thing the Constitution says should be authorized by Congress? Should this President -- or ANY President -- have a right to engage in ENTERING a war -- one which has not first been directed against us by the opponent -- without getting PRIOR Congressional authority?

Thats the thing though, if we are in this to do the right thing when are we sending our cruise missiles and fighter jets to Iran, Bahrain, Syria, Yemen, Sudan, Somalia, North Korea and Zimbabwe?

Which one of those countries you just listed is Using on a mass scale, Tanks, Planes and artillery to attack the opposition? Libya is an extreme case.

 

[Dr.Drock]

I would bet that we already have that or something similar or it could be arranged very easily.

I'm sure it could be. However, we need to pull ourselves back inside our own borders before anything like that can truly be placed in the world context. Without an Isolationist and Nationalistic foreign policy in place, it's nothing more than hypocricy of the highest order.

I think I mostly agree.

This is why I wonder why we make it such a big deal to have bases all over the world. Doesn't seem necessary with our technology.

If the rest of the world wants to blow themselves to hell so be it, shouldn't be the US taxpayers problem. We got enough of our own problems here.

Protect the borders, protect our ports and be in position to defend ourselves from attack and counter-attack from within our borders.

 

[Charles_Main]

the president has 60-90 days to declare such, per the war powers act, is my understanding.... and i think this gives too much leeway...

I actually agree, 60 to 90 days is to long. But the president does need some leeway. In modern world of today, expecting the President to go to congress, and then allow them to have an open debate, before any military action is ludicrous. What about time sensitive actions? What about actions where we do not want the entire world know were thinking about doing it, before we do. This is not the 18th century anymore. the US can not afford the luxury of having the full congress debate military actions before hand.

I fully agree, and have argued this point long and hard.

HOWEVER.... The Obama disagrees completely.

Well at least he did when it was a convenient tool to bash Bush with. No doubt he is a hippocrate.

 

[Dr.Drock]

I would bet that we already have that or something similar or it could be arranged very easily.

I'm sure it could be. However, we need to pull ourselves back inside our own borders before anything like that can truly be placed in the world context. Without an Isolationist and Nationalistic foreign policy in place, it's nothing more than hypocricy of the highest order.

Yep, Isolationism worked out so great in the past. Just hide your head in the sand until problems become so serious. It takes a world war to fix them.

We weren't isolationist before either of the 2 world wars.

 

[Charles_Main]

I would bet that we already have that or something similar or it could be arranged very easily.

I'm sure it could be. However, we need to pull ourselves back inside our own borders before anything like that can truly be placed in the world context. Without an Isolationist and Nationalistic foreign policy in place, it's nothing more than hypocricy of the highest order.

I think I mostly agree.

This is why I wonder why we make it such a big deal to have bases all over the world. Doesn't seem necessary with our technology.

If the rest of the world wants to blow themselves to hell so be it, shouldn't be the US taxpayers problem. We got enough of our own problems here.

Protect the borders, protect our ports and be in position to defend ourselves from attack and counter-attack from within our borders.

So we just hole up here, and let the rest of the world blow them selves up, and you think we will be unaffected eh. We exist in a global economy, and community. Everything that happens effects us. Not to mention, what happens if they decide to blow themselves up with Nukes?

Sorry like I said we tried Isolationism, one can make a strong argument that American Isolationism lead to MORE DEATHS in WWII than if we had been engaged the entire time.

 

[Charles_Main]

I'm sure it could be. However, we need to pull ourselves back inside our own borders before anything like that can truly be placed in the world context. Without an Isolationist and Nationalistic foreign policy in place, it's nothing more than hypocricy of the highest order.

Yep, Isolationism worked out so great in the past. Just hide your head in the sand until problems become so serious. It takes a world war to fix them.

We weren't isolationist before either of the 2 world wars.

Keep rewriting history. We certainly were much MORE isolationist than have been since WWII.

 

[auditor0007]

at the US, would you consider this an act of war?

Ignore whatever potential pretense they used to excuse or rationalize it, would these countries agreeing to and executing the act of launching cruise missiles all over the US would you say it's an act of war?

I want to put a pretense to it, just for the fun of it. Let us say that our government does something so outlandish, and in the process, to defend against any backlash uses our own military to keep the public from revolting. The Constitution is thrown out the window and we have martial law. The public revolts and tries to overthrow those in power. Now our own military is killing tens of thousands.

Under these conditions, the UN Security Council approves intervention and military action is taken against our government. Now is it an act of war?

 

[Dr.Drock]

I'm sure it could be. However, we need to pull ourselves back inside our own borders before anything like that can truly be placed in the world context. Without an Isolationist and Nationalistic foreign policy in place, it's nothing more than hypocricy of the highest order.

I think I mostly agree.

This is why I wonder why we make it such a big deal to have bases all over the world. Doesn't seem necessary with our technology.

If the rest of the world wants to blow themselves to hell so be it, shouldn't be the US taxpayers problem. We got enough of our own problems here.

Protect the borders, protect our ports and be in position to defend ourselves from attack and counter-attack from within our borders.

So we just hole up here, and let the rest of the world blow them selves up, and you think we will be unaffected eh. We exist in a global economy, and community. Everything that happens effects us. Not to mention, what happens if they decide to blow themselves up with Nukes?

Sorry like I said we tried Isolationism, one can make a strong argument that American Isolationism lead to MORE DEATHS in WWII than if we had been engaged the entire time.

No, no we didn't try isolationism. We were begging the Japanese to attack us and doing everything in our power to make them bring it so we could enter the 2nd world war. World war one all I have to say is Lusitania.

It's not the american taxpayers responsibility to make sure the rest of the global economy is in working order.

 

[M14 Shooter]

at the US, would you consider this an act of war?

Ignore whatever potential pretense they used to excuse or rationalize it, would these countries agreeing to and executing the act of launching cruise missiles all over the US would you say it's an act of war?

I want to put a pretense to it, just for the fun of it. Let us say that our government does something so outlandish, and in the process, to defend against any backlash uses our own military to keep the public from revolting. The Constitution is thrown out the window and we have martial law. The public revolts and tries to overthrow those in power. Now our own military is killing tens of thousands.

Under these conditions, the UN Security Council approves intervention and military action is taken against our government. Now is it an act of war?

Yes. None of your conditions change anything in that regard.

 

[Dr.Drock]

at the US, would you consider this an act of war?

Ignore whatever potential pretense they used to excuse or rationalize it, would these countries agreeing to and executing the act of launching cruise missiles all over the US would you say it's an act of war?

I want to put a pretense to it, just for the fun of it. Let us say that our government does something so outlandish, and in the process, to defend against any backlash uses our own military to keep the public from revolting. The Constitution is thrown out the window and we have martial law. The public revolts and tries to overthrow those in power. Now our own military is killing tens of thousands.

Under these conditions, the UN Security Council approves intervention and military action is taken against our government. Now is it an act of war?

Yes, of course.

Us attacking the English at the start of the revolution was an act of war, acts of war can be justifed and unjustified. Just annoying that people are so p-c that they won't even recognize the current military action as an act of war.

 

[High_Gravity]

Its easy to say the situation in Libya is not a war when...

... you're a partisan bigot.

 

[High_Gravity]

If the Nazi regime was a creature of our present day, and if Nazi fucking Germany was killing Jews and Russians and Gypsies and all the rest of us inferior types, and assuming we knew it was going on, I presume it would be considered a justifiable action by us to take them on, militarily.

Let's put a fine point on it. It would be "justified" in almost every real sense of that term.

Now, would it be something other than "war" if it were completely justified? Or would it still be "war?" In fact, isn't that a pretty good example of a justified or "just war?"

The point is: not all war is "bad" even if it's always deadly and tragic. And even so, war is still war.

That takes me to Libya. Maybe it is "justified" to prevent Mohammar Kaddafy-fuck from killing his own people to "take him on militarily." Maybe. But even if it is "justified," is it our place to be the policeman of the world?
And even if we have some undefined right to act like the world's good cop, isn't that the kind of thing the Constitution says should be authorized by Congress? Should this President -- or ANY President -- have a right to engage in ENTERING a war -- one which has not first been directed against us by the opponent -- without getting PRIOR Congressional authority?

Thats the thing though, if we are in this to do the right thing when are we sending our cruise missiles and fighter jets to Iran, Bahrain, Syria, Yemen, Sudan, Somalia, North Korea and Zimbabwe?

Which one of those countries you just listed is Using on a mass scale, Tanks, Planes and artillery to attack the opposition? Libya is an extreme case.

Bahrain is doing that the Saudi Military is also helping them, Iran did it last year during the Green Revolution, Zimbabwe had ZANU PF Jackboot thugs on the streets cracking skulls during another rigged election, Syria is just starting to heat up now. In Sudan they been bombing the fuck out of Darfur and raping and killing innocent people for decades but no one cares.

 

[Anachronism]

Yep, Isolationism worked out so great in the past. Just hide your head in the sand until problems become so serious. It takes a world war to fix them.

Isolationism HASN'T WORKED because we've never actually tried it. There was NO REASON for the United States to get involved in World War I.... Except that we had a vested interest in the viability of markets for our products in some of those countries. I'm talking TOTAL ISOLATIONISM... no business connection. no diplomatic exchanges. no communications. A one-way door (you can go OUT but you can't come back in). At that point there is no reason for any other country to have contact with us and vice versa.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Its easy to say the situation in Libya is not a war when...

... you're a partisan bigot.

Not YOU... those arguing the situation is not a war.
It's only because The Obama is waging this war that they think it is not a war.

 

[High_Gravity]

... you're a partisan bigot.

Not YOU... those arguing the situation is not a war.
It's only because The Obama is waging this war that they think it is not a war.

Ah, got it.

 

[High_Gravity]

Yep, Isolationism worked out so great in the past. Just hide your head in the sand until problems become so serious. It takes a world war to fix them.

Isolationism HASN'T WORKED because we've never actually tried it. There was NO REASON for the United States to get involved in World War I.... Except that we had a vested interest in the viability of markets for our products in some of those countries. I'm talking TOTAL ISOLATIONISM... no business connection. no diplomatic exchanges. no communications. A one-way door (you can go OUT but you can't come back in). At that point there is no reason for any other country to have contact with us and vice versa.

Sounds like North Korea or Burma, last time I checked both those places were shit holes.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Yep, Isolationism worked out so great in the past. Just hide your head in the sand until problems become so serious. It takes a world war to fix them.

Isolationism HASN'T WORKED because we've never actually tried it. There was NO REASON for the United States to get involved in World War I.... Except that we had a vested interest in the viability of markets for our products in some of those countries. I'm talking TOTAL ISOLATIONISM... no business connection. no diplomatic exchanges. no communications. A one-way door (you can go OUT but you can't come back in). At that point there is no reason for any other country to have contact with us and vice versa.

Ok nevermind I don't agree completely, we should sell to anyone willing to buy our stuff, I'm a free market capitalist.

Militarily we should be about defending america, not attacking other countries to americanize them or like the other poster said maintain a global economy.

 

[Anachronism]

Sounds like North Korea or Burma, last time I checked both those places were shit holes.

I can't speak to Burma, but it does have some similarities to North Korea. The main difference being that the political system inside my proposed "Fortress America" is a Limited Republic and not a Communist Dictatorship.

Ok nevermind I don't agree completely, we should sell to anyone willing to buy our stuff, I'm a free market capitalist.

The problem being that once you open the market up in one direction, you almost have to open it up in both directions and then you get the same sort of issues that we have today with cheap foreign goods flooding the market and American companies sending work overseas. IF there was a way to deal with that, MAYBE I'd consider it, but I don't see an easy, simple, effecive way to do that.

Militarily we should be about defending america, not attacking other countries to americanize them or like the other poster said maintain a global economy.

100% in agreement, Doctor. The military should be HERE to protect our borders and to be prepared to repell an invasion. Anything beyond that is unnecesary.

 

[kaz]

In the 80's we murdered Iranians by gunning down a passenger plane, would that event make us deserving in 2011 of having our country have dozens of cruise missiles launched onto our soil?

You obviously know nothing about that incident. You should research things before making such moronic and clueless statements.