Opposition to Obama's (Latest) War

Originally posted by Hugh Glass
You're right, we should stand by and watch them kill their own people, and behead journalists,, how could I have missed this point,, DOH
Of course everything is cool with these guys lopping off heads and killing Christians.. oh well..

The idea that the US and the West can or should militarily intervene in every civil war and all will wind up well is one that is beyond arrogantly self-righteous.

Originally posted by no1marauder
While most members of the two rich people funded parties fall all over themselves to support the newest extension of our never ending Middle East War, it seems America's true opposition parties are united against it. From the Opposition News site:

Libertarian Party

The Libertarian Party was the first to issue a statement, the day before President O ...[text shortened]... p://www.oppositionnews.org/articles/2014/q3/opposition-parties-united-opposition-obama-war-isis/

Welcome back to the fray no1. I side with the opposition parties, while also noting some of the arguments of others do have some merit.

I've been reading the anti-federalist papers, and it ought to be no surprise that the Federalists argued for a stronger central government to prevent both civil wars and foreign ones. Less than 70 years after adoption, the American Civil War broke out and in just over 20 years we were back at war with England.

It seems that history is not kind to the war making incentives of a strong Federal government. The anti-federalists were aware of the wording of the commerce and general welfare clauses, and warned of their almost unchecked power, which modern politicians have found.

Still, without changes to the Constitutional authority of both Presidents and Congress it is unlikely that our war making policies will change. Enough congress critters and Senators can either be bamboozled or threatened by their parties to go along with the war making.

Originally posted by no1marauder
The idea that the US and the West can or should militarily intervene in every civil war and all will wind up well is one that is beyond arrogantly self-righteous.

So you think that the US federal government is too meddlesome and arrogant and self righteous?

Stop it, you are beginning to sound like me. 😛

I suppose the main difference between us is that you think they should be able to turn this meddlesome, arrogant, self righteous behavior on and off at will. It simply does not work that way.

Originally posted by no1marauder
So you prefer a permanent occupation of the Middle East by Western powers?

Even that foolish policy would not defeat jihadism; it is much more likely it would make it thrive.

The occupation of most of the area by the Ottoman empires seemed to pacify it somewhat.

Originally posted by no1marauder
The idea that the US and the West can or should militarily intervene in every civil war and all will wind up well is one that is beyond arrogantly self-righteous.

We don't. They can lop the heads of Somalis or Tutsis all they want. Perhaps if we harvested our own oil?

Originally posted by normbenign
The occupation of most of the area by the Ottoman empires seemed to pacify it somewhat.

Not really; the history of that empire (as of most empires) is filled with local rebellions and outright civil wars.

An empire is a hard thing to manage even if you have little qualms about spilling blood.

Originally posted by normbenign
Welcome back to the fray no1. I side with the opposition parties, while also noting some of the arguments of others do have some merit.

I've been reading the anti-federalist papers, and it ought to be no surprise that the Federalists argued for a stronger central government to prevent both civil wars and foreign ones. Less than 70 years after adoptio ...[text shortened]... enators can either be bamboozled or threatened by their parties to go along with the war making.

The Constitution made crystal clear the limitations on the Executive's war making powers - which were virtually unlimited in the British system which the colonists well knew. But as Franklin said we have a Republic "if we can keep it" and the People have been too willing to let their elected representatives surrender such power to the Executive.

I'm beginning to think that a Constitutional amendment or convention allowing secession under specified terms might be a good thing now.

Originally posted by no1marauder
The Constitution made crystal clear the limitations on the Executive's war making powers - which were virtually unlimited in the British system which the colonists well knew. But as Franklin said we have a Republic "if we can keep it" and the People have been too willing to let their elected representatives surrender such power to the Executive.

I'm ...[text shortened]... onal amendment or convention allowing secession under specified terms might be a good thing now.

Many of the anti-federalists saw the danger in the commerce and general welfare clause and wrote about it. Their fears have been realized not just in war making, but in creating a welfare state, and the very factions that Madison thought the Constitution would avoid.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Not really; the history of that empire (as of most empires) is filled with local rebellions and outright civil wars.

An empire is a hard thing to manage even if you have little qualms about spilling blood.

Yugoslavia as a Soviet Satelite with a strongman dictator held together tribal passions for quite a while.

I generally would favor closer to home government, in the middle east Iraq ought to probably be three maybe four different entities, and let the fighting begin on who gets what and who expands their territory.

Originally posted by normbenign
Many of the anti-federalists saw the danger in the commerce and general welfare clause and wrote about it. Their fears have been realized not just in war making, but in creating a welfare state, and the very factions that Madison thought the Constitution would avoid.

Please stop. They intended the commerce clause to be a broad grant of power as I have showed many times and as was epitomized in the resolution of the First Bank of the United States case soon after the ratification of the Constitution. And Madison did not say the Constitution would avoid factions; please re-read Federalist #10 if you actually believe that. Factions cannot be avoided as he wrote and knew they may only be regulated.

The anti-Federalists lost and what they believed, while interesting, is of little relevance in determining the scope of Constitutional provisions.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Please stop. They intended the commerce clause to be a broad grant of power as I have showed many times and as was epitomized in the resolution of the First Bank of the United States case soon after the ratification of the Constitution. And Madison did not say the Constitution would avoid factions; please re-read Federalist #10 if you actually believe th ...[text shortened]... while interesting, is of little relevance in determining the scope of Constitutional provisions.

I am not claiming the anti-federalists writing have any bearing on Law. They may tell us that we overstepped the proper authority to the executive and to Congress. The strongest argument is that aside from some local problems, the Articles of Confederation had worked well. Of course too, many anti-federalists simply wanted a bill of rights included which happened.

Still, I tend to agree that a new convention of the States might be appropriate, and that if several confederations came out of that convention it would diminish US power and our eagerness to go to war.

Originally posted by Hugh Glass
A friend of mine from Texas explained it all to me: “Here in west Texas I have rattlesnakes on my place, living among us. I have killed a rattlesnake on the front porch. I have killed a rattlesnake on the back porch. I have killed rattlesnakes in the barn, in the shop and on the driveway. In fact, I kill every rattlesnake I encounter.

I kill rattlesnak ...[text shortened]... more thought to the fact that these jihadists' are just like rattlesnakes, and act accordingly!

if you know there is a deadly disease you destroy it before it gets you smiplze

Originally posted by no1marauder
But as Franklin said we have a Republic "if we can keep it" and the People have been too willing to let their elected representatives surrender such power to the Executive.

I'm beginning to think that a Constitutional amendment or convention allowing secession under specified terms might be a good thing now.

Part of the difficulty in "keeping it" has been the additional flexibility granted by the Constitution.

I think that eventually either such a convention, and voluntary confederations of States has to happen to avoid a second Civil War.

The US can't continue to act as policeman for the world. We can't even properly police our own country.

Originally posted by normbenign
Yugoslavia as a Soviet Satelite with a strongman dictator held together tribal passions for quite a while.

I generally would favor closer to home government, in the middle east Iraq ought to probably be three maybe four different entities, and let the fighting begin on who gets what and who expands their territory.

Since the earlies world empires mankind has sought a new centralized world order.

You can dress a monkey as if he was human, but you will never be able to change his behavoir as an ape.

Originally posted by Hugh Glass
Yup. I would prefer that we send in ground troops and pound them into the sand myself.... hurt them so badly they never recover..

That's worked soooooo well in the past...