Wars

SethBullock

Moderator
Staff member
Seth, this is NOT a one and a half hour action movie. We have been in Afghanistan for over 18 years, and have spent over 150 Billion dollars in this war effort. We have lost 2,372 soldiers, killed 16,179 civilians, have wounded 20,320 American servicemembers, and have lost 62,000 members of the Afghan national security forces. Even after all these deaths and injuries, 54% of the country is still controlled by the Taliban. But hey, we got the no. 2 man in Al Qaeda, right? Do you think that bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, or Soleimani, were given the choice of surrender peacefully? Or, is surrendering an option? They were all executed, without any due process.

Shall I talk about the stats in Iraq, or in other Middle Eastern, South/Central American, or African countries? Also, what has any of these labeled terrorists done to any citizen of the US(since 911)? Or, do we kill people for the crimes they have committed abroad? Sounds like being the world's policeman to me!!! Judge jury and executioner.
Shell, when I think of the term "world's policeman" I think of interventions that have nothing to do with our own security. Libya is a classic example. So was intervening in the civil war in Syria. Neither country posed any threat to the U.S. or our close allies. We simply didn't like the conduct of their respective governments in putting down a civil insurrection, and so we intervened. I have never agreed to our involvement in those conflicts. In fact, I believe both were inherently unconstitutional.

On the other hand, I am in agreement with using our military against those who wage war against us or our closest, longstanding allies. Al Qaeda fits that bill.
 

Squire

Active member
Al Qaeda was a buddy and contractor of the Pentagon in the 1980s for the purpose of killing Russians and performing acts of terrorism in Afghanistan.

It is quite amazing how the USA glosses over its past as a terrorism supporter, financer, trainer, and weapon supplier.

USA black ops murders civilians all over the world if they are in the way of the Pentagon's targets.
 

Squire

Active member
The USA calls terrorists that work with the USA "freedom fighters".

Al Qaeda was a buddy and contractor of the Pentagon in the 1980s for the purpose of killing Russians and performing acts of terrorism in Afghanistan.

The Taliban was welcome in Reagan's White House and George H W Bush's White House.

It is quite amazing how the USA glosses over its past as a terrorism supporter, financer, trainer, and weapon supplier.

USA black ops murders civilians all over the world if they are in the way of the Pentagon's targets.

Taliban visiting Ronald Reagan:

 

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
Shell, when I think of the term "world's policeman" I think of interventions that have nothing to do with our own security. Libya is a classic example. So was intervening in the civil war in Syria. Neither country posed any threat to the U.S. or our close allies. We simply didn't like the conduct of their respective governments in putting down a civil insurrection, and so we intervened. I have never agreed to our involvement in those conflicts. In fact, I believe both were inherently unconstitutional.
This is also good to know Seth. We have no constitutional, or legal right to intervene in any sovereign country. For the purpose of policing their government's actions. None at all! Muammar al-Gaddafi made the critical mistake of entertaining the notion of not selling oil in US dollars. Even promising the US that his country would NOT become a nuclear power, didn't save his government from American covert and overt military actions. And, eventually his death.

On the other hand, I am in agreement with using our military against those who wage war against us or our closest, longstanding allies. Al Qaeda fits that bill.
We(the US) created Al Qaeda in the late 70's, and the Taliban in the early 90's(operation Cyclone). America has nearly 800 military bases in more than 70 countries. Why? Great Britain, Russia, and France have less than 30 combined. It would be fair to say, that our interests ARE truly international!! Therefore, there is a greater risk that our interests might be threated everyday.

I agree that if any COUNTRY or SOVEREIGN NATION threatens or attacks our country, allies, or our vital interests, that we should defend ourselves. But our interests are NOT being attack or threatened by any sovereign country or nation. So we are now reduced to killing groups, people, and religious ideologies. In other words, attacking people who just don't like us? No country attacked us on 911. And, no country has ever attacked us since WWII. There are literally tens of thousands of good reasons why the people of sovereign nations would hate our guts. Do you know how many innocent people we have killed as "collateral damage" in these countries? Military action has never been an exact science, and is usually messy. Explosions, bullets, and shrapnel's tend to be non-selective.

We have enough problems to deal with within our own borders. We should start addressing those problems first. Don't you get it? What if there was an old gemsmith, labeled by the US as an al-Qaeda operative, working on the bottom floor of the Garden City shopping center? What if America launched a drone, that took out half the shopping center as well as the operative? What if America told Morrison, that they would pay for all damages to the shopping center, and would compensate all the victims or their families? And, then told him that they would throw in a new Men's Club for the boys next to Parliament House? What do you think the outcome of this incident would be? Well this is exactly how America does its business abroad. In the true capitalist way!!
 

SethBullock

Moderator
Staff member
This is also good to know Seth. We have no constitutional, or legal right to intervene in any sovereign country. For the purpose of policing their government's actions. None at all! Muammar al-Gaddafi made the critical mistake of entertaining the notion of not selling oil in US dollars. Even promising the US that his country would NOT become a nuclear power, didn't save his government from American covert and overt military actions. And, eventually his death.



We(the US) created Al Qaeda in the late 70's, and the Taliban in the early 90's(operation Cyclone). America has nearly 800 military bases in more than 70 countries. Why? Great Britain, Russia, and France have less than 30 combined. It would be fair to say, that our interests ARE truly international!! Therefore, there is a greater risk that our interests might be threated everyday.

I agree that if any COUNTRY or SOVEREIGN NATION threatens or attacks our country, allies, or our vital interests, that we should defend ourselves. But our interests are NOT being attack or threatened by any sovereign country or nation. So we are now reduced to killing groups, people, and religious ideologies. In other words, attacking people who just don't like us? No country attacked us on 911. And, no country has ever attacked us since WWII. There are literally tens of thousands of good reasons why the people of sovereign nations would hate our guts. Do you know how many innocent people we have killed as "collateral damage" in these countries? Military action has never been an exact science, and is usually messy. Explosions, bullets, and shrapnel's tend to be non-selective.

We have enough problems to deal with within our own borders. We should start addressing those problems first. Don't you get it? What if there was an old gemsmith, labeled by the US as an al-Qaeda operative, working on the bottom floor of the Garden City shopping center? What if America launched a drone, that took out half the shopping center as well as the operative? What if America told Morrison, that they would pay for all damages to the shopping center, and would compensate all the victims or their families? And, then told him that they would throw in a new Men's Club for the boys next to Parliament House? What do you think the outcome of this incident would be? Well this is exactly how America does its business abroad. In the true capitalist way!!
Shell, I'm going to address those two things I highlighted, the last one first.

We have already had domestic situations like that, and they have been addressed through our criminal justice system. We have also snatched a few people out of foreign countries who we have wanted. (I am thinking of a couple of leaders of the attack on the embassy in Benghazi.) These were Special Forces operations that grabbed them, and they were both given trials and both found guilty and are doing time in prison. So why not capture them all and bring them to trial? That leads me to the first thing I highlighted, that "no country attacked us on 9/11."

No, AQ is not a country, but it is a guerilla force, and there are plenty of examples of guerilla forces waging war and having war waged against them. The Viet Cong, Hezbollah, Castro's forces before he took power, various resistance forces in WW2, and jihadist organizations in Asia and Africa are all examples of guerilla forces, that is: unconventional non-uniformed combatant organizations.

The U.S. Constitution states that one of the powers reserved to Congress is the power to declare war. The Constitution does not say what form that declaration must take, nor does it say that war may only be declared against a recognized country.

And so, Shell, when you say that "no country attacked us on 9/11", it doesn't matter to me. Al Qaeda is an armed, militant organization with a defined chain of command, and its leader declared war upon us. We have, in turn, declared war upon them. Hence, in cases where it may be possible to capture and try them for their crimes, so be it. And in cases where that is not possible, then I will not oppose a kill mission. It is, after all, war, and it is a war that they asked for. From a moral standpoint, whether they end up dead or in custody is really no different than in a conventional war where some enemy soldiers are killed, and some enemy soldiers are taken prisoner.

I'm going to finish by showing you a video of Tulsi Gabbard giving a speech in 2016. I recommend listening to all of it, but if you want to go to something she says that is directly relevant to our conversation, go to 2:35 in the video, and see what she says about our war against Al Qaeda. By the way, it was this speech that first turned me into one of her supporters. She is spot on throughout.

Seth

 

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
I have watched every video about Tulsi. It shows just what people will do, when the answer is right in front of them. Stopping regime-change wars, and bringing our military personnel home, will allow 100's of billions of dollars in resources to be use for domestic issues. But tell the ignorant that she is a socialist progressive, and suddenly the obvious truth doesn't matter anymore. So, the rich continue to get richer, and the poor become poorer. And, the status quo is maintained for another 4 years. Thank you for the video. She would have been the perfect people's president. But her words seem at odds with yours.

The Declaration of War, is a formal declaration that states, that a state of war exist between the US and another nation. The exact words are, "... between that nation, and another.". There is no nation of Al Qaeda, or the Taliban, or any other religious/terrorist group. We have not declared war on any nation since 1942. I also think that claiming a war on drugs and terrorism, is far too ambiguous to be defined as a state of war. We are simply acting as policeman, and enforcing our extended laws abroad. We could never get away with this lack of due process, if the people we targeted were American citizens, or were on our own soil. Can you imagine the consequences if US citizens were the collateral damage on US soil?

We do not declare a state of war against a guerrilla group, or fundamentalist group. We simply pay proxies to fight those wars for us. There is also a vast amount of differences, in intervening in a conflict, or police action, and a declared war with a sovereign nation(s).

If governments don't offer their help, we ignore their sovereignty and do it anyway. If the UN or the Security Council disagrees with us, we threaten to withhold resources and funds. We can't simply target/label/sanction any person, group, nation, or ideology that doesn't like us, threatens us, or opposes our way of life. We preach freedom and independence, but practice American imperialism and Global Capitalism. It is because of our dismal record, that most countries don't trust us, and never will.

And so, Shell, when you say that "no country attacked us on 9/11", it doesn't matter to me. Al Qaeda is an armed, militant organization with a defined chain of command, and its leader declared war upon us. We have, in turn, declared war upon them
Here is what Bush said on this war on terror,

"Our enemy is a radical network of terrorists, and every government that supports them. Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated.". Really!!

Sounds to me that the US have appointed themselves as the world's policeman, and is out to round up every terrorist in the world. And bring them all to justice. Its been 20 years now, and these organizations are stronger than ever. Many still control many provinces in the middle east, and have massive influence on all government policies. We can't even win a war on drugs, let alone a war on terrorism(ideology). How many more thousands of innocent lives must be lost in the next 20 years? Who do you think is benefitting from these undeclared wars? The American people?

You seem to be looking at America with rose colored glasses. But the rest of the world isn't. They see America for exactly what it is. America has committed all manner of human rights violations, from the torturing of its political prisoners, to the blatant murdering of foreign citizens. I love what America is supposed to stand for, but NOT what it is becoming.

The first thing America needs to do, is to end its ties to Saudi Arabia. They control OPEC, the price of oil, and the currency for trading oil(US Dollars). Since the value of the US dollars is based on the value of oil traded, they must become the Saudi's bitch. If the Saudi's decide to use another currency, the American economy would collapse(a hundred times worse than the Depression).

It is so ironic, that the American military fighting terrorism, is protecting and arming, arguably the world's number one state sponsor of terrorism. Somehow, the American arms sold to SA, end up in the hands of the terrorist group we are fighting. Think! How do you fight a war where no geographical boundaries exist? Where do you imprison, arrest, execute, try, or question global prisoners? What is your authority? Why can't other countries do exactly the same? Is this going to make the world a more safer place, or a more hostile place??
 

Squire

Active member
Iraq is becoming a failed state after the USA liberated it and fomented conflict between the main factions.

Libya became a failed state after the USA liberated it.

Syria is in danger of failing after the USA liberated portions of Syria.

If the USA starts a war with Iran, Iran could become a failed state after it destroys and makes the UAE, Kuwait, Bahrain, and Qatar failed states. It could also further aggravate or trigger more conflicts in the region.
 

SethBullock

Moderator
Staff member
I have watched every video about Tulsi. It shows just what people will do, when the answer is right in front of them. Stopping regime-change wars, and bringing our military personnel home, will allow 100's of billions of dollars in resources to be use for domestic issues. But tell the ignorant that she is a socialist progressive, and suddenly the obvious truth doesn't matter anymore. So, the rich continue to get richer, and the poor become poorer. And, the status quo is maintained for another 4 years. Thank you for the video. She would have been the perfect people's president. But her words seem at odds with yours.
No, her words are not at odds with mine. I totally agree with her about regime change wars and about bringing our troops home.

"There is not one, but two wars that are being waged in Syria. First is the war to defeat ISIS, Al Qaeda, and other jihadist groups. Its a war against terrorist groups that have declared war upon America, and it's a war that we must win." - Tulsi Gabbard at 2:35.



The Declaration of War, is a formal declaration that states, that a state of war exist between the US and another nation. The exact words are, "... between that nation, and another."
According to who or what?

The Constitution does not define what a Declaration of War is to be labelled. There is no reason why it cannot be called a Declaration of War, but there is also no constitutional reason why the Congress may not "declare war" by voting in favor of an Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF). What's important is that war must be authorized by Congress, not what they call the process or the document. After 9/11, Congress did just that - "declared war" on Al Qaeda in the AUMF it passed overwhelmingly. That AUMF of 2001 was just as much a declaration of war as was the vote taken on a "Declaration of War" in 1941 against Japan after Pearl Harbor.

We do not declare a state of war against a guerrilla group, or fundamentalist group. We simply pay proxies to fight those wars for us. There is also a vast amount of differences, in intervening in a conflict, or police action, and a declared war with a sovereign nation(s).
We did declare a state of war against a guerilla group, as I already discussed. I think you should try to ask bin Laden, Baghdadi, or Al-Masri, or many other dead Al Qaeda leaders and Al Qaeda soldiers if the U.S. didn't kill them. We did. Not some proxy. It was the U.S.

If governments don't offer their help, we ignore their sovereignty and do it anyway. If the UN or the Security Council disagrees with us, we threaten to withhold resources and funds. We can't simply target/label/sanction any person, group, nation, or ideology that doesn't like us, threatens us, or opposes our way of life. We preach freedom and independence, but practice American imperialism and Global Capitalism. It is because of our dismal record, that most countries don't trust us, and never will.
All nations have a right to take action in self defense. Nations may also take military action to protect countries with whom they have close ties or mutual defense agreements. By the same token, no government has the right to just militarily invade a country whose leader they don't like or whose manner of governance they may find abhorrent, but who are posing no threat to anyone outside of their national borders. Under this rationale, I supported our invasion of Afghanistan, but not our invasion of Iraq, the war against Libya, or the proxy war against the Syrian government. I also supported the war against ISIS in Syria and Iraq, although I recognize that ISIS was an outgrowth of Al Qaeda in Iraq which was an outgrowth from our invasion of Iraq in 2003. I think of that war against ISIS as being necessary, but I also think of AQI/ISIS as an enemy that never would have emerged if we hadn't invaded Iraq. Bush's invasion of Iraq was a mistake, as was Obama's war against Libya, and his proxy war against Syria. Both men thought that U.S. military power could defeat totalitarianism and usher in democracy and a bright future in those countries, and look how it turned out.

And we still have leaders in this country who have not learned from these wrongheaded wars. I'm not talking about Trump. He has shown time and again that he is not interested in being bogged down in mideast wars. I'm talking about some Republicans and Democrats who still seem to think that the U.S. should police the world. Among them are the late John McCain, Sen. Lindsey Graham, and Hillary Clinton. I have no idea where Biden stands on these things. Time will tell.

But I definitely knew where Tulsi Gabbard stood, and I supported her bid for the presidency. I voted for her in the Democratic primary. Yes, I switched from Independent to Democrat for the singular purpose of being able to vote for her in the primaries.

The first thing America needs to do, is to end its ties to Saudi Arabia. They control OPEC, the price of oil, and the currency for trading oil(US Dollars). Since the value of the US dollars is based on the value of oil traded, they must become the Saudi's bitch. If the Saudi's decide to use another currency, the American economy would collapse(a hundred times worse than the Depression).
I don't worry about being SA's bitch because of their oil production or whose dollars they use in trade. The U.S. is the #1 oil producer in the world.

It is so ironic, that the American military fighting terrorism, is protecting and arming, arguably the world's number one state sponsor of terrorism. Somehow, the American arms sold to SA, end up in the hands of the terrorist group we are fighting. Think! How do you fight a war where no geographical boundaries exist? Where do you imprison, arrest, execute, try, or question global prisoners? What is your authority? Why can't other countries do exactly the same? Is this going to make the world a more safer place, or a more hostile place??
"How do you fight a war where no geographical boundaries exist?" You find them and deal with them if you can - in self defense.

"Where do you imprison, arrest, execute, try, or question global prisoners?" In a war of self defense, you do all of those things, but which thing you choose is situationally dependent.

"What is your authority?" The internationally accepted right of self defense. Additionally, military action against an enemy may be authorized by Congress.

"Why can't other countries do exactly the same?" Generally speaking, they can do the same.

"Is this going to make the world a more safer place, or a more hostile place??" I think that depends on what you mean by "this". The wars against Iraq, Syria, and Libya did not make the world a safer place - clearly. On the other hand, I think the wars against ISIS and Al Qaeda do make the world a safer place.

Seth

 

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
I don't worry about being SA's bitch because of their oil production or whose dollars they use in trade. The U.S. is the #1 oil producer in the world.
The US is ranks 10th in how much oil reserves it has. How much oil a country produces is not the issue here. It is the currency that a country must use to purchase oil, that is the real issue here. The value of the US dollar is tied to the value/volume of how oil is traded in petrol dollars. You claim to not be worried, but you certainly should be terrified. Trading oil in US dollars gives the US a distinct economic advantage over all other countries. All countries must purchase US dollars in order to buy their oil. Without this economic control, America, would no longer be able to sanction countries into submission. It could no longer stop the world banks from lending to sanctioned countries. It could no longer prevent other countries from trading with these sanctioned countries.

If SA decided not to use US dollars as petrodollar, and decided to use the Russian ruble, the Chinese Renminbi, or even the Euro, the American economy would begin to collapse. The US dollar would no longer be the global reserve currency. The US would have to purchase foreign currency first, before it could buy and sell its oil. And, that country could charge the US whatever price it wanted, to purchase its currency. Just pray that we keep SA happy, and that it won't abandon the deal it made with Nixon.


You speak about "self-defense a lot, Seth. So lets take a moment to look at the idea of self-defense. I know what it means in America, and how it applies to every human being. But what about abroad, and as a nation? Is it defined the same?

Exactly, what is the imminent and immediate threat to our people, and our nation's sovereignty? What exactly have we been defending, OFFENSIVELY/COVERTLY against, for the last 20 years?

What are the specific laws that determines when self-defense as a nation should be allowed, or how much force a nation can use to protect itself?

What are the specific laws that define the differences between an "imperfect threat", a "reasonable threat", or a conceived threat? And, what if the Nation's apprehension is subjectively genuine, but objectively unreasonable?

Do all nations have a "duty of care," to protect all of its citizens? As well as a "duty of retreat", to avoid any confrontations when possible? In other words, only to act when all else fails!!

What exactly are the legal and moral laws, that justify, arresting and killing people for uncommitted crimes and making threats thousands of miles outside of our borders? Why stop at the terrorist? Why not do their children and families as well? Or, do you think their survivors will become pro-American?

Between 1990 and 2019(excluding 9/11), how many American citizens have died in America, as a result of Islamic terrorists?(154 or 5/year)?

You find them and deal with them if you can - in self defense.
The internationally accepted right of self defense. Additionally, military action against an enemy may be authorized by Congress.
In a war of self defense, you do all of those things, but which thing you choose is situationally dependent.
I'm afraid these are all glib responses. Sounds like you are saying, that as long as we can claim self-defense, we can kill and arrest anybody we like, whenever and wherever we like! We are NOT in a war of self-defense(whatever that means). 20 years of self-defense, really? This is just a political smokescreen. We are in an interventionist offensive war, to replace anti-American governments, protect/defend American Capitalism, steal natural resources from sovereign nations, and to flaunt American militarism, wealth and power. Given that we have no choice.

Let me ask you Seth. Do you think that terrorist CAN take over the world, if we don't exterminate them all? Because, we felt that way about stopping the spread of communism(Viet Nam). It cost us almost 60,000 American lives. My rational belief is, that no nation, group, ideology, can take over the world, let alone keep it!! The Baha'i faith wants to control all religions in the world. Should we attack them as well?

It is the War Powers Resolution(1973) that has screwed us. This is the legal loop-hole that Tulsi would have gotten rid of it. The main provision of this law, is that it allows the Presidents to take military action for 60 days before needing any statutory approval from Congress. Presidents can now take offensive actions against any country, for any reason for 60 days. Plus another 30 days are allowed to leave the death and destruction that they have caused, By then all Congress can do is censor the presidents actions, and take away his funding's. Truman sent the military to KOREA without any congressional approval. Reagan invaded GRENADA. H.W. Bush invaded, PANAMA and SOMALIA. Clinton used the military in HAITI, BOSNIA, IRAQ, AFGHANISTAN, SUDAN, and KOSOVO. Obama used the military to attack LIBYA, and drones to attack PAKISTAN. All of these actions were done, without any authorization from Congress. Over three months of unauthorized military actions. With no oversight!! At least W. Bush got congressional approval before attacking Iraq and Afghanistan.

Because this impotent congress has stood by, and did nothing about stopping decades of our police actions around the world, the President is basking in his power as Commander in Chief. The President doesn't pay for his wars/police actions. It is Congress that controls the purse.

The only reason Trump didn't go to war with Iran, is because the house told him that they would not finance his war. And, without their Declaration of War, Trump would have to remove all troops from Iran within 30 days. Do you really think that this narcissistic sociopath gives a shit about sacrificing any American lives, to fight against the largest army in the Middle East(14th in the world)? Do you think he cared about the banks, contractor, businesses, students and employees, that he ripped off and defrauded? As he said, "going bankrupt only shows how smart you are.".

I totally disagree that the world would be a safer place to live, if all countries decided to take the law into their own hands, under the guise of self-defense. And, to target anyone, any group, or any ideology, that they feel is a mortal/imminent threat to their sovereignty and people. This is what Fascism is!! Every country has the right to solve their own problems, and believe in whatever they want. WE DID!!!
 
Last edited:

SethBullock

Moderator
Staff member
The US is ranks 10th in how much oil reserves it has. How much oil a country produces is not the issue here. It is the currency that a country must use to purchase oil, that is the real issue here. The value of the US dollar is tied to the value/volume of how oil is traded in petrol dollars. You claim to not be worried, but you certainly should be terrified. Trading oil in US dollars gives the US a distinct economic advantage over all other countries. All countries must purchase US dollars in order to buy their oil. Without this economic control, America, would no longer be able to sanction countries into submission. It could no longer stop the world banks from lending to sanctioned countries. It could no longer prevent other countries from trading with these sanctioned countries.

If SA decided not to use US dollars as petrodollar, and decided to use the Russian ruble, the Chinese Renminbi, or even the Euro, the American economy would begin to collapse. The US dollar would no longer be the global reserve currency. The US would have to purchase foreign currency first, before it could buy and sell its oil. And, that country could charge the US whatever price it wanted, to purchase its currency. Just pray that we keep SA happy, and that it won't abandon the deal it made with Nixon.


You speak about "self-defense a lot, Seth. So lets take a moment to look at the idea of self-defense. I know what it means in America, and how it applies to every human being. But what about abroad, and as a nation? Is it defined the same?

Exactly, what is the imminent and immediate threat to our people, and our nation's sovereignty? What exactly have we been defending, OFFENSIVELY/COVERTLY against, for the last 20 years?

What are the specific laws that determines when self-defense as a nation should be allowed, or how much force a nation can use to protect itself?

What are the specific laws that define the differences between an "imperfect threat", a "reasonable threat", or a conceived threat? And, what if the Nation's apprehension is subjectively genuine, but objectively unreasonable?

Do all nations have a "duty of care," to protect all of its citizens? As well as a "duty of retreat", to avoid any confrontations when possible? In other words, only to act when all else fails!!

What exactly are the legal and moral laws, that justify, arresting and killing people for uncommitted crimes and making threats thousands of miles outside of our borders? Why stop at the terrorist? Why not do their children and families as well? Or, do you think their survivors will become pro-American?

Between 1990 and 2019(excluding 9/11), how many American citizens have died in America, as a result of Islamic terrorists?(154 or 5/year)?





I'm afraid these are all glib responses. Sounds like you are saying, that as long as we can claim self-defense, we can kill and arrest anybody we like, whenever and wherever we like! We are NOT in a war of self-defense(whatever that means). 20 years of self-defense, really? This is just a political smokescreen. We are in an interventionist offensive war, to replace anti-American governments, protect/defend American Capitalism, steal natural resources from sovereign nations, and to flaunt American militarism, wealth and power. Given that we have no choice.

Let me ask you Seth. Do you think that terrorist CAN take over the world, if we don't exterminate them all? Because, we felt that way about stopping the spread of communism(Viet Nam). It cost us almost 60,000 American lives. My rational belief is, that no nation, group, ideology, can take over the world, let alone keep it!! The Baha'i faith wants to control all religions in the world. Should we attack them as well?

It is the War Powers Resolution(1973) that has screwed us. This is the legal loop-hole that Tulsi would have gotten rid of it. The main provision of this law, is that it allows the Presidents to take military action for 60 days before needing any statutory approval from Congress. Presidents can now take offensive actions against any country, for any reason for 60 days. Plus another 30 days are allowed to leave the death and destruction that they have caused, By then all Congress can do is censor the presidents actions, and take away his funding's. Truman sent the military to KOREA without any congressional approval. Reagan invaded GRENADA. H.W. Bush invaded, PANAMA and SOMALIA. Clinton used the military in HAITI, BOSNIA, IRAQ, AFGHANISTAN, SUDAN, and KOSOVO. Obama used the military to attack LIBYA, and drones to attack PAKISTAN. All of these actions were done, without any authorization from Congress. Over three months of unauthorized military actions. With no oversight!! At least W. Bush got congressional approval before attacking Iraq and Afghanistan.

Because this impotent congress has stood by, and did nothing about stopping decades of our police actions around the world, the President is basking in his power as Commander in Chief. The President doesn't pay for his wars/police actions. It is Congress that controls the purse.

The only reason Trump didn't go to war with Iran, is because the house told him that they would not finance his war. And, without their Declaration of War, Trump would have to remove all troops from Iran within 30 days. Do you really think that this narcissistic sociopath gives a shit about sacrificing any American lives, to fight against the largest army in the Middle East(14th in the world)? Do you think he cared about the banks, contractor, businesses, students and employees, that he ripped off and defrauded? As he said, "going bankrupt only shows how smart you are.".

I totally disagree that the world would be a safer place to live, if all countries decided to take the law into their own hands, under the guise of self-defense. And, to target anyone, any group, or any ideology, that they feel is a mortal/imminent threat to their sovereignty and people. This is what Fascism is!! Every country has the right to solve their own problems, and believe in whatever they want. WE DID!!!
"Let me ask you Seth. Do you think that terrorist CAN take over the world, if we don't exterminate them all?"

That's a strawman question. We are not talking about terrorists taking over the world.

"It is the War Powers Resolution(1973) that has screwed us."

I think that law should be changed. We do need to give the POTUS the legal right to defend the country in the event of surprise attack or imminent attack, but Congress must make the call after no more than 7-10 days.

"The only reason Trump didn't go to war with Iran, is because ..."

The brief hostilities we had with Iran gave Trump every opportunity to escalate, and he didn't. You will recall that Trump let the Iranians have the last word on that, and he did not retaliate for their missile attack upon our base in Iraq. A commensurate military response could have been cruise missile and air attacks on Iran's missile sites and radars. He did not do it. He let the conflict end where it was. There were voices in his own party and in the Pentagon who wanted him escalate, but he didn't.

"I totally disagree that the world would be a safer place to live, if all countries decided to take the law into their own hands, under the guise of self-defense."

Shell, I don't mind if you disagree with me. In fact, I like it because it makes the conversation interesting.

But, don't twist my words, and don't conflate what I'm saying to something I didn't say or infer.

We did not go after Al Qaeda in Afghanistan "under the guise of self defense." We went there in actual, justifiable self defense. The American people were united in that belief, and there was almost no objection from the rest of the world. We did not "take the law into our own hands" like a lynch mob. The right of a nation to defend itself is noted in the U.N. Charter and in international law and accepted international norms. As I pointed out before, even Tulsi Gabbard agrees that the war against Al Qaeda is a war we must win.
 

DonDeeHippy

Active member
We did not go after Al Qaeda in Afghanistan "under the guise of self defense." We went there in actual, justifiable self defense. The American people were united in that belief, and there was almost no objection from the rest of the world.
United Nations Security Council (UNSC) did not authorize the US-led military campaign.
So that's means the majority of the world did NOT think it was justifiable self defense or it would of been approved........
 

SethBullock

Moderator
Staff member
United Nations Security Council (UNSC) did not authorize the US-led military campaign.
So that's means the majority of the world did NOT think it was justifiable self defense or it would of been approved........
United Nations Security Council resolution 1368, adopted unanimously on 12 September 2001, after expressing its determination to combat threats to international peace and security caused by acts of terrorism and recognising the right of individual and collective self-defense, the Council condemned the September 11 attacks in the United States.[1]

The Security Council strongly condemned the attacks in New York City, Washington D.C. and Pennsylvania and regarded the incidents as a threat to international peace and security. It expressed sympathy and condolences to the victims and their families and the United States government.

It was proposed by the French ambassador to the UN Jean-David Levitte.

The resolution called on all countries to co-operate in bringing the perpetrators, organisers and sponsors of the attacks to justice and that those responsible for supporting or harbouring the perpetrators, organisers and sponsors would be held accountable.[2] The international community was called upon to increase efforts to suppress and prevent terrorist activities through co-operation and implementation of anti-terrorist conventions and Security Council resolutions, particularly Resolution 1269 (1999).

Resolution 1368 concluded with the Council expressing its readiness to take steps to respond to the attacks and combat all forms of terrorism in accordance with the United Nations Charter.[3]

United Nations Security Council resolution 1378, adopted unanimously on 14 November 2001, after reaffirming all resolutions on the situation in Afghanistan, including resolutions 1267 (1999), 1333 (2000) and 1363 (2001), the Council affirmed that the United Nations would play an important role in the country and called for the establishment of a transitional administration leading to the formation of a new government.[1]

The Security Council recognised the urgency of the situation in Afghanistan, particularly in Kabul, and supported efforts to combat terrorism according to resolutions 1368 (2001) and 1373 (2001). It condemned the Taliban for allowing Afghanistan to be used as a base and safe haven for Al-Qaeda, other groups and Osama bin Laden and violations of international law.[2] The preamble of the resolution welcomed the declaration by the Six plus Two group and the intention of convening a meeting involving all Afghan processes.[3]

The resolution supported the efforts of the Afghan people to establish a new and transitional administration leading to the formation of a government that would be fully representative, respect human rights and its international obligations and facilitate the delivery of humanitarian assistance.[4] It called on the Afghan forces to refrain from reprisals and respect human rights and international humanitarian law.[5]

The Council affirmed a central role for the United Nations in Afghanistan to establish the transitional administration.[6] It called on Member States to provide support towards the establishment of the transitional administration and government, humanitarian assistance and long-term assistance with regard to social and economic reconstruction and the rehabilitation of the country. Finally, Member States were urged to ensure the security of areas of Afghanistan no longer under Taliban control, particularly Kabul, and protect civilians, transitional authorities and all international personnel.
 

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
That's a strawman question. We are not talking about terrorists taking over the world.
There is no such thing as a straw man question. This is NOT what a straw man argument is. If we are declaring a war on terrorism/terrorists, then what is our goal? Why are we preemptively killing and arresting labelled terrorist from all over the world? If we are not acting like the world policeman, then why are we policing terrorists? What are we afraid of, that that might happen? Do our actions clearly express our motives. Clearly we are trying to stop the spread of terrorism, and therefore terrorists, from taking over the world. Hence why the question. We certainly don't extend this level of concern, to Greenpeace, Animal Liberation Front, Earth Liberation Front, Ayran Nations, Army of God, Proud Boys and hundreds of other domestic terrorist groups in the US. So, is the answer yes or no?

I think that law should be changed. We do need to give the POTUS the legal right to defend the country in the event of surprise attack or imminent attack, but Congress must make the call after no more than 7-10 days.
Does 5 American deaths/year due to Islamic extremism(mostly abroad) constitute a national threat? I agree that the President should have the power(as Commander in Chief), to deploy our military, to protect us from any SNEEK ATTACKS, or any IMMINENT ATTACKS, by any foreign NATION. But Not against any individual's threats, any group's threats, any ideological, perceived, imaginary, declared, or any conceivable threats from thousands of miles away. Or, for any of those convenient threats that serves only the government's own agenda. And, certainly when our war of self-defense is responsible for the deaths of so many innocent civilians. For decades, presidents have abused this loophole, SPECIFICALLY, because it allows them to avoid Congressional approval. Just like executive orders do.

The brief hostilities we had with Iran gave Trump every opportunity to escalate, and he didn't. You will recall that Trump let the Iranians have the last word on that, and he did not retaliate for their missile attack upon our base in Iraq. A commensurate military response could have been cruise missile and air attacks on Iran's missile sites and radars. He did not do it. He let the conflict end where it was. There were voices in his own party and in the Pentagon who wanted him escalate, but he didn't.
I guess the sanctioning and trade embargo of Iran since 1995 by the US should just be ignored? These actions have indirectly caused the death of thousands of women and children, from the lack of food and medical needs. I guess abandoning the Iran nuclear treaty, and imposing even stricter sanctions should also be ignored? How about the Israeli-American cooperative, and blatant murdering of Iran's top military commander(Qasem Soleimani), without congressional approval. Should this also be ignored? Even, when Trump's own defense secretary tells him, that there is no intelligence that supports the idea, that Soleimani was planning to attacking 4 US Embassies. I guess we should just give this atrocity a pass, right? How about Trump telling the Iranian leaders, that he has targeted 52 of their cultural and historical sites, thus committing war crimes as well? But hey, another pass by the "Trumpanses", right? I guess completely surrounding Iran with US military bases, and sending in spy-drones over their air space would not be considered real provocation, right?

In fact America has done everything it can(including murder) to give Iran no choice but to go to war. Fortunately, other countries see America only as the Saudi's and the Israeli's bitch. And, as the terrorists and provocateurs' that they really are. They have ignored all the sanctions imposed by the US, and continue to trade with Iran. Many other humanitarian organizations have also ignored these sanctions to help the people of Iran. Especially, since sanctions only effect the poor. Even the Iranian leaders say, that these bullying aggressors will just get bored and eventually will go away.

But, don't twist my words, and don't conflate what I'm saying to something I didn't say or infer.

We did not go after Al Qaeda in Afghanistan "under the guise of self defense." We went there in actual, justifiable self defense. The American people were united in that belief, and there was almost no objection from the rest of the world. We did not "take the law into our own hands" like a lynch mob. The right of a nation to defend itself is noted in the U.N. Charter and in international law and accepted international norms. As I pointed out before, even Tulsi Gabbard agrees that the war against Al Qaeda is a war we must win.
I certainly never said or implied that you have stated, that we went after Al Qaeda in Afghanistan under the guise of self-defense. These are MY words, not yours. If I gave you that impression, then I apologies. It was not intentional. But it IS my OPINION, that you have implied or stated that everything we do in this war on terrorism, is justified by calling it self-defense. In spite of the list I deposited on what constitutes self-defense. Why can't we work with these governments harboring terrorists within their country? Why do we need to have boots on the ground, or risk American lives? And again, what is this imminent and immediate threat to our sovereignty, that justifies a claim of self-defense? This threat is thousands of miles away. If you really want to win this war on terrorism, just leave those countries in the Middle East, and stop killing their citizens. IMHO.

I think that Tulsi was referring to strengthening intelligence, mutual global cooperation's, terrorist data base sharing, and joint operations for credible immediate threats. Not all-out military interventionism, covert operations, regime change campaigns, and US paid proxy wars. We really missed our greatest opportunity for a safer and more peaceful world. Biden will continue more interventionist regime changing. He is after all a corporate stooge, and will do what the money tells him to do.
 

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
United Nations Security Council resolution 1368, adopted unanimously on 12 September 2001, after expressing its determination to combat threats to international peace and security caused by acts of terrorism and recognising the right of individual and collective self-defense, the Council condemned the September 11 attacks in the United States.[1]

The Security Council strongly condemned the attacks in New York City, Washington D.C. and Pennsylvania and regarded the incidents as a threat to international peace and security. It expressed sympathy and condolences to the victims and their families and the United States government.

It was proposed by the French ambassador to the UN Jean-David Levitte.

The resolution called on all countries to co-operate in bringing the perpetrators, organisers and sponsors of the attacks to justice and that those responsible for supporting or harbouring the perpetrators, organisers and sponsors would be held accountable.[2] The international community was called upon to increase efforts to suppress and prevent terrorist activities through co-operation and implementation of anti-terrorist conventions and Security Council resolutions, particularly Resolution 1269 (1999).

Resolution 1368 concluded with the Council expressing its readiness to take steps to respond to the attacks and combat all forms of terrorism in accordance with the United Nations Charter.[3]

United Nations Security Council resolution 1378, adopted unanimously on 14 November 2001, after reaffirming all resolutions on the situation in Afghanistan, including resolutions 1267 (1999), 1333 (2000) and 1363 (2001), the Council affirmed that the United Nations would play an important role in the country and called for the establishment of a transitional administration leading to the formation of a new government.[1]

The Security Council recognised the urgency of the situation in Afghanistan, particularly in Kabul, and supported efforts to combat terrorism according to resolutions 1368 (2001) and 1373 (2001). It condemned the Taliban for allowing Afghanistan to be used as a base and safe haven for Al-Qaeda, other groups and Osama bin Laden and violations of international law.[2] The preamble of the resolution welcomed the declaration by the Six plus Two group and the intention of convening a meeting involving all Afghan processes.[3]

The resolution supported the efforts of the Afghan people to establish a new and transitional administration leading to the formation of a government that would be fully representative, respect human rights and its international obligations and facilitate the delivery of humanitarian assistance.[4] It called on the Afghan forces to refrain from reprisals and respect human rights and international humanitarian law.[5]

The Council affirmed a central role for the United Nations in Afghanistan to establish the transitional administration.[6] It called on Member States to provide support towards the establishment of the transitional administration and government, humanitarian assistance and long-term assistance with regard to social and economic reconstruction and the rehabilitation of the country. Finally, Member States were urged to ensure the security of areas of Afghanistan no longer under Taliban control, particularly Kabul, and protect civilians, transitional authorities and all international personnel.

Seth, these resolutions were created days after 9/11. They have been abused by our government, many times since then. Do you think that these resolutions gives the US the authority to topple governments, to kill and arrest citizens of sovereign countries, to suspend due process for all police actions abroad, to pay mercenaries and rebels to fight proxy wars, to lend out our military to help other countries, to sale arms for favors, or to steal the assets and resources of sovereign countries?

The devil is always in the details of the resolutions. Not in the intent!
 
Top