@Andrew, none of those things are actually in the Constitution though. They’re just things the Framers said. Now, I’m not saying there isn’t wisdom to them, but they’re just not actually in there. Congress is allowed to declare war on anyone it wants and make treaties with anyone it wants. I suppose it’s important to consider the mentality of the Framers but if it’s not in the document, it doesn’t carry much weight legally.
""Yes, let’s get real. The key to getting real is putting aside the implicit license to kill you rely on when you talk of war. Think of it as situation in your hometown; not war, but a group of aggressors who hold hostage a large number of men, women and children who don’t support the aggressors. The aggressors and their hostages live in a compound in the center of town and launch rockets into town every day and night.
You cannot allow them to keep lauching rockets into the town. And you cannot drop a bomb on the compound which indiscriminately kills innocent men, women and children. What do you do? Seem to me that you’re damned either way.“”–john scott
john your example is an illustration of how handwringing pseudo-humanitarians like yourself are indirectly responsible for grand suffering of hundreds of millions of innocents and enablers for brutal self-serving autocrats by making their most heinous actions profitable at low cost.
for example, you were “damned” before this scenario occurred, by not having the will and the means to protect your citizenry against predation. you were the pig that built the straw house and now you are reaping the whirlwind. you “taxed” or vilified national defense and security, so you got less of it. consequently, innocents are suffering and body bags need to be filled.
however, you do have choices at this stage — the choice you would make is to further incentivise hostage taking and murders by subsidizing the barbarism of the criminals with timid half measures that confirm to them your lack of resolve that led to the hostage taking in the first place. for example, by allowing them to hold hostages AND reduce your cities with artillery, it is a win-win strategy for them.
They will use this tactic again.
in constrast, I would immediately increase spending on security. I would take the fight to the enemy’s sanctuary with low cost, low risk, yet lethal measures (cruise missiles, support for foreign proxies, covert assassinations, et al) to force him to divert resources from offensive operations (those that threaten my civilian population) to defensive operations (those that defend his “infrastructure” or recruiting, training, planning, and operations) thereby reducing the threat on my innocents and increasing the threat on his, indeed if one exists - which is usually the case when operations have any kind of sophistication, size, or scale.
Note I would not engage in actions whose costs exceed the benefits, for example costly nation building or unnecessary conventional warfare
I would offer the kidnappers free passage if all of the hostages were released within a pre-specified time period. For example, no negotiations other than the release of the hostages and I would guarantee no retailiation against the perpetrators for this specific incident.
In the event this failed, I would kill all of the kidnappers, hopefully with as few civilian losses as possible, AND destroy their base of operations, hopefully with as few civilian losses as possible.
and hunt down and kill those that got away using allied proxies if US law forbad this.
i guarantee this would be the last time any hostages were taken by this group. MOreover, the net loss of innocent human life would be significantly reduced in the long term, despite the fact that some self-aggrandizing handwringers would criticize this policy.
‘I stated that there are higher order democracies that have been qualified by various scales, the one I cited was from Freedom House.’
Firstly, realize that you said ‘democracies.’ I will take your statements at face value so don’t begrudge me for doing such a thing. Next, explain the difference between higher and lower democracy. What constitutes a ‘higher order democracy’?
'Lastly, the executive branch and the congress are both enlisted to defend the USA from threats both foreign and domestic. If the promotion of democracy abroad makes the world safer, and in turn the USA – then the Constitution can indeed be used to legitimately democratize the globe. ’
Since when did preemptive strikes become ‘defense’? For someone who seems to be propounding the Constitution and trying to ‘school’ individuals in history, you have certainly missed one of the most crucial points of the mentality of the the ‘founding fathers’
George Washington - No entangling alliances
Thomas Jefferson - Commerce with all nations, alliances with none
James Madison - Do not go abroad looking for monsters to slay
I’m sure there are other less famous quotes spoken by other individuals. Now the founding fathers are simply men, not saints, so they could be wrong. However, they created the document that you seem to be preaching and to interpret it in a way that contradicts its essence destroys the validity of said essence. The Constitution ceases to be a constitution when it is interpreted in a way which contradicts its nature. I don’t really care because I find the Constitution to be utilized in tyrannical fashion more then in a liberty-orientated way which can be seen through your justification of a hegemonic global system of governance–andrew cain
andrew,
Freedom house has developed a scale to rate civil liberties and political freedom in the nations of the world. The nations that are rated “1” in both these categories are considered higher order democracies. THere are approximately 50 of them. However, that number has been increasing year after year. I have never read a rational, valid, or reliable case study that would predict a war between any of them for any reason.
pre-emptive, and in the case of iraq preventative war, has great utility in preventing the USA or any democracy from suffering survival level losses. Moreover, it is insanity that our autocratic enemies have the option to use pre-emption and we dont. someone on this thread noted that if france had marched across the rhine while germany was engaged with poland — WWII and the tens of millions of dead would never have occurred.
our founding fathers weren’t stupid. they were not about to lie prostrate in the face of an impending attack or threat simply because they placed ideology above reality.
When a delegate at the Constitutional convention tried to force a limit on the US military to no more than 3000 troops, Washington responded that he would approve if our enemies did likewise, otherwise the amendment was lunacy.
with the inevitable proliferation of WMD to non-state, faith-based actors — pre-emption is necessary to prevent the loss of tens of thousands of innocent AMerican lives and trillions of dollars in economic losses.
Lastly, the COnstitution doesnt have a “nature” – it is incontrovertible. It is not democratic, It is not negotiable unless amended, and it specifies clearly that the Congress can declare war, fund war, and approve or deny the President’s desire for war ---- it does not make any statement either yea or nay on the matter of pre-emption. INdeed, the US Marines used pre-emption to great effect when they attacked tripoli in the early 1800’s under Jefferson.
Also jefferson — the supposed advocate of democracy and limited government --preemptively invaded native american territory in 1803 with the voyage of “discovery” which was simply a reconaissance in force as a prelude to taking the continent by armed force.
Why don’t we develop biological warfare that will kill large groups of people, but leave their infrastructure in tact. Then, we can drop them on every non democratic nation, because they might attack us.
Is there such a weapon?
What I said was the summary. What you are saying is just some inane strawman, not a summary of anything. Actually, you just argued against yourself. Neither Poland nor China were democracies and you call them peaceful. The Polish President had monarchical constitutional power and China didn’t have elections at all. In reality, the highest Polish General was openly calling for the invasion and total destruction of Germany before the war even started. The Germans living in Poland were subjected to mass violence by state sponsored terrorists very similar to the SA operations in Germany. Some peace that is.
If any state in the world today did the things to Americans that the Polish did then there would be mobs of people named Rettoper with torches ready to burn down the Whitehouse if the President didn’t launch an invasion and run a gallows on anyone that so much as looked like he might have been involved. Aggressive? Ha! Germans and Japanese even then couldn’t hold a candle to the gung-ho American neo-con! That Germany would not have been counter-attacked had they not invaded Poland does not mean that British or American bureaucrats cared about peace and harmony. It means that they were imperial warmongers worried about losing their own power and racists to boot.
I’ve lost count of how many sadistic Americans have nonchalantly recommended nuking the entire middle east.
The problem is I’ve read to much.
The infamous Nazi concentration camp was a resort hotel compared to American concentration camps. German POWS were treated so badly that even the French troops complained! Prisoners were sometimes marched on foot between camps and those who couldn’t keep up were shot on the spot. Millions of POWS were still being used as slave labour after the war and many were delivered to Stalin, where what fate befell them is a matter of whatever horrors you can possibly imagine. I guess the fellows that were sentenced to hang by the Nuremburg trials made the mere mistake of being German instead of American. It’s too bad about the language or they might have gone down in history as the saviours of the world.
‘Andrew, none of those things are actually in the Constitution though. They’re just things the Framers said. Now, I’m not saying there isn’t wisdom to them, but they’re just not actually in there. Congress is allowed to declare war on anyone it wants and make treaties with anyone it wants. I suppose it’s important to consider the mentality of the Framers but if it’s not in the document, it doesn’t carry much weight legally’
Well like I said, I don’t think the ‘founders’ are incapable of being wrong.
‘Freedom house has developed a scale to rate civil liberties and political freedom in the nations of the world. The nations that are rated “1” in both these categories are considered higher order democracies. There are approximately 50 of them. However, that number has been increasing year after year. I have never read a rational, valid, or reliable case study that would predict a war between any of them for any reason’
That explains nothing concerning the questions I asked.
‘pre-emptive, and in the case of iraq preventative war, has great utility in preventing the USA or any democracy from suffering survival level losses’
Please, tell me how you can calculate such utility.
‘Moreover, it is insanity that our autocratic enemies have the option to use pre-emption and we dont. someone on this thread noted that if france had marched across the rhine while germany was engaged with poland — WWII and the tens of millions of dead would never have occurred’
You seem to presume that a country with one man rule infers a higher probability of conquest and yet Western nations which have largely been democratically run are the most imperialistic powers is human history.
‘our founding fathers weren’t stupid. they were not about to lie prostrate in the face of an impending attack or threat simply because they placed ideology above reality.’
Ah yes this myth that Iraq was bound to attack us. Apparently 500 Iraqis where going to gather together and conservatively chuck a ICBM across the Atlantic ocean.
‘When a delegate at the Constitutional convention tried to force a limit on the US military to no more than 3000 troops, Washington responded that he would approve if our enemies did likewise, otherwise the amendment was lunacy.’
Many of the ‘founding fathers’ betrayed their revolutionary ideals after the war of independence was won.
‘with the inevitable proliferation of WMD to non-state, faith-based actors — pre-emption is necessary to prevent the loss of tens of thousands of innocent AMerican lives and trillions of dollars in economic losses.’
But that is just it. You welcome the ‘elimination’ of NGOs by going into governmental ‘borders.’ It is already setup to fail.
‘Lastly, the COnstitution doesnt have a “nature” – it is incontrovertible. It is not democratic, It is not negotiable unless amended, and it specifies clearly that the Congress can declare war, fund war, and approve or deny the President’s desire for war ---- it does not make any statement either yea or nay on the matter of pre-emption’
Attacking a nation/people is an aggressive action. I don’t understand why you think pre-emption should trump a declaration of war.
’ INdeed, the US Marines used pre-emption to great effect when they attacked tripoli in the early 1800’s under Jefferson.
‘Also jefferson — the supposed advocate of democracy and limited government --preemptively invaded native american territory in 1803 with the voyage of “discovery” which was simply a reconaissance in force as a prelude to taking the continent by armed force.’
And like I said before, many of the ‘founding fathers’ would lose their revolutionary ideals after independence. Honestly the only man I have seen so far to stay a through revolutionary was Thomas Paine.
Are you seriously arguing American camps were worse than the German ones?
Citation or it didn’t happen!
I also don’t understand why we’re letting Retardoper get away with his higher order democracy spiel. He just cites freedom house. Well, I couldn’t find anything on freedom house’s website about their methodology in how scores are assigned.
But wikipedia is your friend, and in this case, so is Noam Chomsky. Epic fail.
I will add my 2 cents since everybody else seems to have chimed in already on this thread.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki are absolute vile monstrocities committed by the United States. No act of Japan, not Pearl Harbor, the Battoon Death March and any other act of Japanese cruelty, could possibly justify such a monstrous and vile act on the part of the United States. And the often given excuse of “it saved the U.S. invading the Japanese home islands and saved U.S. soldiers lives” is almost as vile being given as an excuse. There is no excuse, no justification, for the indiscriminate and wholesale slaughter of two civilian cities.
All parties involved in the decision making and in carrying out the act, from President Truman, down to the pilots of the planes are genocidal murderers.
In Walter Block’s talk about his economic freedom index (now continued @ freetheworld.com) he said that Freedom House’s index was the reason he made up his own. He said that Freedom House gave higher ratings for less freedom to trade!
To be honest, the atomic bombs were insignificant. They were rated at 20kt each and the USAF alone dropped megatons of bombs on Germany.
First hand account by someone identitying as a prison guard published on IHR.org. Don’t remember the name of the exact article. I could have considered it being a tall tale at one time, but it is lent total credibility by one fact. He says that everything was done according to “orders from the top” (overriding all lower opposition). Meaning Roosevelt/Eisenhower. Which fits their profiles like a glove.
Megatons of explosives do not equal kilotons of nuclear weaponry.
Perhaps you’d like to watch some video showing you the explosion caused by these ‘insignificant’ bombs?
Perhaps you would like to know what you are talking about. The rating of explosions is TNT equivalency.
In ‘Eisenhower’s Death Camps’: A U.S. Prison Guard Remembers
Oh, yeah. It wasn’t just POWS!
Perhaps you would like to employ intelligence and note that the megatons you mention are a sum total, and every nuclear bomb is vastly more destructive than a TNT equivalent. 20 kilotons at once is rather more horrific than 20 kilotons spread over 20,000 bombs, given that at any point during the effort to drop this total number of bombs… the bombing can be stopped.
But nice try at semantic distraction.