Post #9,757
9/19/01 7:21:55 PM
|
Whatever you do, don't call it a "police action"
Every time we do a "police action" it tunrs out badly. Korea was a "police action." Vietnam. Somalia.
I think the trouble with "police action" is it presumes too much. First, it presumes that there's already law enforcement in place and it's just a matter of the police doing what they always do. As opposed to war, where nobody's in charge, and the point is to alter that fact. Secondly, it presumes that this is something that the professionals can handle. Let the police handle this, we say, at least in the back of our minds. It's their job. But in a war, it's everyone's job to do something to help the effort, whether by fighting or by building airplanes or liberty ships, or by takingconservation measures or buying liberty bonds. And there are never enough professional soldiers to do the fighting part.
Besides, who will watch the watchmen and all that. There's a tendency in wartime for civil liberties to be eroded, more quickly than in peacetime. If we abdicate now, how can we stem this? If you're not involved, you may not even know what's going on, much less have a say. But if you're doing your part, you can protest without being ad-hominemed away as disloyal.
We need to take this seriously. This is war. We need a war mentality. If we were at peace, we could have a peace mentality. But we're not. We're at war. War mentality, everyone. Get into the proper operating mode.
[link|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html]
|
Post #9,759
9/19/01 7:44:08 PM
|
disappointed in Congress and Bush in this respect
They should have issued a declaration of war against the persons or nations responsible for the plane bombing. A majority, except perhaps for dishonorable Representative Lee, would have voted for it.
|
Post #9,795
9/19/01 11:56:15 PM
|
To much power
The current proclamation gives to much power to Bush, it essentially gives him the authority to attack anybody he wants in any way he wants. Remember that Bush doesn't need congress to allow him to make use of the military, he only needs congress if he actually wants to run a war.
An actual declaration of war would be even worse. Imagine what would happen if we did that and it turned out that bin Ladin was taking money from renegade British nobles who hated the US for overthrowing British rule those many years ago. Oops, we just accidently declared war on our closest ally.
Heck, what if bin Ladin is taking money from radicals in the US. Then we accidently declared war on ourselves. Though it would be profoundly amusing at a moral level, it would be an international disaster.
Jay
|
Post #9,801
9/20/01 2:03:18 AM
|
Declare war on ourselves?
Not a problem. We surrender and pay ourselves reparations.
And if it's English lairds financing this thing they should be treated differently from Arab sheiks? I don't think so. England extradites them, we hang them, and a truce is declaired.
Unfortunately, much as I dislike W, when you are at war you need someone who has both complete responsibility and complete authority to back up that responsibility. Since he's in the position, he's the one, and he'd better perform. Waiting for Congresscritters to form a consensus on every major move is a sure ticket to disaster.
And I still think a formal declaration of war, enemies to be appointed as needed, is a good way to go. That keeps things in sharp focus for potential enemies.
[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]
|
Post #9,816
9/20/01 8:46:04 AM
|
The problem
The problem is not giving Bush authority once we are at war (though that prospect scares me also), nor is it in amending the list of enemies (though that should be run by congress also, once we are at war I realize that may not always be practical).
The problem is that congress has given Bush complete authority to decide who the enemy is.
What if Bush suddenly has a religious experience and begins to follow Falwell's idea of who caused this war? Bush has already been given authority to take whatever action he thinks is necessary to deal with the 'enemy,' and given total authority to decide who the 'enemy' is.
I think avoiding this very situation was one of the reasons the ability to declare war was given to Congress, not to the president. Congress has in essence handed part of their authority over to Bush.
And yes, I realize that his real power here is limited by political reality. But I prefer to minimize cases where we are depending on one person showing good judgment about things that will affect the entire country forever.
Jay
|
Post #9,808
9/20/01 5:01:42 AM
|
It may yet happen.
When the investigation is concluded, we could do a declaration of war without being criticized for jumping the gun.
And if the Taliban don't turn over bin Laden damn soon, we should declare war agsinst them promptly. No need for ironclad prooof there. We have probable cause, and they're sheltering a suspect.
Probable cause. That sounds like cop talk, doesn't it? Well, it applies all the same. And remember, the point of fighting the just side of a war is to instill law and order, and by means of these, justice. Should we be the policemen of the world? Somebody should. If not us, who?
So long as we don't delude ourselves that we already are the policemen of the world, we can avoid the "police action" trap. But I think it should be our aspiration. Maybe we can evolve NATO and SEATO into an international government with teeth. And therefore, with credibility. We can house this organization in the old UN complex, once we've kicked out the current loser residents.
[link|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html]
|
Post #9,817
9/20/01 8:49:03 AM
|
Circular reasoning follows:
If all it takes is "probable cause", are we then performing a "police action"?
jb4
(Enquiring minds want to know...)
|
Post #9,824
9/20/01 9:46:38 AM
|
How wide is this war on terrorism?
When do we bomb Belfast?
Giovanni
|
Post #9,892
9/20/01 2:43:16 PM
|
Or closer to home
When the next clinic bomber's (or gay killer's) premises are found to contain posters and slogans of Reverend Foulwell, Pat Robertson - do we treat our local Taliban leaders same as the external ones?
bin-L's pictures in the belongings of the recent ex-terrorists. The above terrorist leaders' material in the above terrorists' belongings. The Idaho (and elsewhere) compounds, whose material was found in McVeigh's and associates' belongings?
Difference?
|
