Where is the US Congressional Declaration of War...

Discuss life, the universe, and everything with other members of this site. Get to know your fellow polywell enthusiasts.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

Post Reply
MSimon
Posts: 14335
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

"We are the friends of liberty everywhere. We are the guardians only of our own." - John Adams
Of course Adams lived in an era where the British were the guardians of liberty. They were not too good at it. Better than the French if you look at what they left behind.

BTW how do you square Adams with WW2? Had we made deals with the Germans and Japanese we could have stayed out. Instead we acted as guarantors of China's liberty - such as it was. And worse we guaranteed the Soviets another 40 or so years.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

hanelyp
Posts: 2261
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 8:50 pm

Post by hanelyp »

Was action justified against Kadaffy? I'm not entirely convinced there was an immediate threat to the US or our allies.

Allowing that action was justified: legally, congressional approval is required for more than an immediate response that arguably won't admit to the delay of congressional debate. As I see it, scale of the operation has nothing to do with this requirement if the operation is ongoing. The regime, rather than petitioning for approval and making it's argument, is claiming it needs no approval.

Any war worth fighting is worth fighting to win. I don't see a victory strategy or action consistent with intention to win in Libya.

choff
Posts: 2447
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2007 5:02 am
Location: Vancouver, Canada

Post by choff »

My impression of the failure to get approval by congress is that only a very small minority of Americans care, even less so the congress members. Libya isn't high on the radar these days, not with fire, floods, earthquakes, nuclear meltdowns, tornados and volcanos in Iceland.
Obama seems to have informal approval, but if enough people make enough noise on the issue then Congress might actually get about rubber stamping the mission.
CHoff

rjaypeters
Posts: 869
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2010 2:04 pm
Location: Summerville SC, USA

Post by rjaypeters »

ladajo wrote:I don't mean to start a branch, but...
Of course you do. Usually I'm picky about it, but today, I don't care. Branch away...
ladajo wrote:What makes you think fighting China or North Korea or both at the same time even would be "WWIII"?
Not even close.
I'm reading "Unrestricted Warfare" and will get back to you once I'm done.

After looking at the on-line summaries, two thoughts: 1)Economic warfare against China would likely hurt the U.S. and the rest of the world probably enough that the relevant leadership wouldn't consider it if all the costs and risks were correctly calculated. 2) The irony of using the work of two PLA officers as a blue-print for waging war against China. Not as stinging as using Sun Tsu's work, but still.
"Aqaba! By Land!" T. E. Lawrence

R. Peters

rjaypeters
Posts: 869
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2010 2:04 pm
Location: Summerville SC, USA

Post by rjaypeters »

MSimon wrote:Of course Adams lived in an era where the British were the guardians of liberty. They were not too good at it...
I must question the idea the British were the guardians of liberty during Adams' era. Whose liberty? Where? Not good at it, certainly.
MSimon wrote:BTW how do you square Adams with WW2? Had we made deals with the Germans and Japanese we could have stayed out. Instead we acted as guarantors of China's liberty - such as it was. And worse we guaranteed the Soviets another 40 or so years.
There was an extremely strong Isolationist (-with-a-capital-I if not all caps) persuasion in U.S. politics before U.S. entry in WWII, and for good reason. If I imagine myself living in those times, I'm pretty sure I would have at least leaned strongly toward Isolationism, myself. At least until my sorry *ss was drafted!

FDR had to drag the U.S. kicking and screaming into WWII, let alone the deception in which he engaged to get the U.S. ready for war.

Don't ask me about Adams and U.S. entry into WWII, ask FDR. I'd imagine he'd answer the threats posed by Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan were threats to American liberty which required action. FDR had been pretty friendly to British liberty through Lend-Lease, also.

The Japanese attacks against Pearl Harbor and elswhere, in addition to being extreme provocations, provided a convenient pretext to enter WWII which FDR, up to that point had not had, IIRC.

Further, the U.S. declaration of war against Germany nearly preceded* the Nazi declaration of war against the U.S. Why? Because FDR was finally able to convince (he may not have needed to work very hard at that point) Congress for the declaration because of the galvanizing effect of the Japanese attack against Pearl Harbor.

"Guarantors of Chinese liberty" before WWII? I know much less about that aspect. I do remember Claire Chenault organized and led the Flying Tigers to China's benefit (but he was just a mercenary at that time - Hey! That gives me an idea!).

"Guaranteed the Soviets another 40 years or so"? I must beg to differ. I think the willing and unwilling sacrifice of millions of Russians, Ukrainians, Beylorussians, etc. bought the Soviets another 40 years or so. Plus after the war, the Soviets worked pretty hard to stick around, too.

*Careful historians may be able to answer which country declared war first, I can't tell right now. My current sources say both Germany and the U.S. declared war on 11 Dec 1941, but Berlin is time-zones a head of Washington D.C. and probably declared war first. Not that it made a real difference.
"Aqaba! By Land!" T. E. Lawrence

R. Peters

bcglorf
Posts: 436
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 2:58 pm

Post by bcglorf »

Evidently, we do not agree on the fundamental principle I quoted: "We are the friends of liberty everywhere. We are the guardians only of our own." - John Adams

Accordingly, our reasoning ends up in very different places.


Indeed we do not. Do you interpret Adams 'we' refers to each of us as individuals, or to the nation collectively? You seem to be using it in the sense of the later, where it is the liberty of Americans that Americans should fight for. That's a fine enough principle, though it seems a little at odds with John Adams actions, what with slavery continuing to be legal throughout his presidency. For some reason it seems their liberty was not worth fighting for. One might almost call on the cliched "They came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew" interpretation...

This is one problem I have with extreme patriotism. In some cases it leads to deifying the founders and/or the founding constitution. The founding fathers didn't abolish slavery, they accommodated it. Sure, they had reasons and bigger fish to fry at the time, so you can write it off. Just don't use that explanation to yourself and at the same time reject it's application today.

IMHO stopping a genocide at the cost of how many lives of NATO forces so far? I weigh a genocide stopped vs. bypassing Congressional approval and consider the genocide the bigger fish.

And to repeat myself, since the point seems to have been missed. I am NOT demanding America must act in these instances. I am more modestly declaring that if it DOES act in them, it is right and justified to be doing so and is serving a good cause.

rjaypeters
Posts: 869
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2010 2:04 pm
Location: Summerville SC, USA

Post by rjaypeters »

bcglorf wrote:Do you interpret Adams 'we' refers to each of us as individuals, or to the nation collectively? You seem to be using it in the sense of the later, where it is the liberty of Americans that Americans should fight for.
Yes, the nation. However, this principle, I believe, can apply to any social or political unit we care to name; all the way from individual to collective humanity. Since we have been writing about the actions of the U.S. and its military, mostly, I have kept my comments mostly confined to a U.S. national interpretation hence the title of the thread.
bcglorf wrote:That's a fine enough principle, though it seems a little at odds with John Adams actions, what with slavery continuing to be legal throughout his presidency. For some reason it seems their liberty was not worth fighting for. One might almost call on the cliched "They came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew" interpretation...
If it is your inclination, please take these issues up with the scholars who study them.
bcglorf wrote:This is one problem I have with extreme patriotism. In some cases it leads to deifying the founders and/or the founding constitution.
Where has extreme patriotism entered this discussion?
bcglorf wrote:The founding fathers didn't abolish slavery, they accommodated it. Sure, they had reasons and bigger fish to fry at the time, so you can write it off. Just don't use that explanation to yourself and at the same time reject it's application today.
Write what off? Which explanation? Reject what application today?
bcglorf wrote:IMHO stopping a genocide at the cost of how many lives of NATO forces so far?
I don't understand the question.
bcglorf wrote:I weigh a genocide stopped vs. bypassing Congressional approval and consider the genocide the bigger fish.
It is, but...just as we remind children in school, "Neatness counts." How we go about our work is sometimes as important as the result to which we aspire. Which raises the question, at least for me: Why did President Obama not attempt to build U.S. public support and Congressional support before ordering the taking of lives?

By his actions, President Obama has weakened the rule of law in the U.S.* and incompetently attempted to help people who desperately need it.
bcglorf wrote:And to repeat myself, since the point seems to have been missed. I am NOT demanding America must act in these instances. I am more modestly declaring that if it DOES act in them, it is right and justified to be doing so and is serving a good cause.
I heard you before:
rjaypeters wrote:I recognize you support the attacks against Gaddafi, regardless of the U.S. legal implications.
rjaypeters wrote:...I'd rather the Libyan people alive and free...
Finally, I've offered a candidate funding mechanism and potential military forces who can remove Mr. Gaddafi, any comments about those?

*The special irony is presidential candidate Obama's earlier position:

"Obama told The Boston Globe, "The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation."

Found here: http://reason.com/blog/2011/03/22/candi ... -president
"Aqaba! By Land!" T. E. Lawrence

R. Peters

bcglorf
Posts: 436
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 2:58 pm

Post by bcglorf »

Where has extreme patriotism entered this discussion?
By basing nearly your entire argument on your interpretation of a single quote from a founder of the nation.

Write what off? Which explanation? Reject what application today?

Your quoting of John Adams as it applies to slavery. Where did the liberty of slaves fall, the liberty of others or our own?

1. If it was the liberty of others, then Adams was consistent and supported their liberty, but wasn't obliged to defend(fight for) it. I don't think I'm out of place then to point out that if American slaves didn't count as 'protected', the idea seems pretty weak and your mileage with the principle will be a lot better if your born a white male.

2. If it was our own liberty, then Adams failed to follow through on his own quote. Not a lot of weight there...

Why did President Obama not attempt to build U.S. public support and Congressional support before ordering the taking of lives?

Quite simply because the Libyan people would've already been dead by then.

Finally, I've offered a candidate funding mechanism and potential military forces who can remove Mr. Gaddafi, any comments about those?

I'm not much of a fan of mercenaries. Soldiers loyal to a nation, particularly a true democracy, have something holding them in check beyond the ethics of the guy with the deepest pockets.


You also asked if I cared to try and convince you that the action in Libya is in America's best interests. Given that you doubt participation in WWII was even in America's interest I'm gonna answer with a no, I don't see much hope of persuading you on that front.

If there is one point I wish to get across, it is simply that Obama's decision to deploy force in Libya was a good one. Quite possibly the first decent thing he's done as President. Given his comments on Israel lately, it might also be the last. I insist that a genocide has been averted thus far by his actions, and that trumps the bypassing of Congressional approval in my book.

rjaypeters
Posts: 869
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2010 2:04 pm
Location: Summerville SC, USA

Post by rjaypeters »

Where has extreme patriotism entered this discussion?
bcglorf wrote:By basing nearly your entire argument on your interpretation of a single quote from a founder of the nation.
Okay, that's what I thought you meant. I have merely been keeping my source material simple. I can quote other sources in the same vein, some from my country's past and others not. We are having a conversation, not writing books to each other.

In any event, have I deified my country's Constitution? Or Mr. Adams by quoting something he wrote and basing my argument on one, inconsistently applied, principle that has guided my country for scores of years?

Regardless, I don't think I agree with your definition of extreme patriotism.

Write what off? Which explanation? Reject what application today?
bcglorf wrote:Your quoting of John Adams as it applies to slavery. Where did the liberty of slaves fall, the liberty of others or our own?

1. If it was the liberty of others, then Adams was consistent and supported their liberty, but wasn't obliged to defend(fight for) it. I don't think I'm out of place then to point out that if American slaves didn't count as 'protected', the idea seems pretty weak and your mileage with the principle will be a lot better if your born a white male.

2. If it was our own liberty, then Adams failed to follow through on his own quote. Not a lot of weight there...
I did not apply Mr. Adams' quotation to slavery, that is your work. As I wrote in a previous post, Mr. Adams' quote can apply to any group we choose. Or any individual or group who chooses to take it up.

Mr. Adams wrote at a time when U.S. power was insignificant on the world stage and only of note because of the successful revolution. Unfortunately for them, the power of the slaves to enforce their liberty was even less.

I don't see the application of your slavery arguments against what Mr. Adams wrote about liberty. Were the founders of the United States of America human beings and therefore full of contradiction and folly? Of course they were! So am I. What of it?

Why did President Obama not attempt to build U.S. public support and Congressional support before ordering the taking of lives?
bcglorf wrote:Quite simply because the Libyan people would've already been dead by then.
Perhaps. Again, he didn't even try to tie the survival of the Libyan rebels, or the properity of their revolution to American interests. And because of that failure, President Obama will probably never be able to muster public support for what must be done: invade Libya to remove its dictator.

Finally, I've offered a candidate funding mechanism and potential military forces who can remove Mr. Gaddafi, any comments about those?
bcglorf wrote:I'm not much of a fan of mercenaries.
We need not be fans of mercenaries to employ their services. Unfortunately (perhaps), we have many mercenary companies capable of doing that which we desire. No nation has commited necessary ground forces to remove Mr. Gaddafi. Do you expect any nation, at this time or in the near future, to do so?
bcglorf wrote:Soldiers loyal to a nation, particularly a true democracy, have something holding them in check beyond the ethics of the guy with the deepest pockets.
True, what do the ethics of a mercenary soldier have to do with achieving the result we desire?

What is your suggestion for effectively removing Mr. Gaddafi from power? Continued stalemate?
bcglorf wrote:You also asked if I cared to try and convince you that the action in Libya is in America's best interests. Given that you doubt participation in WWII was even in America's interest I'm gonna answer with a no, I don't see much hope of persuading you on that front.
I must point out a potential misunderstanding. If I was living back then, a complete counter-factual, I might have thought Isolationism was in America's best interest at the time.

In fact, I have the luxury of looking back at the middle of the Twentieth Century and recognizing FDR's wisdom in preparing to fight the original Axis of Evil. FDR's actions were completely in agreement with the quotation I am using from John Adams. Other writers have examined what might have happened if the U.S. had stood aside from WWII, but those writers are also examining counter-factuals more as justification for what FDR and the U.S. really did.

Back to the original question: Is it possible to convince me intervention in Libya is in the best interest of the U.S.? Yes, hard, but possible.

Let's make it easier, then. How is Canadian intervention in Libya in Canada's best interest?
bcglorf wrote:If there is one point I wish to get across, it is simply that Obama's decision to deploy force in Libya was a good one. Quite possibly the first decent thing he's done as President.
Message received.
bcglorf wrote:Given his comments on Israel lately, it might also be the last. I insist that a genocide has been averted thus far by his actions, and that trumps the bypassing of Congressional approval in my book.
Message received.

I must warn you, you are in danger of desiring a result (Mr. Gaddafi's removal) and being not willing to use the means necessary (mercenary forces or something else) to achieve that result. Other than the completely ineffective rebels, no military ground force seems to be coming the aid of the Libyan people.

I'll repeat an earlier question: What is your suggestion for effectively removing Mr. Gaddafi from power?
"Aqaba! By Land!" T. E. Lawrence

R. Peters

bcglorf
Posts: 436
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 2:58 pm

Post by bcglorf »

How is Canadian intervention in Libya in Canada's best interest?

Canada's national security rests nearly 100% on the efforts and good will of it's allies. That extends to France and Italy, both of whom very strongly insist that Libya's troubles are also their own. America has also deployed it's assets to the UN mission there, and Canada owes it to America to carry some of it's own weight when it has the assets to do so. It's solely because of America's defense budget that Canada doesn't require one worth mentioning. If Canada wants any say or influence in global events it MUST take part in actions like those in Libya today. Given how much global trade is worth to the Canadian economy and how much impact geo-politics has on that trade, we very much want to have an influence on the world outside our borders.

Further arguments that I consider compelling, but have been otherwise globally ignored are:
1.As signatories to the convention on genocide we are obliged to act to prevent it. I consider that an obligation worth holding, to me it is the entire meaning of the famed "Never Again" motto.
2.It's simply the right thing to do.
rjaypeters wrote:I don't see the application of your slavery arguments against what Mr. Adams wrote about liberty. Were the founders of the United States of America human beings and therefore full of contradiction and folly? Of course they were! So am I. What of it?
The application is what slavery being allowed says about the definition of 'Liberty'. How are you friends of the black slave's liberty, while sitting as president of a nation that legally allows slavery?

Oh right, that's just a contradiction and humans just do that.

I say it's instead a symptom of people not caring about a problem until it effects them directly. Tragedy is when I cut my finger, comedy is when you fall down an open manhole and die. Cute quotes about liberty don't lead me to just gloss that over as an oopsie.

What is your suggestion for effectively removing Mr. Gaddafi from power?

The one thing my nations military excels in is snipers. I think they are a pretty good fit for the problem. The current plan of 'accidentally' targeting for bombing any location Gaddafi is expected to be at is good by me as well.[/quote]

ladajo
Posts: 6267
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:18 pm
Location: North East Coast

Post by ladajo »

rjaypeters wrote:I bow to your superior knowledge of these matters. Was there another Lockerby after Operation Eldorado Canyon?
Was Lybia sponsering and executing terrorist events outside their borders after the Reagan strike? Umm...Yes.

Was Lybia developing weapons of mass destruction after the Reagan strike? Umm...Yes.

rjaypeters
Posts: 869
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2010 2:04 pm
Location: Summerville SC, USA

Post by rjaypeters »

How is Canadian intervention in Libya in Canada's best interest?
You gave a very good answer to this question, were I in your shoes I might be convinced. The geo-political/trade, genocide treaty signatory status and "right thing to do" are the only three I think have any traction with the situation of the United States.

See, if President Obama had stirred himself enough to list the three points above, and some others are available I'm sure, before the attack he could have convinced me intervention was the right thing for the United States. Curmudgeonly as I am, I recognize treaty obligations as the law of the land. Did he do take the trouble to explain it?

Yes, on 28 March, he gave a speech he could have largely given before sending military forces into Libya. Simultaneously, he could have used that speech as notification to Congress of what he was doing and laid the issue on the doorstep of Congress. Why not give this speech before dropping bombs? I truly do not expect to ever know.
bcglorf wrote:The application is what slavery being allowed says about the definition of 'Liberty'. How are you friends of the black slave's liberty, while sitting as president of a nation that legally allows slavery?

Oh right, that's just a contradiction and humans just do that.

I say it's instead a symptom of people not caring about a problem until it effects them directly. Tragedy is when I cut my finger, comedy is when you fall down an open manhole and die. Cute quotes about liberty don't lead me to just gloss that over as an oopsie.
You might have a care about whom you use the issue of slavery to discredit.

“[M]y opinion against it [slavery] has always been known… [N]ever in my life did I own a slave.”
—John Adams, Signer of the Declaration of Independence and U.S. President. The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States (Boston: Little, Brown, and Company, 1854), vol IX pp. 92-93. In a letter to George Churchman and Jacob Lindley on January 24, 1801.

"Adams never bought a slave and declined on principle to employ slave labor.[45] Abigail Adams opposed slavery and employed free blacks in preference to her father's two domestic slaves. John Adams spoke out in 1777 against a bill to emancipate slaves in Massachusetts, saying that the issue was presently too divisive, and so the legislation should "sleep for a time."[46] He also was against use of black soldiers in the Revolution, due to opposition from southerners.[46] Adams generally tried to keep the issue out of national politics, because of the anticipated southern response.[46][47] Though it is difficult to pinpoint the exact date on which slavery was abolished in Massachusetts, a common view is that it was abolished no later than 1780, when it was forbidden by implication in the Declaration of Rights that John Adams wrote into the Massachusetts Constitution.[48]" From the John Adams Wikipedia article (however much you trust that).

I don't know all the details about how the Prime Minister of Canada is supposed to act, but the President of the United States is supposed to enforce all of the laws of the U.S. John Adams, during his terms as Vice-President and President led a nation divided over slavery, but unfortunately had to govern with slavery as the law of the land, despite his implacable opposition to the institution.

What was he to do? Issue an Executive Order? No, those didn't come into existence much later.

So are his statements about liberty still so tainted that you deride them as the words of a hypocrite?

What is your suggestion for effectively removing Mr. Gaddafi from power?
bcglorf wrote:The one thing my nations military excels in is snipers. I think they are a pretty good fit for the problem. The current plan of 'accidentally' targeting for bombing any location Gaddafi is expected to be at is good by me as well.
Although I have written up-thread of my respect for the Canadian military, I don't think the sniper suggestion is a serious response to a sincere question. "Please, take the subject seriously if your going to push your opinion on it."
"Aqaba! By Land!" T. E. Lawrence

R. Peters

ladajo
Posts: 6267
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:18 pm
Location: North East Coast

Post by ladajo »

rjaypeters wrote:
ladajo wrote:I don't mean to start a branch, but...
Of course you do. Usually I'm picky about it, but today, I don't care. Branch away...
ladajo wrote:What makes you think fighting China or North Korea or both at the same time even would be "WWIII"?
Not even close.
I'm reading "Unrestricted Warfare" and will get back to you once I'm done.

After looking at the on-line summaries, two thoughts: 1)Economic warfare against China would likely hurt the U.S. and the rest of the world probably enough that the relevant leadership wouldn't consider it if all the costs and risks were correctly calculated. 2) The irony of using the work of two PLA officers as a blue-print for waging war against China. Not as stinging as using Sun Tsu's work, but still.
It is not just ecoonmic, it is all means possible. The information age gives great latitude in conducting warfare that previously did not exist.
The irony for me about the work is I saw it as a Chinese codification of what we have been doing to them before they wrote it.
In any event, it is an interesting read, and more so if you put in it timeframe context.
I will look for the interview article where the authors talked about what they meant. Some of the interview was political posture driven, but if you read through that it is interesting.
Anyway, please do nto read the work in the context that it "showed up" in the US mainstream, as China's plan to destroy america. It is not so. It is more a good dialog on the expansion of modern warfare boundaries and methods. I hope you enjoy it.

rjaypeters
Posts: 869
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2010 2:04 pm
Location: Summerville SC, USA

Post by rjaypeters »

ladajo wrote:It is not just ecoonmic, it is all means possible.
I know, but I was commenting about one aspect.

I really don't expect the Chinese leadership is so meglomaniacal as to want to destroy the U.S. It would be really messy and a lot of people might get more than their "hair mussed."
"Aqaba! By Land!" T. E. Lawrence

R. Peters

bcglorf
Posts: 436
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 2:58 pm

Post by bcglorf »

rjaypeters wrote:See, if President Obama had stirred himself enough to list the three points above, and some others are available I'm sure, before the attack he could have convinced me intervention was the right thing for the United States.
And if why does it matter so much when they are brought to your attention? Surely the timing of knowing such things doesn't affect your assessment of good or bad that much?

I'm loath to bring it up, as it's probably the first on the Kissinger list for reasons to topple Gadhafi, but there is also Libya's existing strategic value. Under Gadhafi it exports oil to China and uses the revenues to buy Russian military hardware. Ruining that equation is probably the far largest strategic gain for America, and it's coming at a ridiculous bargain too.
rjaypeters wrote:Why not give this speech before dropping bombs? I truly do not expect to ever know.
I think it's probably easier to understand women than it is to understand a politician. For all we know Obama's breakfast didn't agree with him the day he decided to finally take action against Gadhafi and so he didn't feel like waiting for Congress, and since then he's just been stubborn.

I expect politicians to be idiots and as such to do things in the dumbest manner possible. Bush's invasion of Iraq being a shinning example of that. Managing to make the very hard, and in my eye very correct decision to finally remove Saddam. However, after making that difficult decision he proceeded to prepare the most baffling and intentionally ignorant plans for a post-Saddam Iraq that can be imagined.

Regardless, I assess the wisdom and effect of going into Iraq and Libya separately on their humanitarian merits and come away with the clear conclusion that they have served our species overall plight extraordinarily well.
rjaypeters wrote:John Adams, during his terms as Vice-President and President led a nation divided over slavery, but unfortunately had to govern with slavery as the law of the land, despite his implacable opposition to the institution.

What was he to do?
That's exactly what I was taking about before when I mention excusing his failure to make war to liberate the slaves. He had bigger fish to fry, as you've said. Strictly speaking, the ideal of defending the Liberty of our nations citizens did no apply to blacks under the circumstances. The ideal was trumped by larger considerations. I consider that EXACTLY the precedent discussed now around Libya. Stopping a genocide compared to getting Congressional approval for a mission already authorized by the UN. I consider genocide a big enough fish that I'll forgive by passing taking the time to ask congress to agree on the matter. Much as you seem willing to forgive Adams not liberating slaves immediately, as the cost of that war was too much for the fledgling nation to survive.
rjaypeters wrote:Although I have written up-thread of my respect for the Canadian military, I don't think the sniper suggestion is a serious response to a sincere question.
I was deadly serious. How familiar are you with Canada's sniper program? We are pretty much the unquestioned global top dog in the field. Our military includes a lot of special ops 'exchange' programs with the US, specifically to deploy our snipers as part of American black ops teams. They were right there with the first American's setting foot in Iraq for the second invasion. Although it's obviously classified, the odds are good that many of the black op assassinations attributed to American forces had Canadian snipers attached.

I also recommended the continued targeting of locations Gadhafi is expected to be staying, we've already knocked off a few people for close to him that way. I just wish someone had the moral fortitude to openly admit our intent is to kill the man, and not only will we not apologize for it, we say "your welcome", in advance.

Post Reply