Home Forums Miscellaneous Topics Military Why I support President Bush

Saddam has killed Americans! He did it in the gulf war. Enforcing the peace treaty is perfectly reasonable even if it takes a war.

I can think of quite a few wars that we have fought where the enemy provided less of a threat to the USA. North Korea did not threaten us when they invaded the south. Grenada, Panama, Haiti and Yugoslavia were not direct threats to our security. You can't argue that this war is unique in our history. Or that we are

"crossing a line that we never have done before."

I said that we have a right to determine when to fight a war. We cannot attack every country who commits "crimes against humanity". We have to deal with the world as it is and that may mean dealing with dictators. One of the things that we learned in Vietnam is that a war must be in our own self interest for us to fight it.

Iran is the best example of how your ideological based policy failed completely. Carter failed to back the Shaw of Iran because he was evil and Iran end up with a government that is much worse.

Our country has a government and we delegate the authority to it through our elected leaders to determine when and where to fight wars. This has not changed as long as our country has been in existence. If you don't like our leaders you can try to vote them out of office in the next election. If you don't like our form of government then you can change the constitution. Otherwise why don't you move to another country ? You should be happy in France.

Our officials to not have absolute power. They operate under our constitution. Bush sought and obtained approval for this war from congress. There is no way you can say that he has absolute power!

Our government is a representational democracy. This means that we elect representatives to make decisions for us. They should do what they think is best for our country not through polling.

Anyway, the vast majority of Americans approve of what we are doing in Iraq! So in this case they are representing the will of the people. Does this mean that you agree with their actions ?

So how did the spy satellites detect the North Koreans development of nuclear weapons ? Our enemies have a pretty good understanding of the limitations or our spy satellites and can easily work around them The satellites cannot protect us from events like 9/11. They won't protect us from ships sailing into our harbors and setting off nuclear bombs or releasing nerve gas either. You should realize that often the best defense is a good offense.

Ken Howell - I just re-read my post above and realize that it didn't sound at all as I intended. I did not mean to say that your premise was "somewhat readable"; I think I meant instead to say that you had reduced their somewhat questionable reasons to an eminently readable, succinct, statement, or something like that. Sorry `bout that <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" /> . Regards,

Your second sentence kind of sums up your whole argument. "Enforcing the peace treaty is perfectly reasonable even if it takes a war." Kind of oxymoronic.

Your argument does not make sense. Peace treaties fufill a function between nations at war. They allow wars to be ended and peace resumed without requiring the complete destruction of one party. If peace treaties are unenforceable then every war will be a fight to the death.

When we defeated Iraq in the first gulf war the war was ended with a peace treaty. This treaty required Iraq to disarm. This is something that they only agreed to because the alternative was continued war with our invasion, occupation of Iraq and the removal of Saddam from power.

Iraq never fufilled the requirements of the peace treaty. That means that it is null and void and the state of war resumes. This is just the way peace treaties work.

If you don't/can't understand this then you are "oxymoronic".

The SHAH of Iran was about like Sodam Insane, he ruled an illiterate people with an iron fist. His CIA was I think called SAVAK. The Ayatholla Khomeni had been in exile in France for many years. On his return the people revolted. (Their religion was more important than civilian government.)
The Shah was our "hey boy" in the mid-east for years. If the Saudis.i.e. made waves he threatened to kick tail, and could because he had the best war machine for miles. We (USA) supplied it to him.
When he had to flee our embassy was beseiged, and eventually taken over.The hostages were held for 444 days. Years of repression were blamed out on our country. Right or wrong we were blamed.
One hostage was John D. McKeel,Jr. USMC He and one or two other Marines escorted some people to the Canadian embassy. Those people later escaped the pandamonium.
Johnny was treated like a hero on his return to Balch Springs, Tx. There was a parade in his honor, he was invited to lunch with the rich and powerful in Dallas and Ft. Worth. He was given a Colt .45 acp with an inscription " 444 Days , Never Again" I fired the second magazine ever through that pistol.
Johnny was never comfortable with his hero status, and I asked him once why he didn't stay at the Canadian embassy. "I'm a Marine and my place was with my brothers," he said.
He was offered a gram of hash once and refused, because he couldn't take it and then go back to being a drill and tell the recruits that they couldn't take it.
That's why I support our troops. It's called standing by your brothers.

I meant to stay out of this, but I can't let this one go by.

ConradCA, I don't know if you actually believe this (in which case you really ought to be swimming in the kiddie pool with the other public-school graduates, rather than trying to hold your own with the grownups), or whether you're just trying to draw somebody out; but it's pretty outrageous stuff. Hopefully nobody believes it; but just in case they do:

Our officials do not operate under our Constitution. It amazes me that somebody on a bulletin board having substantially to do with firearms could straight-facedly assert that they do. A wussy, corrupt legislature, a judiciary that makes laws instead of interpreting and judging them, and an executive branch that rules with dictatorial executive orders has made a complete joke of the separation-of-powers doctrine that has always been central to the Constitution. The government regularly and with impunity violates every Amendment in the Bill of Rights except the Third. Juries are stacked in favor of the government through voir dire, are warned against exercising their Constitutional powers of nullification, and jurors are punished when they exercise those powers. The government can and does violate all three of the people's fundamental rights (life, liberty, and property) without due process whenever it feels like it.

All of this is getting progressively worse (under both major parties) as time goes on.

Just a further example is that Congress did not declare this war. They were given the opportunity to do so, and they declined. In addition to all the other unconstitutional things he's doing, Bush has no Constitutional business sending troops into Iraq without a Congressional declaration of war.

And here's a question I asked a few days ago on another thread, but that nobody answered. Saddam Hussein has absolute power, because he's a dictator. But can you think of any governmental power that Saddam Hussein has (because he's a dictator) that Baby Bush doesn't have, what with the advent of the USA PATRIOT Act and the Homeland Security Act and the fact that he can executive-order anything he damn well pleases?

There may be a few more technical hoops he has to jump through to get such things done, but Patriot II is waiting in the wings to take care of that, and anyway the hoops aren't terribly serious restrictions. For example, all he has to do to have you secretly arrested and thrown in prison indefinitely without being charged with a crime or allowed access to counsel is to hint that you might be peripherally involved in some terrorism investigation. Saddam can secretly arrest and imprison whomever he wants without having to officially declare him connected to a terrorism investigation--big whoop. Good thing we have the Constitution, hey?

Saddam can legally send his military, what's left of it, to operate against the Iraqi people, and Bush has to claim that those people are targets of a drug investigation before he can do that. But Bush is busily trying to get that law (it's the Posse Comitatus Act, in case you're taking notes) repealed, in the name of the War On Terrorism.

Saddam can have his secret police break into your house in the middle of the night and shoot you in the head. So can Bush, as long as he gets a pet judge somewhere to rubber-stamp a "dynamic-entry" search warrant on trumped-up evidence. Patriot II will go a long way toward eliminating that pesky requirement as well.

Saddam can have whatever woman he wants sent to his bedroom whenever he wants. Bush hasn't done that yet, as far as we know, but our experience with Clinton demonstrates that he could, if he wanted to.

Just what is it that his dictatorial power allows Saddam to do that the Constitution would successfully prevent Bush from doing if he wanted to?

Lysander Spooner: "Nevertheless, the writer thinks it proper to say that, in his opinion, the Constitution is no such instrument as it has generally been assumed to be; but that by false interpretations, and naked usurpations, the government has been made in practice a very widely, and almost wholly, different thing from what the Constitution itself purports to authorize. He has heretofore written much, and could write much more, to prove that such is the truth. But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain -- that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist."

Barak,

If the situation here is truely as bad as you portray it to be, I've gotta ask the question; Why are you still here? Now don't get me wrong. I'm not suggesting, requesting nor telling you that you should leave. I simply don't understand why, if you believe the government of this country is so oppressive, you continue to tolerate it and stay here. I'm genuinely curious.

My point was that the Ayatola is much worse that the Shah was.

Because it's my country, and I love it. It was people like me who inherited this country from those who shed their blood to make it free, not the treasonous powermongers who are enslaving it, or the bawling sheep who rationalize, accept, and empower their own enslavement. We may make a pitiful comparison to the likes of Thomas Jefferson and George Washington, these people and I, but we're pretty much all America has left at this point.

If somebody invaded my home, I wouldn't meekly accept the situation and go try to find somewhere else to live. Nor would I content myself with living in a tiny corner of the house and trying to confine my activities to those that would not unduly annoy the invader.

Would you?

Do you?

Relax! Don't get your blood pressure up. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> I told you I was just asking because I was curious. I wasn't trying to make a point. I asked what I thought was a legitimate question and you gave a legitimate answer. Your initial statement and your closing paragraph are even things we agree on. However: your expanded explaination in your first paragraph leads me to another question. Since you stated that it was "people like me", rather than people like us, who inherited this country does that mean that in your opinion it is any less my country than yours? I only ask because in your response you seem to imply that I should be out somewhere mongering power or bawling. Did I misconstrue your expanded remarks?

In answer to your questions: "Would you?" No. "Do you?" Do I what?

Jacccck Chiracccccc Baraccccccccck- Isn't it great to see liberation at work..Let FREEDOM ring!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I't probably makes you squirm to see GW succeed like he does. (although, of course it's the milatary, not just GW, but your too stupid to realize that) Makes me giddy to see the USA and GW kick major Butt.. FREEDOM Jacccccoccccck FREEDOM Chiracccccccccccccc, FREEDOM, barackkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1 <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Well, taking my cue from the estimable Ken Howell, I'm not going to further hijack this thread ("Why I support President Bush" seems an exquisitely inappropriate title for this particular tangent); rather, I'll respond to your message in a new thread, probably entitled something like "Treasonous Powermongers and Bawling Sheep" over in the Hunter's Campfire. No, scratch that; I guess I'll make it the Second Amendment forum. It's not specifically Second Amendment-related, but it is political.

See you there!

Sounds reasonable. I'll look for it there.

Your views, which basically are anarchist and some would say into a narrow constitutional construction, would work in a world where all people are moral and responsible, but since most aren't and the world is so very complicated now, they no longer can be relied on to deal with our problems. You did not hijack so don't get paranoid, too.

No, I'm not quite anarchist yet. I have studied the work of a number of anarchists, and I respect it. I think that it's quite possible that an anarchist society with a few generations of tradition to support it might work very well indeed; but so far I haven't found any realistic prescription for a way to get from where we are now to an anarchist society with a few generations of tradition to support it.

Strict constructionist? Yes, sort of. I'm not an uncritical fan of the Constitution: I believe it has some pretty serious fundamental problems--as is evidenced by the gulf of difference between the government it describes and the government we have today. However, I do think people who swear to uphold and defend it should be held to their word, and at least fired (preferably imprisoned) if it can be demonstrated that they have in any way broken that vow.

But it is absolutely not the case that libertarian political theory is intended only for a world where all people are moral and responsible. On the contrary, libertarian political theory is one of the only ones on the market that assumes that no one is moral or responsible. The brand of socialism that calls itself liberalism assumes that pretty much everyone, even criminals, is to some extent moral and responsible, and the brand of socialism that calls itself conservatism assumes that at least the political leaders, and sometimes government workers as well, are moral and responsible.

Conversely, libertarianism is a principled political position (based on exactly one principle), while both liberalism and conservatism have either no principles at all, or so many and so vague and subjective that they might as well have none. (I say this only because I have never had anyone either liberal or conservative manage to state and defend any small set of objective principles for either view. I could eventually be proven wrong; but I haven't been so far.)

If you'd like to discuss my political orientation (or libertarianism in general) further, I'm willing; but I'd prefer that you start a different thread in which to do so, perhaps in a different forum.

Nope Your views are all over everywhere on this one topic alone and not narrowly related so we can maybe do it later when this unfortunate conflict is over, the fighting part of it.

ConradCa, I tried to reply earlier but got sidetracked. We don't know if the shah or khomieni is better or worse or how many Iranis prefer one over the other, unless you have better info than I. I can tell you this, Sgt. McKeel told me that when his captors saw Americans anger thay were shocked at the reaction because it was only 52 people. They expected to get invaded and treated the captives nicer for a while. When they saw it wouldn't happen they became more cruel for a while. That lends some creedence to not just carry a big stick but use it.
Maybe Saddam thought the same thing, who knows? I am not smart enough to know if more diplomacy would have helped or not, but our President/shah/king/ayotollah has sent our best young citizens to war, and I for one will not give the enemy any aid or comfort. If we don't like our king we can vote him out. Iam a descenant of men who didn't believe in kings, they fought the british army for freedom. I don't believe in kings either, Barak I'm with you.

My father added two corollaries to the Roosevelt Policy that I think are quite insightful:

The Roosevelt Policy:
Speak softly and carry a big stick.

Harold's First Corollary to the Roosevelt Policy:
If that doesn't work, speak loudly and wave your big stick.

Harold's Second Corollary to the Roosevelt Policy:
If that doesn't work, shut up and use your big stick.