Muslims To Be Investigated By The HSC

[UnderAGreySky]

The more I read of Pete King, the more I think that he's possibly the worst person in the US Congress. Granted, I don't even live there, but hardly a week goes by without hearing a stupid thing spewing out of his mouth. He is close to matching Palin-levels of dumbness.

[Simon_Jester]

Why do people keep using the "we're at war" line, even though the US hasn't been in a war since the 40's?

Incorrect, sir.

Granted, Korea and Vietnam were officially "police actions", but the Gulf War of 1990-1991, the invasion of Afghanistan, and that mess in Iraq were ALL formally declared wars. So by my count that's at least three, and arguably five. Actually, I could probably include some smaller conflicts in there, but I think I've made the point.

Currently the US is involved in three wars: Afghanistan, Iraq, and technically Korea - because in the case of Korea we have a cease-fire, but not an actual formal end to hostilities, and no peace treaty.

That's leaving aside the "war on cancer", "war on poverty", "war on drugs", etc.

I've said before that we have a very big problem in this country coming from careless use of the phrase "we are at war."

To summarize, "we are at war" can mean one of two things. We can be fighting a "war" in the sense that Clausewitz meant it: "war is an act of violence intended to compel our opponent to fulfill our will."

Or we can be fighting a "war" in the sense of some violent crisis threatening our existence, one that demands the full resources and attention of the nation. All wars of the second type are wars of the first type, but most wars of the first type are not wars of the second type.

There are a lot of things we might be able to justify doing in a war of the second type: suspension of civil liberties, policies that involve the use of deadly force against neutrals, noncombatants, or even our own citizens, and so on.

But none of these things apply to a war of the first type. The mere fact that "we are engaged in an act of violence intended to compel our opponent to fulfill our will" cannot possibly justify suspending civil liberties, killing our own citizens, and so on.

The problem is that if you have a five hundred word vocabulary, the phrases:

"We are engaged in an act of violence intended to compel an opponent to fulfill our will"
and
"We are in a state of violent national emergency that requires the full resources and attention of the nation if we are to survive..."

Well, both these phrases translate into "we are at war" for someone whose thoughts are restricted to that five hundred word vocabulary. And that makes it hard to tell the difference between the two, and to grasp that there are actions that can be justified by the second case, but not by the first case.

[Alyeska]

Why do people keep using the "we're at war" line, even though the US hasn't been in a war since the 40's?

Incorrect, sir.

Granted, Korea and Vietnam were officially "police actions", but the Gulf War of 1990-1991, the invasion of Afghanistan, and that mess in Iraq were ALL formally declared wars. So by my count that's at least three, and arguably five. Actually, I could probably include some smaller conflicts in there, but I think I've made the point.

Currently the US is involved in three wars: Afghanistan, Iraq, and technically Korea - because in the case of Korea we have a cease-fire, but not an actual formal end to hostilities, and no peace treaty.

That's leaving aside the "war on cancer", "war on poverty", "war on drugs", etc.

Not even close. The US hasn't Declared War since World War 2.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaratio ... ted_States

[Broomstick]

If Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Iraq, and Afghanistan weren't war what the fuck were they?

Four of the above five (Korea being the exception) were military actions authorized by Congress. As the constitution does not specify the language required for a "formal" declaration of war (which your cite even says) arguably those four ARE formal declarations, being formally authorized by Congress. While your cited article states that it is using the "must Declaration of War in the title" definition that very same article states others dispute that definition, including the US First Circuit Court of Appeals.

You want to quibble about whether or not the were actually "declared", fine, but the latter three mentioned at least weren't cloaked as "police actions". Again, if they weren't wars what the fuck were they? Don't be stupid. Of course they were wars. Even Korea and Vietnam were wars, hence the common references to "the Korean War" and "the Viet Nam War" regardless of what euphemisms are puked up by politicians and apologists. We don't talk about the "Congressional authorized military action in Afghanistan" we talk about the goddamn "war in Afghanistan".

Don't be ridiculous.

[Vendetta]

What is this sovereign citizen thing anyways?

Short version: The government doesn't have authority over me. The US is a fraud and has been for decades. The longer version.. Well, ADL has a nice summation. Link. So does SPLC and other groups. It's right-wing anarchist madness, complete with what has been termed 'paper terrorism', using mounds of fraudulent legal documents to intimidate and terrorize everything from Joe Public to law enforcement. They also love to file fraudulent lawsuits or liens against anyone they wish to terrorize, plus use 'Common Law Courts'.

Don't forget that they also like to kill police officers, seemingly without cause or provocation.

It may also be an elaborate ponzi scheme, as Sovereigns are frequently convinced (and pay thousands of dollars a time of actual money to be convinced) that they can issue their own currency.

[Sarevok]

If you say the US had been at war with Afganistan then the eventual US withdrawal can be termed as "retreat". One cant have his cake and eat it too...

[Broomstick]

You seem to suggest I would somehow find that word objectionable. If it fits, then I would not. However, I am not the typical American. This is why I get into arguments with people who still don't want to admit we got chased out of Viet Nam with our tail between our legs, and that was STILL better than prolonging that war. If you can't win it's foolish to throw good money and effort after bad.

[Sarevok]

I can see where you are coming from Broomstick. But Gandalf original point was the excuse "we are at war" has been used to justify all sorts of excesses. Now technically American troops are indeed fighting in Iraq and Afganistan. But it is a leap of logic to use that to justify domestic policies. This is not WW 2 or even the Korean war.

[Broomstick]

True. However, I was pointing out the error in saying "we haven't been at war since WWII" rather than addressing the "domestic wars" point.

I think "war on [fill in the blank]" started out as a form of hyperbole and is now taken all too literally.

I have not used "we are at war" to justify domestic policies (stupid or not) though others certainly have.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Also remember that in many of those wars our enemies declared war on us, which makes the congressional declaration irrelevant. If someone declares war on you, then you're at war whether or not you want to be.

[Sarevok]

Well technically various individual militants groups have declared war on US. The important thing here is that not all wars equal. A nobody with a history of mental illness could declare war on an entire nation. But that does not mean it deserves the same reaction as an invasion by a powerful neighboring country.

Domestic decision making with regards to wartime needs should reflect the urgency of the situation. But sadly this simple logic seems to escape many voters and policy makers in US.

[Shroom Man 777]

Normally when the leaders and people of a country act like morons and do illogical stupid things, it is their own country and their own people that get harmed in the process.

The reason why America is the greatest nation on Earth is because when their leaders and people act like morons and do illogical stupid things, it is other countries and other people who get harmed in the process.

This is why people are alarmed with current events and think that America is on the decline, because now when their leaders and people act like morons and do illogical stupid things, they are starting to get harmed in the process. Their greatness is declining. And they don't know what to do.

[Simon_Jester]

Pretty much, Shroomy.

Most powerful empires were able to say something like this at some point: that most of the bad consequences of their government policy were exported onto other people by some combination of force and economics. But the longer that goes on, the harder it is to keep bad policy from hurting the empire's core territory: you run out of places to loot to hide the structural deficit, or you run out of bodies to garrison the provinces, or something.

The US, by virtue of sheer economic size more than anything else, was able to get away with this for a long time... but yeah, a fair number of the chickens are starting to come home to roost, and the political ideologies and structures that sprung up during the Age of Consequence-Free Bad Policy don't know how to cope with the problem.

[Broomstick]

Which, frankly, is really starting to alarm those of us who haven't swallowed the propaganda. All empires eventually decline, but not of them handle it well. I'd prefer not to be living in one that decides to either explode or implode, not that I personally have any control over it.

I fear it will take a MUCH greater crisis than any we've seen in the last 50 years to jolt us into a new path. My only hope is that the new path will be a better one.