Wait a second here, we are at war? Since when?

[Cleobulus]

All of the sudden we are at war, that's the justification for targeting people for death, not to mention other things.

This is news to me, what I see are two fucked up conflicts that we call war, but didn't involve any declarations, both for, more or less, conquest or dominance, if you want to call it that. One got so fucked up we are actually drawing down our troops, the other is so fucked up the tinpot leader that WE support may join the Taliban. A roaring success, all around, and really, this makes me feel safer. :eyes:

Let's not even get into the "War on Terror", great, we are declaring war on tactics, what's next a war on Guerrilla Warfare, or how about a War on Flanking Maneuvers, it would make just about as much sense. No wait, I know, how about a War on Arson! That's the ticket!

No wait, its a war against Al Qaeda! Yeah, that's it, so where are we fighting their army? Oh, and how is that working out so far? Jesus fucking Christ, its like declaring war against Chinese Triads, and they kill plenty of Americans every year as well. Hell, even less so considering that Al Qaeda is less centralized than even them, at least with the Triads you theoratically can kill off their effectiveness by cutting off the head, no such assurances with Al Qaeda.

So we had the previous Administration use a CRIMINAL act create an ambiguous situation we call the "War on Terror" that is so general it can apply to target anyone worldwide, for any reason, without little things like following laws, trials, etc. And this is supposed to make me feel safer?

[boppers]

1. While you were sleeping, perhaps?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Terrorists
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Iraq_Resolution_of_2002

[Cleobulus]

2. Great, so should we next Authorize the use of the Military against Costa Nostra next?

How about White Supremacists? C'mon name a group, I'd love to see how effective we are in fighting them with the military.

[SpartanDem]

3. The fact remains we gave our military the power go after them

whether you think that effective or not is irreverent. This scumbag should not be able to use his citizenship as a cover to commit terrorism.

[Cleobulus]

5. Do all murderers use their citizenship as a shield to perpetuate their crimes?

If so, should we just strip them of said protection and summarily execute them before trial? This guy should NOT be made an exception to the rules we all already follow, that is a horrible precedent.

[SpartanDem]

7. We're not about talking about all murders

were talking a person is who actively plotting attack on our country overseas, who happens to a citizen, a much narrower issue. In any other war, if the guy joined the other side killing him whether through specific targeting or in regular battle would be ok.

[Cleobulus]

8. Why not, Organized Crime, particularly from overseas Organizations have killed...

far more Americans over the years than Al Qaeda. Oh, and we are NOT at war, that's the stupidest thing I ever heard.

[SpartanDem]

12. There's no comparing the two

Al Qaeda trains people to attack us whether it's our embassies, here our own soil or have you forgotten they're responsible for killing 3,000 US citizens? If that's not war then I don't know what if is, that it is being done by a stateless terrorist organization shouldn't matter they are still waging war.

[Cleobulus]

13. stateless organizations, by definition, CANNOT DECLARE WAR.

Al Qaeda is, first and foremost, a CRIMINAL organization, and should be treated as such, to fight it with the military is an exercise in futility, a waste of resources, and a great way for Al Qaeda to recruit people. Hell, I would go so far as to say that our "war" against Al Qaeda damages our national security a hell of a lot more than it could possibly help.

[SpartanDem]

19. That just seems like hair splitting hairs to me

that they can't technically declare war is not important, because at their root what they are doing is waging war. Do you think that those who engaged in civil disobedience during the civil rights movement were wrong because they violated the letter of the law? Probably not, in the same vane I don't believe that the spirit of these laws were meant to allow an organization like AQ to wage war simply because they are stateless.

[Cleobulus]

23. Stupid analogy, first off, civil disobedience is predicated on non-violence...

hell, we don't even make that distinction between terrorists, those who attack property are labeled terrorists same as those who target people. War is between countries, or between those who at least claim to be countries, or trying to form them, not with international criminal organizations, regardless of their goals, whether its ideological, greed, or power.

[treestar]

32. Then they all deserve a trial, born in the US or not

[boppers]

14. You don't think targeted killings, against organized crime, happens?

Strange world you live in.

[Cleobulus]

15. Wait, you are still arguing this shit, after being shown to be a proud member of the...

"Know Nothing" party?

Ok, fine, allow me to entertain you, yes I do know this, it also DIDN'T work in defeating these organizations. I'm hoping you actually know that, and aren't just arguing to make me look good, which you are succeeding at, by the way.

[boppers]

18. You're accusing me of hating German and Catholic Immigrants? What?

Do you know what the "Know Nothing" party even was? I think you might be confused.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Know_Nothing

As far as targeted killing defeating a social ill, I recognize that it doesn't work that way. The death of Tim McVeigh didn't stop all whacko right-wingers.

It did, however, stop him. Which is kind of the point of death sentences.

[Cleobulus]

22. They were a reactionary party that used ignorance to forward their agenda...

I thought it fit with what you are arguing. So you concede it doesn't work, and yet still think its good policy. By the way, Tim McVeigh did get a trial before he was executed at least. He was prevented from causing further damage after being convicted, but that's an argument for another time(I'm against the death penalty).

[boppers]

27. I'm against the US death penalty, myself.

I'm in favor of jurors pulling the triggers, if they want it.

Literally.

I'm not in favor of years, and decades, of legal appeals.

In this case, a man has confessed to being a mass murderer, and bragged about it.

He's training others to do the same.

Will the world be better, with, or without. him?

[boppers]

4. September 25th, 1957

The 101st Airborne was deployed to Little Rock, Arkansas, to protect schoolchildren from White Supremacists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Rock_Nine

Maybe you didn't remember that?

[Cleobulus]

6. Did they hunt them down and kill them all, no, their job was protection...

not enforcement or punishment.

[Hippo_Tron]

9. It's largely psychological

Triads don't have the psychological impact that people flying planes into the World Trade Center does. Given that we have vastly superior military capability than those people, it intuitively makes sense to declare war on them and use our military to defeat them. Trouble is that we've been doing that for almost 9 years now and they're still around.

[Cleobulus]

10. Yeah, in other words, it doesn't work, for some reason I'm not surprised...

its like using a chainsaw to perform open heart surgery, when a scalpel and hand saw are less likely to kill the patient.

[Hippo_Tron]

16. In fairness I'm not sure the scalpel would work either, though

But I do know that the chainsaw is costing us too much money and too many lives.

[Cleobulus]

17. It would depend on how the scapel was wielded...

Frankly, it being in the past, there were a lot of things I would have done differently than Bush, the biggest being not going in Iraq or Afghanistan at all, and would have found a diplomatic solution in getting Osama bin Laden, without all that invading and killing civilians thing.

Hell there were options, that what pisses me off, its not like we were backed up against a wall, no, we could have leaned on the Taliban for recognition, used threats, or, hell, even bribery, for them to turn over Al Qaeda leaders, but no, we had a cowboy instead.

[Hippo_Tron]

20. If any President had not responded to 9/11 with massive military force

They would've been thrown out of office in the next election, possibly impeached. Besides the fact that there was no diplomatic solution as Mullah Omar wasn't going to turn over Bin Laden.

Don't get me wrong, Bush did everything in his power to exploit that situation to pursue a ridiculous neocon foreign policy. But a more reluctant leader would've succumbed to the political reality that Americans were in psychological shock after 9/11 and they were demanding blood for what happened.

Even President Kucinich probably would've bombed something. Maybe not invaded Afghanistan (or stayed very long after we kicked the Taliban out at least) but he probably would've used force.

[Cleobulus]

24. In other words we would have been fucked because we were stupid after 9/11...

is that what you are saying?

[The_Casual_Observer]

11. We've got "Bushmaster" & "Crazy Horse" on our side..

We have met the enemy & he is us.

[sandnsea]

21. The troops are at war

You may not be. DU may not be. You may think it wasn't declared legally. You may think it's all a bunch of lies.

Regardless of any of that, the troops are at war. Anything they do must be evaluated and judged within that context.

[Cleobulus]

25. The troops are being fucked over by being in combat situations they...

were never supposed to be in. The saddest part is that it not going to result in anything positive.

[sandnsea]

26. Regardless. They Are At War.

Anything they do must be judged within that context. Any other opinions you might have aren't relevant to troops' duty in a war.

[zbdent]

28. I thought Bush declared victory

about two months in ...

[Clio the Leo]

29. On what date did Congress declare war on the Confederacy?

Korea?

And yes, this is a pretty f'ed up conflict.

[Phx_Dem]

30. I don't recall anyone saying WE are at war in Yemen. But Yemen is a

war zone because the government is fight a war against al-quaeda. Thus Al-whathisname is in a war zone in a country which we are aiding in it's war. No one is should be concerned first and foremost about sending U.S. law enforcement agents into this WAR ZONE to arrest a U.S. traitor who is plotting with terrorists against his own county.

If he gets killed in the WAR, so be it.

[treestar]

31. Of course it's a mess, Bush got us into it

Even if not a war, we have to do something about those planning attacks. After 911, there was plenty of criticism for the administrations preceding it for not finding it out and preventing it. Don't need a war for that.

There were such operations, in fact the CIA knew that two of the hijackers had been seen in safe houses in Yemen. That is what they could do rather than the clumsier way that Bush promoted - war against countries that don't cooperate with locating Al Qaeda.