US troops now in Uganda

[RocketMan]

Last I checked, Iran hasn't attacked us, our assets, or even our allies.  One assasination plot that was headed off.  And harsh words.

How soon we forget.  What a shame.

[Frank Castle]

Last I checked, Iran hasn't attacked us, our assets, or even our allies.  One assasination plot that was headed off.  And harsh words.

From a solider on the ground in Afghanistan !

Supplies ,ammo, guns , IED parts and fighters are being smuggled in to Afghanistan............. from Iran or Pakistan. I have a hard time believe Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or Asif Ali Zardari has to clue whats going on!


My battalion is trying to shut down a major smuggling route from Iran to Afghanistan right now !

Out Sgt B

[roo_ster]

How soon we forget.  What a shame.

Hey, now, that minor misunderstanding that brought down the Jimmah Carter administration was blown ALL out of proportion by the evil nasty right wingers.

[De Selby]

Hey, now, that minor misunderstanding that brought down the Jimmah Carter administration was blown ALL out of proportion by the evil nasty right wingers.

How did we end up in that situation again?  I bet we were just arming the forces of freedom in Iran, and they got so upset at all the freedom being doled out by their us-backed king that they couldn't stand it anymore.

It's amazing how many people respond so negatively to us backed freedom-kings, and how they never seem to understand that the military hardware those kings get is strictly for protecting freedom, not for oppressing their own people.

I'm sure the Saudis and bahrainis understand this very well - too bad the Egyptians just could not understand how much freedom they'd have now if only they'd supported washington's man in Cairo.

[wmenorr67]

Read that the speculation behind the help is sort of a thank you for bailing our ass out of Somalia.

[roo_ster]

How did we end up in that situation again?  I bet we were just arming the forces of freedom in Iran, and they got so upset at all the freedom being doled out by their us-backed king that they couldn't stand it anymore.

It's amazing how many people respond so negatively to us backed freedom-kings, and how they never seem to understand that the military hardware those kings get is strictly for protecting freedom, not for oppressing their own people.

I'm sure the Saudis and bahrainis understand this very well - too bad the Egyptians just could not understand how much freedom they'd have now if only they'd supported washington's man in Cairo.

Unfortunately, this "narrative" fails on the rock of the reality that Jimmah supported Khomeini the goat diddler and his return to Iran.

Relative to the various potentates in the ME supported by the West, the popular leaders were indubitably nastier customers. Which ought not e a surprise, since they have always been ruled by beasts when given their head.

[De Selby]

Unfortunately, this "narrative" fails on the rock of the reality that Jimmah supported Khomeini the goat diddler and his return to Iran.

Relative to the various potentates in the ME supported by the West, the popular leaders were indubitably nastier customers. Which ought not e a surprise, since they have always been ruled by beasts when given their head.

Not sure how rocky hard that claim about Khomeini is...

Serious question - by what measure are locally selected leaders "nastier customers" than American backed dictators?

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

word i got was we helped the shah off his dad to take over

[TommyGunn]

Quote from: roo_ster on Today at 08:19:16 AM

Unfortunately, this "narrative" fails on the rock of the reality that Jimmah supported Khomeini the goat diddler and his return to Iran.

Relative to the various potentates in the ME supported by the West, the popular leaders were indubitably nastier customers. Which ought not e a surprise, since they have always been ruled by beasts when given their head

.

Are you agreeing with roo__ster, DeSelby, or is my computer now capable of using applying invisible LCD points to the font?

[Matthew Carberry]

They told me if I voted for John Mccain teh country would be involved in more wars than Bush could imagine... and they were right!

[MechAg94]

word i got was we helped the shah off his dad to take over

I heard the US helped the Shaw get into power and supported him. 

I thought I heard that the Ayatola was in Paris getting money from to stay away from Iran.  I heard Jimmy Carter cut off the money and he went back to Iran.  I'm sure there is more to it.

[longeyes]

So many people to liberate, so little time.

[Harold Tuttle]

[Jamisjockey]

From a solider on the ground in Afghanistan !

Supplies ,ammo, guns , IED parts and fighters are being smuggled in to Afghanistan............. from Iran or Pakistan. I have a hard time believe Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or Asif Ali Zardari has to clue whats going on!


My battalion is trying to shut down a major smuggling route from Iran to Afghanistan right now !

Out Sgt B

Sounds like a great reason to pull out to me.  We already dethroned and punished the Taliban.  We stomped some al queda ass.  Now, we nation build and get our young men and women sent home in body bags by the metric ass load.  Avoiding a conflict with Iran over smuggling weapons into our illegal and immoral nation building quest is a bonus.

[longeyes]

+100

[roo_ster]

Sounds like a great reason to pull out to me.  We already dethroned and punished the Taliban.  We stomped some al queda ass.  Now, we nation build and get our young men and women sent home in body bags by the metric ass load.  Avoiding a conflict with Iran over smuggling weapons into our illegal and immoral nation building quest is a bonus.

"Immoral," I'll grant, as throwing money at A-stan for development is obvious wastage.  Every cent spent after we stomp a hole in AQ/Taliban/generic jihadi *expletive deleted*ss is a wasted taxpayer cent.

You'll have to help me on the "illegal," though.  AFAIK, the US Congress passed a war resolution paper giving the POTUS authority to make war against any and all enemies in the area.  Congress can vote to rescind it whenever it finds the stones to do so.  But, until then, it has been authorized and has been funded.

[Jamisjockey]

It's no longer a war, but a long term occupation.  It may not be illegal in the technical sense according to congress.

[roo_ster]

It's no longer a war, but a long term occupation.  It may not be illegal in the technical sense according to congress.

Well, if it is in accord with COTUS and Congress passed a law authorizing it & continues to fund it, then it is no more illegal than the Post Office or the office of the VPOTUS.

That is not "technical."  That is pretty much the whole ball of wax in the legal realm.

I agree we have no good rationale trying to teach a pig to sing nation-build A-stan.  I just am tired of ignorant or dishonest or disgruntled folk trying to retroactively criminalize policy that was/is completely in accord with the COTUS and the law.  Not only is THAT morally wrong(1), it undermines the claimant's other arguments.






(1) How else is one to rectify retroactively criminal acts?  Arrest, trial, and punishment.  I seem to recall some other provision of the COTUS that may be an impediment...

[De Selby]

The framers of the constitution recognized the laws of war as applying to the united states - they would not have agreed with you that cogressional and presidential approval alone makes a war legal.

These wars expose a serious hole in our constitutional framework - with very little input from the public, a president can essentially commit the country to an expensive and bloody campaign.  Congressional approval is a failed check on executive power.  

I'd like to see a constitutional amendment that requires:

1.  Agreement of the states, similar to a constitutional convention, or in the alternative a special referendum to authorize any combat operations over a set time/scope.  The time or scope should be extremely limited.

2.  Continued agreement following each year of a war - by states preferably.  A very high bar should be set against long, dragged out wars, and they should be subject to the continued agreement of the whole nation. We don't need Washington to tell us what's worth the sacrifice.

3.  A prohibition on borrowing to fund a war without specific, time and bldollar limited approval from step one.  Wars should be paid for in advance through either cutting or specifically taxing.

I think those measures would encourage Americans to take the costs of wars seriously, and would effectively bar politicians from engaging in unpopular and costly wars for their own reasons.

[roo_ster]

The framers of the constitution recognized the laws of war as applying to the united states(1) - they would not have agreed with you that cogressional and presidential approval alone makes a war legal.

These wars expose a serious hole in our constitutional framework(2) - with very little input from the public, a president can essentially commit the country to an expensive and bloody campaign.  Congressional approval is a failed check on executive power.  

(2) Oh, bullhockey.  Congress can de-authorize whenever they want.  If POTUS goes on ahead, they can de-fund.  Both are serious checks on executive power.  The Dems even threatened to de-fund at various times, but lost their nerve.  Hard to wage war without money.  Some English fellow figured that out and lost his head over it, in the end.

(1) They generally did not apply the laws to savages or those not recognized as a civilized state.  Proof being the many Founders who participated in war against the Indians.  Neither side had much use for European niceties along the frontier.

[De Selby]

(2) Oh, bullhockey.  Congress can de-authorize whenever they want.  If POTUS goes on ahead, they can de-fund.  Both are serious checks on executive power.  The Dems even threatened to de-fund at various times, but lost their nerve.  Hard to wage war without money.  Some English fellow figured that out and lost his head over it, in the end.

(1) They generally did not apply the laws to savages or those not recognized as a civilized state.  Proof being the many Founders who participated in war against the Indians.  Neither side had much use for European niceties along the frontier.

There was an incredible amount of legal debate about the wars against the Indians - your assertion that the laws of war did not apply could not possibly be more wrong.  The pseudo independent status of the tribes today is the direct descendant of that body of law; it comes from the international law the founders applied to their wars.  The legal wrangling was very much a part of those "niceties" on the frontier.

Congress as an effective representative of the people against executive power is laughable - you are focusing on their constitutional ability, not on the reality which is very different.  Congress has proven itself a failure at checking executive power, particularly when it comes to war. 

Aside from the proven failure of congress to use its power, its powers are indeed limited when it comes to wars.  You should be aware that defunding a war does not stop the president from prosecuting it, for starters.

There is no reason why our constitution should make it easy for the Feds to ignore the people and the states on wars; they ought to be the primary drivers of plans for decades of warfare.

[roo_ster]

Just because the COTUS does not result in the outcome you desire does not mean it is broke.  It ever occur to you that maybe a majority or significant minority of citizens support continuing operations and that Congress is dutifully representing them?

Also, de-funding or not funding is a significant bar.  It is used many times the other way around: Congress passes some popular law to get public support/accolades while not voting to fund it to keep any action from occurring.  Congress can also use other legislation as leverage, blocking something the executive wants.  IOW, there are plenty of means and plenty of power at Congress's disposal. 



WRT to the indians, yes, there was always nattering going on about their disposition back East.  Usually, to no purpose.  Thing is, the Feds were rarely in the driver's seat.  Up to the Civil War, it was state's militias and local ad-hoc military organizations that did the majority of the fighting.  Toss in the large number of settlers who set up shop/farm, steadily pushing the frontier back.  The Feds would come in afterwards to recognize facts on the ground. 

[MechAg94]

I was under the impression that most of the legal status of Indian tribes was due to multiple treaties signed with them over the years. 

[De Selby]

I was under the impression that most of the legal status of Indian tribes was due to multiple treaties signed with them over the years. 

That's right Mech - and those treaties were instruments of international law, something the founders thought was quite important.  Many of them would be properly called "international lawyers" if they were around today doing the same things they were up to back then.

Rooster, the problem isn't the outcome - it's the lack of popular support required for the outcome.  Congress is a failure at representing people (I believe something close to a majority believe it should be disbanded), and it is not effective at checking executive power, even for unpopular measures.  It is even more limited in wars, where the President asserts powers that defy Congress's power to defund or pass laws to regulate executive conduct.

That's why we need a constitutional change to deal with war powers - we need a process that guarantees the Nation's sacrifice only comes with the unambiguous support of the people.

[roo_ster]

That's right Mech - and those treaties were instruments of international law, something the founders thought was quite important.  Many of them would be properly called "international lawyers" if they were around today doing the same things they were up to back then.

Rooster, the problem isn't the outcome - it's the lack of popular support required for the outcome.  Congress is a failure at representing people (I believe something close to a majority believe it should be disbanded), and it is not effective at checking executive power, even for unpopular measures.  It is even more limited in wars, where the President asserts powers that defy Congress's power to defund or pass laws to regulate executive conduct.

That's why we need a constitutional change to deal with war powers - we need a process that guarantees the Nation's sacrifice only comes with the unambiguous support of the people.

The Founders decided against direct democracy for a host of good reasons.  Outcomes that are at odds with an instantaneous snapshot of opinion polls are not necessarily at odds with either the COTUS or the intentions of the Founders.  Especially if those actions were popular in the not too distant past.  Attenuating fickle popular opinion is a feature of the COTUS, not a bug.

Congress can check executive power if it so desires.  The fact it is not checking executive powers indicates Congress does not want to.  Congress has curtailed executive power in the past and even brought wars to an abrupt halt, despite treaty obligations.  At the end of the day, Congress (in the House) has the power of the purse.  It can stop any gov't activity it has a mind to, because any action requires money to make happen.

I suspect you just want it more difficult for America to seek its interests on the global stage.