Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neocon who wrote (125122)	2/26/2004 2:52:35 PM
From: GST	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

<We have the choice of helping Israel survive against implacable foes, or allowing a new Holocaust to occur. It is that stark.> George Bush was elected to serve and defend America, not to have America serve and protect Israel. George Bush did not go to Congress and ask for hundreds of billions of dollars and a ten year military commitment to send troops to Iraq to protect Israel. George Bush would not have received any authorization had Congress and the American people known that the White was making unfounded categorical statements about non-existent Iraqi WMD.

To: Neocon who wrote (125122)	2/26/2004 4:39:37 PM
From: Jacob Snyder	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

<...to use military force on his own discretion, as Jefferson did with the Barbary pirates...> Jefferson, and all Presidents up through the second Rooseveldt, made the obvious and common-sense distinction between using America's military forces against pirates, vs. using them against the regular armed forces of a nation-state. It is a matter of scale, among other things. To blur the distinction between the two, is similar to blurring the distinction between soldier and criminal, by using the term "illegal combatant". <...most presidents seek some kind of Congressional approval...> This is a fig leaf, a half-way-house on the road to transferring war-making power from the Legislature to the Executive. The quotes I posted from the Founding Fathers make clear, they intended this power to be exclusively (their words) in the hands of the Legislature. "Some kind of approval" is not what Jefferson had in mind, as is made clear by everything he said on the subject (I can back this up by about 97 more Jefferson quotes, if you dispute it). You should start an organization, to promote an Amendment, changing the Constitution to read: "When the President wants to solve foreign problems by killing people, he shall, most of the time, seek some kind of approval from Congress." <The declaration of war is rarely used, in order to preserve flexibility in the executive.> The Founders expressly and emphatically did not want the Executive to have that flexibility. They knew it would result in unnecessary wars. "...We have already given... one effectual check to the dog of war, by transferring the power of letting him loose from the Executive to the Legislative body" - Jefferson <The rest is too silly to take up......... > The rest is too dissonant from your world-view, for you to respond politely and rationally (no matter how many facts I post to back it up).