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 : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ManyMoose who wrote (57057)	4/1/2007 10:49:43 PM
From: Rock_nj	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 90947

I have read the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. In the Constitution it says very clearly that the power to declare war lies with the Congress. That important provision was put in the Constitution by our power-weary founding fathers who knew that a powerful leader could easily abuse his power and take the nation to war for dubious purposes. Since we are in Iraq in an undeclared war that was not declared in accordance with our Constitution (a war authorization is not the same as a declaration), and was started by one person (our President) without constitutional authority, the argument that it is morally justified by the Constitution can not be made. Your reasoning demonstrates exactly the subjective morality that I am referring to concerning matters of war that our country engages in. You state that we are a moral country because we have created the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, yet we are not even following our own Constitution to take our nation into war, so how can the Constitution be referred to as the morally guiding document by which we live by? You are rationalizing a completely irrational act by our government, that being the unconstitutional invasion and occupation of a country (Iraq) that never attacked or directly threatened us. A great example of the dubious morality demonstrated by most Americans in their support of their government's foreign and military policies. One thing "conservatives" (whatever that means anymore) don't get is that a lot more Americans of all types would support military actions by the U.S. government if they were actually done in accordance with the Constitution. But how can we suport a war that was not even declared in accordance with our guiding document, the Constitution? Right from the start there is a big problem with the morality and the legality of the military action, and that's before the morons start comitting crimes while in uniform by raping and killing inncocent civillians, then opposition to the criminality of the war only grows, and why shouldn't it if one is a moral person and believes rape and murder are wrong. Rape and murder are not justified morally because they are done at time of war by soldiers supposedly fighting under the guidance of the Constitution. This is called moral relevance; an action is moral because of who carried it out or in what context it was carried out. Seems as if conservatives are getting confused about what morality actually is, because the last thing it is is a relevant matter.