Forced Releif in Mayanmar

[Wirraway]

I understand your point and you make a good argument for restraint, and frankly, I’d rather see your position be the law.

however, that’s not the way the constitution has been interpreted and that interpretation** is **the law. its not correct to say that congress abrogated its authority by allowing the president to commit military forces to fight undeclared wars because those acts **define **the president’s constiutional authority. so until congress passes laws like the war powers act, or until the USSC interprets presidential constitutional authority, or until there’s a constitutional amendment passed, the president does have the constititional authority to do exactly what presidents have historically done.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Tell me where I have espoused a Maoist philosophy like I have shown your neocon philosophy. Give the criteria of what a Maoist believes that I have identified with by what I have said like I have shown your neocon ideology.

How is it my neocon ideology?

Maoists:

• Believe the state owns everything
• Subordinate the individual to the state
• Require limited family size, and enforce it with mandatory abortion
• Call people names, like “Capitalist running dog” or “neocon.”
• Attack non-acceptable public figures with untrue or half-true accusations.
• Have no Christian charity in their hearts
• Are driven by a belief they are somehow holier than everyone else
• Are so obsessed that they turn every debate into a one-issue political rant
• Are afraid to post under their real names

So prove you aren’t a Maoist.

 

[Verisimilitude]

How is it my neocon ideology?

Tell me where you depart form the points I noted.

Maoists:

• Believe the state owns everything
• Subordinate the individual to the state
• Require limited family size, and enforce it with mandatory abortion
• Call people names, like “Capitalist running dog” or “neocon.”
• Attack non-acceptable public figures with untrue or half-true accusations.
• Have no Christian charity in their hearts
• Are driven by a belief they are somehow holier than everyone else
• Are so obsessed that they turn every debate into a one-issue political rant
• Are afraid to post under their real names

So prove you aren’t a Maoist.

Another deflection from the topic. Answer my question above and I will answer yours. Start with pre-emptrive war.

 

[Verisimilitude]

I understand your point and you make a good argument for restraint, and frankly, I’d rather see your position be the law.

however, that’s not the way the constitution has been interpreted and that interpretation** is **the law. its not correct to say that congress abrogated its authority by allowing the president to commit military forces to fight undeclared wars because those acts **define **the president’s constiutional authority. so until congress passes laws like the war powers act, or until the USSC interprets presidential constitutional authority, or until there’s a constitutional amendment passed, the president does have the constititional authority to do exactly what presidents have historically done.

That is not exactly true and maybe an exhaustive point by point- war by war- discussion would ferret out the issue more plain but a specific example is the Iraq war now.

First of all the Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq uses the United Nations resolutions as justification to use force. The US should not be going to war for UN resolutions like we did in Korea and Iraq. What will we do when the resolution is against ourselves or our friends (Israel)…as there are currently?

Second the reasons stated as justifications in addition to a violation of UN resolutions were many but topped by the threat of WMDs, the horrible treatment of the Iraqis by Saddam, and the threat Saddam posed to the region, and ties to al Qaida.

Third the US claimed that our national interests were at stake due to the instability of the region.

Despite the facts we know now those objectives have been met long ago. Saddam is gone, the government has been changed, at the time there was no AQ in Iraq, we have satisfied all the UN resolutions and there are no threats from Iraqi WMDs. The President stood under a “Mission Accomplished” sign…yet we stay. The mission keeps changing.

Also the declaration of formal war helps our soldiers because without it the Geneva Convention can be said not to apply since there is no war. John McCain was told as much when he was held prisoner in Viet Nam.

President Bush was against nation building like the US did under Clinton in Bosnia, but now he is for it in Iraq and maybe Iran. The next President might want to nation build in Canada…the idea is to keep it in congress, not the Executive branch. It was always that way despite our many deviations from the law.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Tell me where you depart form the points I noted.

Another deflection from the topic. Answer my question above and I will answer yours. Start with pre-emptrive war.

First of all, I deny your hate-ridden list typifies anyone.

Secondly, I deny there is such a thing as pre-emptive war. The war in Iraq started in 1992, and was in a state of truce when the second round started.

Third, I deny that Syria has any right to rule Lebanon – is that “redrawing the map in the Middle East?”

I do not believe the end justifies the means (but you do, or you would not have made all these nasty accusations.)

I believe welfare has done enormous harm to America, creating a huge underclass with no ability to support itself. The falure of the Public School system greatly accerbates this.

I do not believe in an American “empire” however that may be defined. For example, Puerto Rico should be given its independence.

I do not believe in lying, but apparently you do, or you would not have made all these nasty accusations.

I believe with Jefferson “The government is best which governs least.”

I believe – contrary to your leftist friends – in democracy. As Jefferson said, “The best cure for the evils of democracy is more democracy.”

I believe in the Grotian Principle – which is the definition of the duties of neutrals (of course, you’ve never heard of it.)

I believe in letting each nation seek what is best for itself. And I also believe the world is a dangerous place – but then, I’ve been in combat, haven’t I?

I believe Osama Bin Laden said after the attacks on the two embassies in Africa, he realized he could do anything. And I believe our failure to deal with him in the '90s was a horrible mistake.

I am a strict constructionist – unlike your liberal buddies who believe the Constitution is a “living document.”

Now, what are you?

 

[Verisimilitude]

First of all, I deny your hate-ridden list typifies anyone.

There was no hate in it and they are facts that describe many including you. I don’t just make up things like you did with the Maoist thing. I am quite specific with my words.

Secondly, I deny there is such a thing as pre-emptive war. The war in Iraq started in 1992, and was in a state of truce when the second round started.

Attacking a country on the potential threat and possibility they might have WMDs, or might use them against us despite not having the capability is a pre-emptive war. Iraq was the first real offensive pre-emptive war and Iran is being targeted next. A expert such as yourself should quickly grasp the differecne between offensive and defensive conflict.

Third, I deny that Syria has any right to rule Lebanon – is that “redrawing the map in the Middle East?”

I believe Israel should keep all the land it took in the wars since 1948 and maybe push to take all of the West Bank, but it doesn’t mean I support doing it with my money (higher taxes) as aid packages they must use to buy our weapons (corporate welfare). I don’t support any aid to their Muslim enemies either that we give borrowed tax payer money to. It doesn’t matter however what you and I think; let them fight their own wars or make peace themselves. We (America) should foster our peace by staying neutral and being friends to both if possible.

I do not believe the end justifies the means (but you do, or you would not have made all these nasty accusations.)

The ends you are trying to reach (nation building in Iraq) are what is nasty even if misguided. The means in which they are being carried out is not legitimate.

I believe welfare has done enormous harm to America, creating a huge underclass with no ability to support itself. The falure of the Public School system greatly accerbates this.

Do you support federal funding of public schools in the form of the Department of Education?

I do not believe in an American “empire” however that may be defined. For example, Puerto Rico should be given its independence.

It is defined by over 700 US military bases in over 130 differnent countries. The only differences I see between the ancient Roman empire and ours is they did not rent the land they occupied (charged to the US tax payer) and we are a bit more benevolent than 36 AD Rome when they killed Christ in Jerusalem. Their far flung garrisons largely served the same purpose ours do though; to keep the peace as we see peace just as they did in their time.

I do not believe in lying, but apparently you do, or you would not have made all these nasty accusations.

Twice you used the word “nasty”. Unneccessary war is nasty so it follows the debate might be as well.

I believe with Jefferson “The government is best which governs least.”

Try and understand that better as you read these:
Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none.~Thomas Jefferson
The spirit of this country is totally adverse to a large military force.~Thomas Jefferson
Commerce with all nations, alliance with none, should be our motto.~Thomas Jefferson
I hope our wisdom will grow with our power, and teach us, that the less we use our power the greater it will be.~Thomas Jefferson
The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions, that I wish it to be always kept alive.~Thomas Jefferson
America does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy.~John Quincy Adams

I believe – contrary to your leftist friends – in democracy. As Jefferson said, “The best cure for the evils of democracy is more democracy.”

I believe in liberty not democracy. I can lose my liberty in a democracy but I can’t easily lose my democracy if I have my liberty. My friends are independent thinkers and reflect a true conservitism and are hardly Left-wing. Our founders cherished liberty, not democracy.

A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.~Thomas Jefferson
I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it.~Thomas Jefferson

Arbitrary power is most easily established on the ruins of liberty abused to licentiousness.~George Washington
Those who give up essential liberties for temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.~Benjamin Frank
It is not the fact of liberty but the way in which liberty is exercised that ultimately determines whether liberty itself survives.~Dorothy Thompson
‘Emergencies’ have always been the pretext on which the safeguards of individual liberty have been eroded.~FA Hayek

I believe in the Grotian Principle – which is the definition of the duties of neutrals (of course, you’ve never heard of it.)

Enlighten me oh wise one.

I

believe in letting each nation seek what is best for itself. And I also believe the world is a dangerous place – but then, I’ve been in combat, haven’t I?

Really? Any conditions we put on the billions of aid money we give to places like Pakistan, Egypt, or Arabia?

I believe Osama Bin Laden said after the attacks on the two embassies in Africa, he realized he could do anything. And I believe our failure to deal with him in the '90s was a horrible mistake.

Ever hear of a Letter of Marque?

I am a strict constructionist – unlike your liberal buddies who believe the Constitution is a “living document.”

No, like the Bible I believe it is what it is and wise men do not make it a living document as you scornfully put out.

Now, what are you?

I am an American.

 

[wapsi]

Folks, I hate to play referee but the guideliness of this forum specifically say:

Avoid categorizing people by a term which could be considered derogatory (e.g., Nazi or neocon) unless they have embraced that title. In which case, you may qualify them with the term as long as you preface it with the word “avowed.”

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=132576

 

[Verisimilitude]

Folks, I hate to play referee but the guideliness of this forum specifically say:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=132576

Archie Bunker didn’t think he was a racist bigot but he was and in the 1970’s there were many real people just like him. People who steal do not like to be called a thief, and pedophiles are criminals despite the ‘love’ they think they have a right to express. They are not derogatory terms but descriptions of behavior.

Sometimes people don’t know they are these things because they know no better like the Muslim who has only ever read the Qur’an and believes with all his heart Jesus was never crucified because everyone around him believes exactly as he does.

The difference is when they are told the truth, or even a different version of what they have long held as true; what they do with the new information is a matter of character and integrity.

 

[pnewton]

The difference is when they are told the truth, or even a different version of what they have long held as true; what they do with the new information is a matter of character and integrity.

The truth? Who knows Vern better, you or Vern?

Can you name one advantage to name-calling?

 

[Verisimilitude]

The truth? Who knows Vern better, you or Vern?

Can you name one advantage to name-calling?

Pilate asked that of Jesus; what is truth?

What are you taking offense to? The word neocon or what it stands for? Is conservative and liberal taboo in newspeak as well? Or do you object to the not literal animal-part term as the moderator did? I thought king George was apt in an ironic way if that is the offense.

I am not questioning what Vern believes because I used to believe most of it too. I question why he believes it. It doesn’t reason out in either the people he quotes or the high brow knowledge he claims but doesn’t share in a smug way that strikes me as uncharitable as you think I am maybe. There is no dishonor in his service or personal sacrifice by my position if that is perceived by my views. Brave men are admirable. It is a question of ideology, the sense of right and wrong, and what is good and not so good.

Maybe I assume too much in also thinking with the knowledge of knowing with a glance if we share the same faith and if we do I assume we tend to believe the same thing in a spiritual way that should maybe put into practice socially as well. We both agree US military force should not be used in Myanmar, but differ on Iraq and I do not consider them that different.

The whole thing with Vern started when I stated the obvious about the inability of Iraq to attack America even if everything turned out true that led to pre-emptive war, and because I wasn’t in combat I’m not allowed to express an opinion about a national interest he won’t identify that disagrees with him because I didn’t go to school like he did and maybe because I was enlisted and he was an officer makes my view inferior by virtue of that alone. When he switched his position from rat’s nests of WMDs to UN treaty violations and the potential proliferation of things that don’t exist…I don’t know where it got personal.

 

[pnewton]

Pilate asked that of Jesus; what is truth?

What are you taking offense to?

Pilate? That was quite a jump. The fact that Jesus is truth incarnate does not raise you to His level. I mentioned no offense. You called Vern a neocon. You said such name-calling was okay if it was true. I challenged that you have no knowledge of Vern sufficient to override Vern’s own self-description. Jesus and Pilate were not involved.

While I mentioned no offence, I did ask a question as to the benefit of calling names. I believe you also used one that began with “jack”. No, your comparison to Jesus is lacking.

 

[vern_humphrey]

There was no hate in it and they are facts that describe many including you. I don’t just make up things like you did with the Maoist thing. I am quite specific with my words.

Both hate-filled and childish.

As for your claim to be an American, do you say I am not an American? And just as American as you?

 

[Verisimilitude]

Pilate? That was quite a jump. The fact that Jesus is truth incarnate does not raise you to His level. I mentioned no offense. You called Vern a neocon. You said such name-calling was okay if it was true.

No, I said a neocon is not a pejorative like you and Vern seem to think it. I said they were descriptions of behavior and ideology much like a communist, liberal or racist is a term to describe people. If Vern supports Iraq as a justified war then he believes in pre-emption and offensive war no matter if he couches it as a continuation of the '91 war and treaty violations. America attacked Iraq without justification.

Sad that you think just because I reference Christ I made some claim to be equal to Him.

I challenged that you have no knowledge of Vern sufficient to override Vern’s own self-description. Jesus and Pilate were not involved.

Jesus is God and He is always involved whether you like it or not. Does His example no longer apply to us Catholics at least? Should we no longer shake the dust from our shoes like He commanded or should we ask to bring fire down from heaven to destroy our enemies as the Disciples urged before being rebuked by Jesus? Is turn the other cheek and treat others as you would be treated outdated? Did Jesus ever force Himslef on others to ‘help’ them? I can think of many examples of Christ that tell me to reconsider our actions in Iraq and none that support what we are currently doing. The same is a good reflection on our civil law. Having done so I have changed my mind a number of years ago regarding Iraq. Our actions in Iraq are contrary to such teachings as well as our law.

While I mentioned no offence, I did ask a question as to the benefit of calling names. I believe you also used one that began with “jack”. No, your comparison to Jesus is lacking.

I never claimed complete success in my emulation of Jesus, just that He is my ideal inspiration. I didn’t realize that was a bad thing on a Catholic forum. I had one Catholic a few weeks ago tell me (while arguing about Iraq) he thought Jesus parables and teachings no longer applied to us today. Are you of the same thought?

There is more than one meaning to the word jackass which I noted in the post you responded to though you may have missd it. When someone is acting foolish it is difficult to find a non offensive word to say so. That was the best I could do at the time. Instead of discussing my military experience, my schooling, my piety or lack thereof I simply wanted to discuss the justifications to the war in Iraq and how they differ from reasons for not forcing relief in Myanmar. What I have received so far is a lot of deflection and non-answers.

 

[Verisimilitude]

Both hate-filled and childish.

So you can see into my heart? Childish is stopping the debate with unwarranted charges such as those.

As for your claim to be an American, do you say I am not an American? And just as American as you?

I was tired of writing and should have said more or better. What I am is a human being with the knowledge of Jesus Christ. I try and apply my knowledge of Him in my daily life to include when I want to support things like war and helping others. WWJD is not a bad question to ask, and sometimes things are more simple than they are complex which is why I think Jesus said it is like unto children that belong the Kindom.

 

[vern_humphrey]

No, I said a neocon is not a pejorative like you and Vern seem to think it.

After the nasty list you posted of things you say “Neocons” believe, you have the chutzpah to say that?

Shame!

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Pilate asked that of Jesus; what is truth?

What are you taking offense to? The word neocon or what it stands for? Is conservative and liberal taboo in newspeak as well? Or do you object to the not literal animal-part term as the moderator did? I thought king George was apt in an ironic way if that is the offense.

I am not questioning what Vern believes because I used to believe most of it too. I question why he believes it. It doesn’t reason out in either the people he quotes or the high brow knowledge he claims but doesn’t share in a smug way that strikes me as uncharitable as you think I am maybe. There is no dishonor in his service or personal sacrifice by my position if that is perceived by my views. Brave men are admirable. It is a question of ideology, the sense of right and wrong, and what is good and not so good.

Maybe I assume too much in also thinking with the knowledge of knowing with a glance if we share the same faith and if we do I assume we tend to believe the same thing in a spiritual way that should maybe put into practice socially as well. We both agree US military force should not be used in Myanmar, but differ on Iraq and I do not consider them that different.

The whole thing with Vern started when I stated the obvious about the inability of Iraq to attack America even if everything turned out true that led to pre-emptive war, and because I wasn’t in combat I’m not allowed to express an opinion about a national interest he won’t identify that disagrees with him because I didn’t go to school like he did and maybe because I was enlisted and he was an officer makes my view inferior by virtue of that alone. When he switched his position from rat’s nests of WMDs to UN treaty violations and the potential proliferation of things that don’t exist…I don’t know where it got personal.

It sure comes as news to me that neo-cons decry the term as somehow derogatory. This must be news to Bill Kristol and his Dad who is one of the founders of the movement. They were old liberals from the 1950’s who grew disgusted with Communism and started the movment. I thought the Kristols and others were quite proud of being neo-cons. Perhaps some here are not happy to be lumped with them. They should simply say so if that is the case. That would mean they disagree with Cheney, Rummy, Wolfowitz, Delay and others who are true blue neo-cons and proud of it.

 

[vern_humphrey]

It sure comes as news to me that neo-cons decry the term as somehow derogatory. This must be news to Bill Kristol and his Dad who is one of the founders of the movement. They were old liberals from the 1950’s who grew disgusted with Communism and started the movment. I thought the Kristols and others were quite proud of being neo-cons. Perhaps some here are not happy to be lumped with them. They should simply say so if that is the case. That would mean they disagree with Cheney, Rummy, Wolfowitz, Delay and others who are true blue neo-cons and proud of it.

Whereas you liberals would never disagree with Peter Singer or the Reverend Jerimiah Wright.

 

[pnewton]

Jesus is God and He is always involved whether you like it or not. Does His example no longer apply to us Catholics at least? Should we no longer shake the dust from our shoes like He commanded or should we ask to bring fire down from heaven to destroy our enemies as the Disciples urged before being rebuked by Jesus? .

You are becoming a master of the false metaphor. The shaking of the dust had to do with rejection of the gospel, not one’s politics.

 

[vern_humphrey]

You are becoming a master of the false metaphor. The shaking of the dust had to do with rejection of the gospel, not one’s politics.

Just forget him. When adults make the mistake of debating with children, the results are always less than satisfactory.

 

[cynic]

I do not believe in an American “empire” however that may be defined. For example, Puerto Rico should be given its independence.

…

I believe – contrary to your leftist friends – in democracy. As Jefferson said, “The best cure for the evils of democracy is more democracy.”

And do you also believe in the right of an another nation to elect a strongly left/socialist government as long as elections continue to be held? (eg. Venezuela)