Again, "I am not saying this situation is remotely like that one."
Joel Send a noteboard - 05/09/2013 10:48:39 PM
View original post
Assad is not invading anybody, he is fighting a civil war in his country. If our government knows something we don't and wants to help overthrow him then they should use the institutions built to do such things such as the CIA and possibly some Special Forces to help train those we want to support. The government can consider arming them through back channels if they feel it is that important. But, the mission of our military is to uphold our constitution and defend our nation (and to help those we have entered treaties with promising support if they are attacked). Syria has not attacked us, they have not attacked our treaty allies and they are not violating out constitution.
You can yap about Republican forms of government versus a pure democracy where the majority rules no matter how slim the majority, but the fact is that every polling shows very clearly how one sided an affair this is. The nation of the United States of America does not support bombing Syria, it is not even close. Period. Regardless of political party or persuasion.
View original post
Now, I am not saying this situation is remotely like that one; Assad is not likely to Pearl Harbor us even if he wants to (though one could argue his dad did via Hezbollah in '83,) and we ARE likely to have plenty of time and warning before he gains that ability. The point is we live in a republic rather than democracy precisely because the majority is not always right (something the German electorate underscored differently shortly before 1940.) Just because the majority do/not want something does not mean the country should/not do it. American majorities have supported slavery, prohibition and more than a few ill-advised military campaigns. That did not make any of them moral or wise, and many things that were both did not suddenly cease to be either when public support vanished.
Now, I am not saying this situation is remotely like that one; Assad is not likely to Pearl Harbor us even if he wants to (though one could argue his dad did via Hezbollah in '83,) and we ARE likely to have plenty of time and warning before he gains that ability. The point is we live in a republic rather than democracy precisely because the majority is not always right (something the German electorate underscored differently shortly before 1940.) Just because the majority do/not want something does not mean the country should/not do it. American majorities have supported slavery, prohibition and more than a few ill-advised military campaigns. That did not make any of them moral or wise, and many things that were both did not suddenly cease to be either when public support vanished.
Assad is not invading anybody, he is fighting a civil war in his country. If our government knows something we don't and wants to help overthrow him then they should use the institutions built to do such things such as the CIA and possibly some Special Forces to help train those we want to support. The government can consider arming them through back channels if they feel it is that important. But, the mission of our military is to uphold our constitution and defend our nation (and to help those we have entered treaties with promising support if they are attacked). Syria has not attacked us, they have not attacked our treaty allies and they are not violating out constitution.
You can yap about Republican forms of government versus a pure democracy where the majority rules no matter how slim the majority, but the fact is that every polling shows very clearly how one sided an affair this is. The nation of the United States of America does not support bombing Syria, it is not even close. Period. Regardless of political party or persuasion.
The issue is not whether this particular policy proposal is right or wrong, wise or unwise, but whether overwhelming electorate opposition is BY ITSELF sufficient reason to reject that or any policy. It is not, and US politicians since Clinton are already far too unwilling to commit to any position without a dozen opinion polls showing overwhelming popular support. Again, the presidents job is not to get out in front of stampedes over a cliff, but divert them to safe ground.
That is about the only thing Bush the Younger got right, and why I spent most of 2004 listening to many people who could not stand him say they were voting for him anyway because "at least he stands for something." Calling a few hundred people while they watch Law & Order after dinner is a HORRIBLE basis for ANY policy decision, much less warfare. To give an idea how much worth such polls have: In 2004 a majority of those polled a month before the election preferred "anybody else" over Bush, and a majority of those polled a week prior preferred "another candidate." Kerry still finished fourth in a two man race because he supported the Iraq war when the majority did and opposed it when they did. Popular opinion is fickle; national policy cannot afford that luxury.
Honorbound and honored to be Bonded to Mahtaliel Sedai
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.
Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!
LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.
Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!
LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
So... a limited strike on Syria ?
- 29/08/2013 04:31:07 PM
1098 Views
Re: So... a limited strike on Syria ?
- 29/08/2013 10:43:15 PM
638 Views
I think you're wrong.
- 30/08/2013 04:44:53 AM
617 Views
I don't really care
- 30/08/2013 10:35:55 AM
618 Views
You can't effectively bomb Chemical and biological weapons stockpiles without using a nuke.
- 30/08/2013 02:01:38 PM
657 Views
Looks like the buck inexplicably stops at Congress
- 31/08/2013 11:23:20 PM
574 Views
Well it sets a good precedent anyway
- 01/09/2013 12:13:05 AM
547 Views
Unsure; I like the War Powers Resolution approach, though I am unsure of its constitutionality.
- 01/09/2013 01:49:15 AM
727 Views
Nice theory, to bad it is crap
- 01/09/2013 06:23:31 PM
551 Views
Again, Rand Paul is loony left now?
- 01/09/2013 10:15:17 PM
764 Views
Again you seem to have read most the words but completely missed the point
- 02/09/2013 06:48:26 PM
698 Views
Rand Paul=/=MSNBC
- 02/09/2013 09:30:50 PM
558 Views
No... not quite. Youre really are quite skilled at missing the point aren't you?
- 02/09/2013 11:20:02 PM
602 Views
Oh, no, I got the point.
- 03/09/2013 01:48:01 AM
603 Views
The only "point" you have is the talking points, and you hit them all, facts be damned. *NM*
- 03/09/2013 02:56:06 AM
241 Views
Considering the WPRs constitutionality and agreeing Obama is being cowardly are not talking points.
- 03/09/2013 03:52:44 AM
703 Views
Re: Considering the WPRs ... talking points. (had to snip it due to length)
- 03/09/2013 05:49:08 PM
633 Views
"The only 'point' you have is the talking points...;" clearly those were not the sole points,
- 03/09/2013 10:08:43 PM
658 Views
Nah, I'm good, I've said what I wanted. I'm sure we'll get the opportunity to disagree again 
- 04/09/2013 05:58:47 AM
693 Views
- 04/09/2013 05:58:47 AM
693 Views
Fox and Joe Lieberman=/=MSNBC either.
- 02/09/2013 10:21:16 PM
702 Views
Again you seem to have read most the words but completely missed the point
- 03/09/2013 01:17:29 AM
523 Views
Paul is saying what he always has: The commander-in-chief needs Congress' permission to command
- 03/09/2013 02:08:34 AM
538 Views
I see what the problem is
- 04/09/2013 01:07:08 PM
558 Views
More like the left hive does not know what the right hive is doing; Republicans are NOT cat herders.
- 04/09/2013 09:57:07 PM
634 Views
Yeah, I don't like any of it.
- 01/09/2013 12:40:35 AM
582 Views
Glad to hear you think he should more like Bush and asked congrees first
- 01/09/2013 06:27:03 PM
519 Views
How about no strike per the American people? Period. Fucking idiots in Washington.
- 01/09/2013 05:01:13 AM
608 Views
Re: How about no strike per the American people? Period. Fucking idiots in Washington.
- 01/09/2013 04:06:13 PM
652 Views
To be fair, that was what the American people said in 1940
- 02/09/2013 05:19:46 AM
562 Views
That comparison is not valid.
- 05/09/2013 09:25:38 PM
584 Views
Again, "I am not saying this situation is remotely like that one."
- 05/09/2013 10:48:39 PM
549 Views