Question about war.

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



Colossus-Big C
how do you start war? is there an official way? are there illegal ways?

can you just send troops to another country to kill random people to start war? or bomb a random city?

can a police offiicer kill invading troops from other countries?

Omega Vision
there's a site where you can look this up. It's called Wikipedia.

Mindset
I believe this will answer all of your questions.

r-bA9FYB8HY

kgkg
^lol

rudester
CBC slap yourself across the face for being so stupid....

Symmetric Chaos
Starting a war happens before there is actually a war. If you start fighting and it later gets official recognized as a war then you started a war.

Lord Lucien
Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
how do you start war? is there an official way? are there illegal ways?

can you just send troops to another country to kill random people to start war? or bomb a random city?

can a police offiicer kill invading troops from other countries? War isn't some idea that exists only on the national level. It can exist between gangs on the street, or rival families. You don't need a declaration.

Mairuzu
War has been started by the USA illegaly since after WWII

Lord Lucien
And somehow every war before WWII was perfectly legit...

Mairuzu
Americas part in it was declared by congress and the people so yes, that part of it is legit. The entire war itself is another story.


But America was only able to be in those wars because of the federal reserve and the ability to print money out of thin air to support it.

Lord Lucien
And the Spanish-American War? That was legal? Or the Mexican-American War? Expansion and colonialism are legit so long as it didn't happen recently?

Mairuzu
As long as it was declared by the people and by congress its legit, obviously. According to that country.


For me personally? **** war

Lord Lucien
Well, as far as I know, Vietnam, the Gulf War, and both the Afghan and Iraqi invasions and occupations were all authorized by the U.S. Congress., which makes them legal. So... illegal=unpopular now?

Mairuzu
Lol, no, they were not. Hasn't been a formal declaration since ww2

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Well, as far as I know, Vietnam, the Gulf War, and both the Afghan and Iraqi invasions and occupations were all authorized by the U.S. Congress., which makes them legal. So... illegal=unpopular now?

You are correct.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Mairuzu
Lol, no, they were not. Hasn't been a formal declaration since ww2

There is no such thing as a formal declaration of war. What you are talking about is just a speech.

Mairuzu
Should be up to citizens to vote on it.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Mairuzu
Should be up to citizens to vote on it.

Not in this country. We are a republic, not a democracy.

Mairuzu
Doesn't have to be black and white.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Mairuzu
Doesn't have to be black and white.

This is not a choice.

Mairuzu
Why not

Lord Lucien
Originally posted by Mairuzu
Lol, no, they were not. Hasn't been a formal declaration since ww2 So aside from the Constitution demanding a formal declaration, what does a formal declaration do that a mere Congressional approval does not?

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Mairuzu
Why not

What are you talking about?

Mairuzu
I'm asking why its not a choice

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Lord Lucien
So aside from the Constitution demanding a formal declaration, what does a formal declaration do that a mere Congressional approval does not?

And how is a Congressional approval not a declaration? They are just political dressing.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Mairuzu
I'm asking why its not a choice

You are not making any sense to me. Do you know the difference between a republic and a democracy?

Lord Lucien
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
And how is a Congressional approval not a declaration? They are just political dressing. That's what I feel. The wording of the Constitution requires it, but aside from that, what is the real difference?


I just found this article by George Friedman on the subject, it's pretty good:
What Happened To The American Declaration Of War?

"From my simple reading, the Constitution is fairly clear on the subject: Congress is given the power to declare war. At that moment, the president as commander in chief is free to prosecute the war as he thinks best. But constitutional law and the language of the Constitution seem to have diverged. It is a complex field of study, obviously."

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Lord Lucien
That's what I feel. The wording of the Constitution requires it, but aside from that, what is the real difference?


I just found this article by George Friedman on the subject, it's pretty good:
What Happened To The American Declaration Of War?

"From my simple reading, the Constitution is fairly clear on the subject: Congress is given the power to declare war. At that moment, the president as commander in chief is free to prosecute the war as he thinks best. But constitutional law and the language of the Constitution seem to have diverged. It is a complex field of study, obviously."

We don't do a lot of things in the Constitution.

Mairuzu
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You are not making any sense to me. Do you know the difference between a republic and a democracy?

So you're saying when it comes to war the people should have no say because we're in a republic? And if we do have a say then we are instantly a democracy?

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Mairuzu
So you're saying when it comes to war the people should have no say because we're in a republic? And if we do have a say then we are instantly a democracy?

No. We elect people to vote for us. That is a republic. When was the last time you voted for a federal law?

Mairuzu
What about Libya? No declaration there but constant bombs. Electing obama to disobey the constitution. This is no republic.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Mairuzu
What about Lybia? No declaration there but constant bombs

Ok, you do have a point there. I think that was a war crime. I do believe that president Obama should be brought up on charges.

Mairuzu
Its still the same situation in Iraq and Afghan if you ask me. Somewhat.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Mairuzu
Its still the same situation in Iraq and Afghan if you ask me. Somewhat.

Look it up. The congress voted and gave permission to the president.

Mairuzu
**** congress though. I'm still saying its illegal.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Mairuzu
**** congress though. I'm still saying its illegal.

Under who's authority? Your own?

Mairuzu
Mine and many others

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Mairuzu
Mine and many others

Then vote for someone to make it a law. Remember you cannot make binding laws about the past. You can say it was wrong, but you cannot convict people who did legal things in the past for law that you pass now.

Lord Lucien
Originally posted by Mairuzu
Mine and many others So you call yourself law and decide what's legal or not? How very hypocritical.



A relevant essay on your discussion of Democracy vs. Republic.

Mairuzu
lol oh man


edit: Sorry I give you guys too much credit.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Lord Lucien
So you call yourself law and decide what's legal or not? How very hypocritical.



A relevant essay on your discussion of Democracy vs. Republic.

Ya, none of us would want to live in a true democracy. Good article!

Lord Lucien
Originally posted by Mairuzu
lol oh man


edit: Sorry I give you guys too much credit. I'd say 'ditto', but... it was never 'ditto'.

Mairuzu
Hah. Okay stoned

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Mairuzu
lol oh man


edit: Sorry I give you guys too much credit.

All you have given is your personal opinion, and that is fine with me. On the other hand, I've given you what I've learned. You can go look it up and prove me wrong.

Prove me wrong them...

Mairuzu
Lol nah, I meant when I was saying it was under my authority stick out tongue I was being facetious. I was just saying **** most of congress.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Mairuzu
Lol nah, I meant when I was saying it was under my authority stick out tongue I was being facetious. I was just saying **** most of congress.

Most? laughing out loud

Mairuzu
Yeah Ron Paul is a congressman too awewhat

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Mairuzu
Yeah Ron Paul is a congressman too awewhat

laughing out loud I figured.

Mairuzu
131

cdtm
Originally posted by Mairuzu
War has been started by the USA illegaly since after WWII

You realize International Law isn't a law in the same sense a government enacts laws over it's citizens, right? The UN isn't a central authority that controls the world, and there's no "international court" to enforce the treaties IL is based on...

In the end, war is war. Legal/illegal doesn't really apply when we're talking about two (or more) nations in a state of conflict.

Omega Vision
There's nothing more inherently moral about declared war compared to undeclared war.

And putting war to a vote wouldn't be a better system than the one we have now for the reason that I'm willing to believe that given just a little more incentive a majority of the country (assuming this isn't already the case) would vote for a war with Iran.

The idea of representative democracy is that by having the people elect (hopefully) exceptional people to positions of power means they'll make better choices than the people as a whole would. Ideally a President and the members of Congress would have a better perspective and more informed understanding of the realities of war and why you can't jump into it whilly nilly. Of course this isn't the case, but what makes you think the common people can do any better?

cdtm
Originally posted by Omega Vision
There's nothing more inherently moral about declared war compared to undeclared war.

And putting war to a vote wouldn't be a better system than the one we have now for the reason that I'm willing to believe that given just a little more incentive a majority of the country (assuming this isn't already the case) would vote for a war with Iran.

The idea of representative democracy is that by having the people elect (hopefully) exceptional people to positions of power means they'll make better choices than the people as a whole would. Ideally a President and the members of Congress would have a better perspective and more informed understanding of the realities of war and why you can't jump into it whilly nilly. Of course this isn't the case, but what makes you think the common people can do any better?

Personally, I think a representative democracy is hopelessly flawed on the basis that the representative will be more concerned with gaining/keeping power than doing what's morally right..

But I'll take that over a true mobocracy. Mob rules can get downright ugly.

Omega Vision
Originally posted by cdtm
Personally, I think a representative democracy is hopelessly flawed on the basis that the representative will be more concerned with gaining/keeping power than doing what's morally right..

But I'll take that over a true mobocracy. Mob rules can get downright ugly.
I don't think there's a single type of government that isn't hopelessly flawed given the right circumstances (i.e. practiced by humans).

Tbh I've always liked the idea of an enlightened monarchy. Preferably of a non-hereditary variety and without any divine mandate bullmess. So basically a President who can't be blocked by assholes giving long speeches when there's a crisis at hand.

Oh what's that Omega? You're saying you'd like to see Obama act more like a King? Maybe, sure, if nothing else it would be more entertaining.

Underthis
Omg, why do you even thing about things like this?

Lord Lucien
Because he has more than a 8 year old's understanding of the world.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Because he has more than a 8 year old's understanding of the world.

Not much more. stick out tongue

Mairuzu
Doesn't obama already act like a king?

Assassinating us citizens abroad. Needed a court order to eavesdrop on him but didn't need a court order to kill him.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Mairuzu
Doesn't obama already act like a king?

Assassinating us citizens abroad. Needed a court order to eavesdrop on him but didn't need a court order to kill him.

That is another war crime that is troubling. I mean no one liked the mastered, and he was a killer, but we are innocent until proven guilty.

Lord Lucien
Originally posted by Mairuzu
Doesn't obama already act like a king?

Assassinating us citizens abroad. Needed a court order to eavesdrop on him but didn't need a court order to kill him. And asking for the indefinite detention provision to be added to the NDAA, which he then signed?

Stoic
Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
how do you start war? is there an official way? are there illegal ways?

can you just send troops to another country to kill random people to start war? or bomb a random city?

can a police offiicer kill invading troops from other countries?

Back in the good old days, all you had to do to start a war was slap the neighboring kingdoms Queen on her titties, and war erupted. These days you have to be more inventive, like stopping the exportation of crude oil to foreign countries, and then rig up some sh1t like hiring a couple of jack@$$es to fly a plane into a building, which can then make people believe that the only reason that you're going on the defensive is to avenge the dead. It's a good thing that old peanut head had advisers, or legitimate tax payers may have had to pick up the slack of Mr. Bush's plans on shooting rockets into tents.

Nah it wasn't an inside job... was it?


Oh yeah I forgot. In the Hood all you have to do is walk up the wrong street wearing blue, or red, and war erupts.

Lord Lucien
So you're saying we can cull their numbers with a properly timed fabric?

Stoic
Originally posted by Lord Lucien
So you're saying we can cull their numbers with a properly timed fabric?

Hey man it could be pretty bad, I had no idea about how bad things were in the hood, because I lived in Montreal QC, Canada for most of my life, and I like the Chicago Cubs. So one day I got a gig working in NYC which payed quite a bit, so I moved down to Jersey to stay with my Grandma until I could get my own place. One day I put on my Chicago Cubs jersey, which is a shirt with a big C on it, and went to the store to pick up some things for my Grandma, when out of nowhere I was being followed by a group of hoodlums dressed in red yelling at me, and saying "We don't want no crab n1gg@'s around here" <-- (real talk). I had no idea what they were talking about, and then they caught up to me, and I asked them what they were talking about. At first they didn't believe me, and I could have been another statistic, but then for some reason they just told me what my shirt represented to them, and that I should not wear it around there. The shirt is in my closet, and still in mint condition.

When I got back to my Grandmom's, I couldn't help but wonder how far out of the cavemen days we had progressed. I mean colors? C'mon.

Lord Lucien
I'm having flashbacks to a more risque PBS cartoon message-of-the-day...

Stoic
Originally posted by Lord Lucien
I'm having flashbacks to a more risque PBS cartoon message-of-the-day...

What was it about? People who freely subject themselves to brutal ass beatings in order to fit in?

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.