Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Jonathan Kirwan on 16 Jan 2007 13:45 continuation of reposting in parts again..... 112 lines.... On Tue, 16 Jan 07 13:47:53 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >In article <pukkq2185vepsnbtv534gipv6m2k14eipg(a)4ax.com>, > Jonathan Kirwan <jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> wrote: >> >> <more snippage for bah's reader...> >> >>But I can say this, in conclusion. I am fairly sure from my readings >>of letters and diaries and other materials that a Constitution that >>granted the powers we see today in the Presidency, even if they were >>able to fast-forward ahead and "see" our situation today, would never >>have passed. > >But they were not dealing with a threat to civilization. But (1) I'm not even sure you and I agree what a civilization is; (2) in no way have you convinced me there is any threat to a civilization; (3) I think you are too easily driven to extreme thinking and to then accept all manner of remedies because of that. Let me put this another way. There is no threat to our civilization, except the one we ourselves present. If there will be a failure of it, it will be from within, not without. There are, however, grievances and methods people seek to remedy them. Anyway, I haven't read a single thing here from you that justifies your extreme belief that an entire way of life, an entire advanced state of intellectual, cultural, and material development in human society can be destroyed or is at serious threat of it by some enemy. That you even imagine the possibility that some folks with grievances against some of us in the US could even hint at such a possibility means to me that you do not have a grip on reality, at all. I mean that seriously. This is not rational. Yes. Some of us may be killed. That's life. Our history has been all too filled with violence. What we should be working towards, is finding ways to moderate, not exaggerate, our tensions. To react less than equal to, rather than ratcheting up and responding with twice. A powerful group should take it on the chin, so to speak. And find ways to reduce tensions even while painfully injured. To turn the other cheek, as a certain great philospher once said. When we choose to respond to a punch in the face, with breaking their arm; when they respond with killing a child; when we respond with destroying a village; when they respond with .... Well, you get the idea. This does NOT lead to peace, but to unending violence and perhaps genocide in the end. We must learn to respond in moderation, with a little bit less than we received in turn. This does not bare our necks, but it does allow the tensions to abate rather than to inflame them. We will NEVER learn how to avoid war, if we cannot learn this very basic lesson in life. That tensions are reduced by moderation in response, not by accelerations of them. Unless, of course, you are ready to exterminate an entire group of people. Then, of course, peace is possible -- the peace of the dead. But if that isn't what you embrace, if genocide is not acceptable, then we must find ways to reduce tensions, not enhance them. >Western >civilization was in its middle ages and (I think) the Ottoman >civilization was already waning. At that time 1700s, most of European >thinking (which includes American thinking) wasn't concerned >all that much about an Eastern threat; it was waning. The >conflicts going on was which countries controlled the trade sea >lanes and sources of exotics (I think exotics would also include >metals). I wonder if, perhaps, you are equating Christianity with Western Civilization and Islam with "not western civilization." Despite the fact that Islamic countries were an intrinsic part of western civilization and its development. They preserved important texts and developed algebra to new heights while more northern European areas foundered in dark ages. In other words, what exactly defines 'western civilization' to you? Provide a good definition. I'll tell you mine, though. Western civilization for me includes the Ubaid cultures, agriculture developed in Egypt and the Balkans, the Uruk period and perhaps the end of the stone age, Mesopotamia, Egyptians and the bronze age, their great pyramids and royal tombs, the Akkadians, Sargon, the Ur dynasty, the middle kingdoms of Egypt, the Minoans, Hammurabi, the Assyrians, The Persian empire, and so on. I gather you seem to somehow today exclude many of those peoples living in those areas from 'western civilization.' On what exact principle do you do this? My guess is on a religious basis, alone. I think it boils down to that, in your mind. But I may be wrong, so I'd like to hear from you about it. But I'm sensing some serious religious issues coming to the fore. >Note that my red flag is waving and I may be getting my centuries >mixed up again. I have a history of the nutmeg biz that will >"correct" this when I read it. I can recommend some really good books. >> They also had their own direct experiences that would >>also have been taken into account and as I pointed out earlier, they >>almost didn't give the Presidency any powers at all. I have no right >>to speak for the dead, of course, but that's my take on it. > >Fine. I'm stepping back one more step and trying to examine >their basis of assumptions. Or is this reexamining a sin? I don't believe in sin. But I do believe in good morals. Jon
From: T Wake on 16 Jan 2007 13:48 "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:45AD055D.DE60C4B8(a)hotmail.com... > > > T Wake wrote: > >> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >> >> > Why do you people keep forgetting Syria? None seem to think >> > about Egypt. >> >> No one forgets Syria and people do think of about Egypt. As I pointed out >> to >> you in a previous post both those nations are important. > > < snip > > > >> Now on to some important questions which fall out of your post. Why do >> you >> keep forgetting about Tunisia? None seem to think of Morocco. > > Or Turkey even ? Yet another Muslim nation in the region. The list could go on for some time :-) Not to mention Turkey is sort of at war with Greece (but then, Turkey is a US ally so maybe it is Greece who is wrong - damn those orthodox Christians and their funny dates for Christmas)
From: Jonathan Kirwan on 16 Jan 2007 13:53 On Tue, 16 Jan 07 10:22:29 GMT, lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >In article <23onq25chhnknmfuva80otkuh6v6fj86lo(a)4ax.com>, > Jonathan Kirwan <jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> wrote: >>On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 13:57:03 -0000, "T Wake" >><usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> >>>"Jonathan Kirwan" <jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> wrote in message >>>news:o57hq2hgacs104ki37lf6fd2d8lgjjulru(a)4ax.com... >>>> On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 22:37:27 -0000, "T Wake" >>>> <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>>"Jonathan Kirwan" <jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> wrote in message >>>>>news:l6hfq2hq3pl65gn8pceon4g8l0fbhvc9r3(a)4ax.com... >>>>>> On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 12:17:34 -0000, "T Wake" >>>>>> <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>"MassiveProng" <MassiveProng(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in >>>>>>>message news:qe6eq25v7vr2l8gqjagd38781phaa5v4kq(a)4ax.com... >>>>>>>> On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 00:15:18 +0000, Eeyore >>>>>>>> <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> Gave us: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>The simple answer is that the terrorists are criminals and what's >>>>>>>>>required >>>>>>>>>is >>>>>>>>>international *police* action to stop it. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> There is. It's called the Worldwide Struggle Against Terrorism, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> AND IT IS A WAR. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>No it isn't. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>You do not declare war on things like terrorism any more than you >>>>>>>declare >>>>>>>war on poverty or childhood obesity. It sounds good, it makes a nice >>>>>>>rallying call and fits soundbites. But it is not a declaration of war. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Unless of course I missed the bit where the declaration was made >>>>>>>official >>>>>>>by >>>>>>>a duly recognised authority. >>>>>> >>>>>> It's rhetoric from the administration with no other purpose at all >>>>>> than to give it an excuse it can use to justify anything and >>>>>> everything it does without having to make a rational argument to >>>>>> anyone about it. The really sad thing is that the rhetoric actually >>>>>> seems to gell with far too many here in the US. >>>>> >>>>>Aren't there certain conditions which have to be met before a "war" can be >>>>>declared by the US? >>>> >>>> You know? I had thought so in my earlier years. Honestly believed in >>>> the idea I was taught, that Congress declares wars. Of course, >>>> reality has a way of making one more circumspect about this issue. >>>> >>>> I already wrote some material about the debate about war powers for >>>> the president, so folks can refer to that other post for more details >>>> about those powers as planned for by the federal convention. However, >>>> they also never expected to see (and did what they could to prevent >>>> it) the idea of a standing army in the US. They were downright >>>> frightened of the idea and pretty much did everything they could to >>>> prevent any possibility of it. Several Federalist Papers are mostly >>>> dedicated to this problem and it was debated in various legislatures >>>> convened to approve or reject the Constitution. >>>> >>>> I think they honestly believed they had taken all necessary steps to >>>> prevent the possibility of a standing federal army and didn't believe >>>> it would happen. With that assumption in mind, the question of a >>>> president as commander-in-chief was reduced to only one of being the >>>> executive officer over an army formed for specific purposes by the >>>> Congress. And for that, most agreed that the president should be in >>>> command. But this was a case where the Congress had to first act in >>>> order to create an army (which takes money to do.) When the army >>>> exists all the time and is funded all the time, the question >>>> re-arises. And if they had had to face it, I'm sure they would NOT >>>> have permitted him such power. >>>> >>>> They simply didn't believe there was any real risk of a President >>>> running amok with a military presence in the US or elsewhere without >>>> Congressional approval and funding, since that would be needed in >>>> order to create the military that the President would then command. >>>> Since there was no standing army to worry about, a President couldn't >>>> go around fielding a military presence elsewhere without the time and >>>> Congressional funding approvals required. >>>> >>>> They felt sufficiently comfortable with a President being commander in >>>> chief during times of war __enabled__ by Congress. They felt that >>>> they had eliminated any risks of a President as commander in chief at >>>> other times, by removing the possibility of a standing, well-trained >>>> army which, to create, would require Congress to act. But on this >>>> last point, it turns out they were dead wrong. They hadn't removed >>>> the possibility of a standing army and they didn't face the question >>>> of a Presidency in control over a perpetual military force. >>> >>>Thank you for the interesting post. >>> >>>I am still unsure though, in the US can anyone declare "war?" >> >>Anyone can use the word. There are no 'language police' like France >>may have. >> >>>Does there have to be a formal declaration of war? >> >>The Presidential office was given the right to command the army and >>the navy, when they are created for a time by Congress. His title is >>'commander-in-chief' and, so far as I'm aware of the history (and by >>no means am I an expert on it) this means the ability to direct the >>day to day operations -- like a General in command. The power was not >>constrained. He can literally command them into the streets of a city >>here and direct them to hold a town square, if he wanted to. Whether >>or not the military, so ordered, would obey the command is another >>question because there is a requirement that they only obey orders >>that are Constitutional. But which of them would set themselves up as >>a Constitutional scholar and disobey? So I think the effect of all >>this is that the President has absolute control over the military, >>consistent with the military commanders' own understanding of what is >>Constitutional. The check against this is largely "the purse," which >>is controlled by the House of Representatives. They can pull the >>official funding. >> >>However, even that seems to be specious. Under Carter, a presidential >>executive order forbade any US citizen or official or business from >>being involved in supplying arms into Central America. This order was >>recinded under Reagan, an administration that wanted to supply arms to >>the Contras (and others.) The Congress reacted to this by passing a >>series of Amendments to bills, which came to be known as the Boland >>Amendments, that put Carter's executive order into law. In effect, >>the President's budget for this kind of thing was limited to 24 >>million dollars a year -- which his administration (most expecially, >>George Bush the VP and some of his cohorts) felt was completely >>useless for their intents. This led them to find other ways. (1) >>They added a piece to a 1982 banking bill that for the first time >>extended federal guarantees to each account, rather than to each >>citizen. This allowed them to go to the banks, convince them they >>would be insured by the feds when the accounts went sour, and ordered >>them to make offshore loans as they indicated which would be used to >>buy arms and pay necessary graft. (2) They started a process of >>bringing in cocaine into the US, having agents contact known importers >>of marijuana and giving them a non-choice (forcing) of either being >>killed or else having their operation otherwise shut down or else >>helping them break up the cocaine and sell it for money they needed. >>This led to the change here in the US from where marijuana imports >>were a serious problem to where cocaine rapidly became the 'new drug' >>here. (3) They over-priced arms sales to Iran (and probably others), >>transfered the the book-price to the US and kept the rest of the >>profits for use in buying arms to ship into Central America. >> >>So even when the House acts to remove (or almost remove) funding, that >>doesn't mean that a motivated executive won't find some other means. >>Some of the people who were personally involved in that debacle, are >>back in important appointed positions in this administration, by the >>way. >> >>>Is it a presidential prerogative or one retained by congress? >> >>The House (1/2 of the Congress) sets funding levels. The executive >>branch uses that funding. Even if the House set a low funding level >>in order to just fund certain operations explicitly in the law, the >>executive branch could ignore the restrictions and use the money for >>purposes specifically barred in the legislation. He remains the day >>to day operational manager of the funds he is given. >> >>>Can war be declared on things like obesity, heart disease, poverty etc? >> >>It can. But that wuold be an abuse of the word. >> >>We have a war on the middle class going on here, too. But again that >>is an abuse of the word, I think. >> >>Jon >My understanding is that the original intent was Congress had to first >declare war, and then the president can command the military. Yes. I think I recently documented this detail here. At the end of it, I wrote, "On Aug. 27th, 1787 all agreed that the president should be the commander-in-chief of the army and the navy; but at Sherman's insistance that same day, they also agreed that he was only to command these militia when it should be called into the actual service of the United States by the Congress." >Obviously the >president could use the military without this to repel an invasion or put down >a rebellion, of course. But not to fight another country overseas. Well, that split hair I'm not as sure about. (My knowledge is spotty on that point.) Jon
From: T Wake on 16 Jan 2007 13:56 "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message news:a4fbd$45ad19d6$49ecff1$28333(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >T Wake wrote: > >> "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message >> news:8ee2$45ad1434$49ecff1$28200(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >> >>>T Wake wrote: >>> >>> >>>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>>>news:eoilbd$8qk_003(a)s961.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>>> >>>> >>>>>In article <C6OdnargkYJ9FTbYnZ2dnUVZ8smonZ2d(a)pipex.net>, >>>>> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>>>>>news:eodgi5$8qk_005(a)s849.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>>> >>>><snip> >>>> >>>>>>>I'm starting to think whether the Constitution has assumed that >>>>>>>the only kinds of war can be the European-style in which the >>>>>>>conflict is clearly nation against nation. I'm wondering if >>>>>>>any Constitutional scholars have thought about a war that can't >>>>>>>be nation against nation. >>>>>> >>>>>>Do you mean like the war of American Independence? The American Civil >>>>>>War >>>>>>etc? >>>>> >>>>>No. >>>> >>>> >>>>Yet they were both wars which were not "nation against nation" in the >>>>sense you rail against. >>>> >>>>Your dismissal of the US Constitution on the above grounds is baseless. >>> >>>If it is not a "war" then it is a "police action" and doesn't have >>>any constitutional constraints. >> >> >> What does this have to do with the above? > > You surprise me with this question. Please read the sequence again. I am still lost. I read it as BAH asking if any Constitutional Scholars have thought about a war that can't be nation against nation and I mentioned the US has gone through the "war" of Independence and the Civil "war" - suggesting (maybe obliquely) that this implies they will have. BAH says "no" in a manner which I read as saying the two examples I gave were not wars which were not nation against nation or not relevant to her claims that the constitution was not suited to wars which were not nation against nation. As a result I replied that BAH's claims were in fact baseless. Then you come in with "If it is not a "war" then it is a "police action" and doesn't have any constitutional constraints" which I don't see as relevant to this sub-thread. Are you saying the War of Independence was a police action? (It may well have been from the UK point of view.) Are you saying the same about the Civil War? Is all conflict either war or police action? As I said, I am confused where you comment fits in to the current debate? If, as I now suspect you are suggesting that the War on Terror is a police action and as such the constitutional limits on war do not apply, then we agree.
From: T Wake on 16 Jan 2007 13:59
"unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message news:2a080$45ad16b4$49ecff1$28261(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >T Wake wrote: > >> "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message >> news:e3860$45acd0b4$4fe713a$26561(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >> >>>Ken Smith wrote: >>> >>> >>>>In article <1ad2f$45aa7fb7$4fe76e9$22623(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, >>>>unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>Ken Smith wrote: >>>> >>>>[....] >>>> >>>> >>>>>>So what do you expect from this 20K more troops? It isn't enough >>>>>>extra to make a difference so it must be symbolic or political. >>>>>>Please explain how they make anything better. >>>>> >>>>>I've said before, disarm the population, seal the border, and we >>>>>can leave. >>>> >>>> >>>>Good plan, but with 20K more troops, there is no chance of doing so. >>>>With a few 100K perhaps it could be done. >>> >>>20K can easily seal the borders in fairly short order. >> >> >> It is a big border and that would need a lot of mines and surveillance. > > IR from space is pretty easy these days. > I am not sure "easy" is the right word but it certainly would be effective at covering the border. It does carry some additional problems though: Who would pay for it? Who would pay for the downlink monitoring station? Who would control the satellite which did the monitoring? Who would ensure the international obligations of such surveillance were adhered to? Who would fund the response force if waves of children were forced into the mine fields to clear them? |