The War on Bush...

[Melanthius]

...Or: Why Cindy Sheehan and crew are shining examples of America's piss-poor educational system.

DISCLAIMER: I am not a Bush supporter, nor am I a republican. Furthermore, I did not (and still do not) support Kerry, nor am I a democrat. In fact, I am not a member of any organized political party, and I do not mean that in the Roy Rodgers sense.

What I do support is the use of factual truths in the effort to eliminate ignorance; sadly, truth and fact has no effect on what I call "willful ignorance". Also, I am an U.S. American, and I do consider myself to be relatively patriotic (Oh shit! he used the "P" word). END DISCLAIMER.

If you watch/listen to/read the entertaining misdirection called "news", or talk to individuals within and without your peer group, the general consensus is that Bush is solely responsible with everthing going wrong in America and much of what is going wrong beyond its borders. This philosophy is raw ignorance. It's equally ignorant to give sole credit for anything and everything positive going on in America and the world at large to a U.S. president. The president (currently Bush) does not have ultimate authority and control over this country, but you already knew that, right?

Bashing Bush today is a lot like teenagers smoking in the '80s: it looks cool, it makes you popular, and it takes absolutely no significant measure of intellect to do. Criticizing our leadership in this country is a very important constitutional right, but much of the popular criticism directed at Bush comes from ignorance about how things REALLY work in this country.

Those charged with bringing us the entertaining misdirection called news seem to be doing nothing to disabuse the general public of their ignorant misconceptions; in fact they appear to be fostering it.

So what the hell is my point? I'm not sure I actually have one, but I suppose I must get to it anyway.

Cindy Sheehan and her flock of sheeple continue to graze the verdant valleys of this country's ignorance, bleating "President Bush, bring our troops home now"! So what is wrong with this? On a legal level, absolutely nothing, and more power to them. On an intellectual level, the only thing wrong is that their ignorance keeps them from bleating in the most appropriate direction(s).

So, Cindy, is The Prez solely responsible for keeping our troops in Iraq?

Short answer: No, Cindy, he is not.

Long answer: I'll spare you all the boring details and legal-sleaze, but in accordance with The War Powers Resolution, a President can send troops into foreign lands without a congressional declaration of war; however, it is the power and responsibility of congress to convene at regular intervals to either approve or disapprove, by a majority vote, of continuing military operations. If congress approves, obviously the troops stay; if they disapprove they have the power and authority to order the President to withdraw the troops.

The Prez has the authority to send the troops out, congress has the authority to bring them back. Checks and balances, people, checks and balances. EDIT (Thanks to Rosh): Of course this is assuming that our elected officials actually do the job we elect them to do: uphold the constitution.

If you are against the war in Iraq, by all means you must point the finger of blame at Bush for sending troops, but do not forget to point several more fingers at your elected representatives for continually voting to keep them there.

Holy shit, I did have a point to make, and I apologize to those poor bastards who actually read all this for my taking so damn long to get there.

 

[Roshambo]

Don't forget to thank all of the Defense Policy Board, who (as a major rule) receive a number of kickbacks from ties to major corporations. Many of which are currently being given choice contracts for Katrina, actual readiness to do anything in that region having little to do with the decision to pick said contractors. Brilliant. The one thing that could get attention away from the spectacular fuckup of the Iraq Invasion, and it is similarly botched.

Also, thank Vice President War Profiteer, and the rest of the cabinet that also stand to profit on this. There is hardly any reason for them to say contrary to the President's decision.

Then you also might want to take a look at the state of Congress is before you assume that it is working as well as it should. It is not. It was also made clear in more than a few sessions that if you're not for the War on Terror, you're against America, or some such bullshit some of the more moronic slogan-politicians like to dredge out. So then how do you also stand up to your constituents if they now view you as such?

Remember that South Park episode, about how America can go to war but also protest it at the same time? That is all they can do in this situation if they want to remain in office. People keep thinking that the politicians want to do everything for the people and to help them; amusing delusion, but trust me when I say that 99% of politicians have their own best interests in mind as a first priority (as much as needed to make people vote and also receive that nice cash influx from a corporation), and the other 1% never see an office. Welcome to Democracy...or rather, a Capitalist Oligarchy.

Also, "checks and balances" mean jack shit when the same political party has it's shaft up three govt. branches at once. I'm sure even a 5th grade social studies student could figure out where "checks" means nothing, and "balances" means even less, in such a situation.

Or has the Meme/Headline of the Week eroded everyone's attention to what has been going on in the govt? Or how, if there was even one conflict of interest trial on a politician, it would be a never-ending hit parade of politicans being investigated and cast down, and where would it end?

But that doesn't happen because of the rest of the corrupt bastards, and how they would be guilty of the same, if not more. The problem with bringing one person to justice for abusing their political position for kickbacks is that the investigating party or those senior to said criminal are even more guilty of the crime than the person in question.

This now concludes your lesson on modern American politics.
So what was that you were saying about "willful ignorance"?

 

[Melanthius]

I am honored you have taken the time to comment on my post, Rosh, but perhaps you misread my...

Hmm.
Wait.
No.

You point out a significant flaw in my original post; I should have added something directly after the checks and balances comment, but failed to do so. My bad.

Of course I am not foolish enough to believe that our government is not corrupt, nor am I foolish enough to believe it truly functions as it should accourding to our constitution. My intent was simply to illustrate the folly in holding only one person responsible for something when there are many other parties involved.

I know it might be an exercise in futility, but when "the system" is so obviously broken that is all the more reason to point out how it "should" work. At least in my mind anyway.

 

[Roshambo]

Then perhaps you might want to look into how one political figure can start something and draw other people into it. Yes, one person CAN be held responsible, if they are the cause and major proponent of the problem. Hideki Tojo, for instance, and his invasion of Pearl Harbor and a number of other war crimes he was eventually found guilty of and subsequently hanged for.

That still doesn't absolve the cohorts and toadies of what they do, but the fact that there is cohorts and toadies does not somehow absolve the responsibility of the political figure that is inspiring and perpetuating it. If you're thinking of holding people in Congress at whole responsible for the problem as well, or even those who did consent to have the troops remain in place, then that will shove a whole new bag of political worms into the meat grinder. Good luck with that one.

To put it simple, he's the leader of this mess, therefore he can enjoy the responsibility for it. It was his brain trust, which he's advocated and lied about repeatedly, so therefore he should be the one held responsible for the war crimes performed on his orders. Just wait for the "I am not a crook!" speech.

 

[Melanthius]

Perhaps you are misreading me just a little, but no matter, you make some very compelling and worthy arguments regardless.

I am not saying that Bush has no blame or equal blame in any matter, only that there are others worthy of taking blame as well, and that should not be ignored.

As for "war crimes", that is traditionally reserved for the losing party, regardless of the instigator. It's not very likely that the U.S. military will "loose" a war any time soon.

I'm not quite as interested in the "I'm not a crook" speech as I am in who he will pardon during his last minutes in office. I'm thinking of starting an "office pool" on this, but there is still a lot of time left for new horses to join the race.

 

[Thorgrimm]

Roshambo Wrote:

Hideki Tojo, for instance, and his invasion of Pearl Harbor

Rosh, you are quite incorrect about that, Tojo was the Prime Minister, and It was the Chief of the Navy, Isoroku Yamamoto who was responsible for the attack on Pearl. In fact Tojo was a supporter of the Japanese Battle Fleet's plan to lure the American Battle Fleet into a gunnery duel around the Phillipines and decide it that way.

It was only after Yamamoto guaranteed Tojo and the Army that they would knock out the American Fleet did Tojo and the army hop onto the bandwagon for the carrier strike against Pearl. So your analogy of one person responsible for Pearl is quite incorrect.

This post presented in the spirit of correct facts.



Thorgrimm

 

[Roshambo]

I'm not quite as interested in the "I'm not a crook" speech as I am in who he will pardon during his last minutes in office. I'm thinking of starting an "office pool" on this, but there is still a lot of time left for new horses to join the race.

Ugh, too true.

Rosh, you are quite incorrect about that, Tojo was the Prime Minister, and It was the Chief of the Navy, Isoroku Yamamoto who was responsible for the attack on Pearl. In fact Tojo was a supporter of the Japanese Battle Fleet's plan to lure the American Battle Fleet into a gunnery duel around the Phillipines and decide it that way.

It was only after Yamamoto guaranteed Tojo and the Army that they would knock out the American Fleet did Tojo and the army hop onto the bandwagon for the carrier strike against Pearl. So your analogy of one person responsible for Pearl is quite incorrect.

In your desperate attempt to prove something, you miss the point that it was one of the counts brought against Hideki and in which he was tried for. He might not have come up with the idea, but seeing as he was, you know, the one who thunked up the whole invasion idea as a leader-type person, he was the one who got the charges put on his head. Plus, since he was Prime Minister, he would have had some inkling and would have had some backing of the Pearl Harbor invasion, bringing up that whole "responsibility" thing again.

The man in charge was still held responsible (even though Hirohito got off easy, depending upon the view of a tenno's involvement with war, though he had to make a change that forever affected Japan life and govt). Funny coincidence, huh? It isn't that one person is completely held accountable, it is the point that one person can be held responsible for starting and perpetuating a crime.

That was precisely my point, thank you for noticing that - no, wait, you didn't even pay attention to the damn point at all. Now for your homework tonight, please look up what crimes he was found guilty for. To continue with the point the other fellow made, yes, others in the ranks were held accountable for their war crimes.

Your argument would be like holding the entire Gulf War, whichever of them, solely on the shoulders of the generals who led and formulated the battle plans. "But technically, it was so and so who came up with the plan, the boss president guy is just the man who told them to do it."

Who the fuck cares? That has nothing to do with my point about Hideki Tojo getting held accountable for the invasion, because essentially, he gave the order for it.

This point is presented in the spirit of educating people on the correct usage of basic context and debunking clueless tangents.

 

[Melanthius]

I was thinking a little more on this statement...

Also, "checks and balances" mean jack shit when the same political party has it's shaft up three govt. branches at once. I'm sure even a 5th grade social studies student could figure out where "checks" means nothing, and "balances" means even less, in such a situation.

...which I do not disagree with, but in the interest of fact checking I thought I do a little, um, fact checking. Tangent? Maybe, but not entirely clueless, so here goes:

Following the September 11th attacks, Bush asked Congress to give him authority to make war on any "person, nation or organization deemed responsible for the attacks". This would be dubbed the "War on Terror", beginning in Afghanistan and ending who knows where. The one and only congressmember to vote against the "War on Terror" was Barbara Lee (D.-Cal.).

Am I to infer from this that there was only one Democrat in congress at the time? Obviously not (and I am not saying this is what you were implying either, Rosh), but it does suggest that Democrats and Republicans were no where nearly as divided on the issue (at that time) as some would have you believe.

In reality, the congress was almost equally divided in 2001; 49 seats for the Republicans, 48 for the Democrats.

In 2002, when congress voted 77-23 in favor of the war in Iraq (H.J. Res.114), seats again were almost equally divided between the two major parties; 50 for Dems, 49 for Reps. It should go without saying that the overwhelming majority of Reps voted in favor of war, and by looking at the numbers, more Dems were in favor of war than not.

This certainly does not indicate to me that "the same political party has it's shaft up three govt. branches at once" when these decisions to wage war were made. Unless of course we were to entertain the thought that there is really only one political party in America pretending to be two parties at odds.

Just as an interesting side note, 2004 Pres. candidate John Kerry voted in favor of both the war in Iraq and the Patriot act, which is also contrary to what some might have you believe.

Again, I am not a supporter of either corrupt party, I just like to call a spade a spade.

This post was presented in the interest of presenting a post.

 

[welsh]

Except, one of Cindy Sheehan's requests has been that W give a real explanation of why we went to war.

The text of the bill you cite- http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=3851&sequence=0

makes little mention of the debates about going to war, but as I recall, most of it had to do with W's argument that it was necessary to utilize coercive force to push Iraq into compliance with Security Council Resolutions and to give up its WMD program.

Yet, there is significant evidence to suggest that the entire WMD was fiction, and reason to believe it was constructed to justify war. So can Congress be blamed if it is later established that the evidence for going to war was false?

Frankly, considering the many ways the justification for the war has turned in the past few years, I am not sure what the offical reason for the war is.

 

[Melanthius]

Good point, Welsh.

I suppose the argument could be made that the majority of congress was completely ignorant of the truth, and based their decisions (on Iraq) solely on what Bush told them; but that's an argument that I, for one, would not believe.

 

[Roshambo]

Total numbers mean jack shit when you go back to my original point that politicians are in it for their own numbers, for their own reasons. Yes, a lawmaker might want to vote a certain way, but that is rather hard to do with house majority, veto control in another who is looking more towards expediting his own agenda and his party's agenda before anyone else's, and judicial regulation that operates more like a three-ring media circus. (Side note: The US govt also violates the constitution every time any piece of money is printed or stamped out.) How the hell can you easily stand against that? A senator can't just go "I'm against the war!" and vote that way. Politicians do not have that luxury.

By the way, in case you didn't catch it the first time around, the Republican party has a decent control over all three branches of govt. Please look up what is known as a "house majority" and what it entails.

So now I will tear down the straw men as well.

1. War on Teror somehow gets mixed into the Iraq Invasion. Good one. I hope you pay better attention to your job, because most people know that the US didn't have jack shit to do with invading Iraq until they started stalling out in Afghanistan. Thank you for your impersonation of a stupid yuppie.

2. Constituents. You can't remain in elected office when you do what will lose votes next term; the officer-holders will then make decisions by what they perceive, or any number of conditions that make up the very FUBAR lawmaking process in the US, such as riders. Constituents also come in the form of that nice campaign contribution from the friendly corporation in your district. Corporations that are also so helpful enough that they take on the reconstruction efforts and preferred contracts for the war.

3. "This certainly does not indicate to me that "the same political party has it's shaft up three govt. branches at once" when these decisions to wage war were made." Nice, mouth-stuffing is it now? That is dangerous ground. You might want to note that the war started BEFORE that condition occured, which now the condition has led to a perpetuation of the war through the usual checks and balances systems being abused for both party and presidential favor. I just bet those of certain committees would like to have a bigger meeting room, right? Just vote this way on this bill, and it will be done.

Shit politics like that happens, even over the smallest of things. It didn't create the problem, but it makes it far easier to perpetuate it.

For the benefit of those who couldn't remember it from my first post on this topic:

Then you also might want to take a look at the state of Congress is before you assume that it is working as well as it should. It is not. It was also made clear in more than a few sessions that if you're not for the War on Terror, you're against America, or some such bullshit some of the more moronic slogan-politicians like to dredge out. So then how do you also stand up to your constituents if they now view you as such?

So, in short, I am glad you have numbers to comfort you and delude you, but until you know how something works, numbers mean jack shit.

 

[Murdoch]

Well last time I peaked my tired eyes at a mainstream media outlet, the reason for the war wa to bring democracy to the Middle East and remove dictators.

Which, ironically, is one of the only reasons I would ever support an invasion. But then again this reason is too obvious, and thus would never be used today.

 

[Thorgrimm]

Roshambo wrote:

In your desperate attempt to prove something, you miss the point that it was one of the counts brought against Hideki and in which he was tried for.

You know bub, your strong arm tactics do not work with me. As it seems you are the one who doesn't know squat about military history.You were incorrect and just too stubborn to admit it.

Tojo did NOT order the 'Invasion', seems you even use that word incorrectly. As that indicates an attempted landing by ground forces. Wrong again.

It does not matter that he was brought up on charges for it. Yamamoto came up with the concept, Genda Planned it, Nagumo was the Ops commander, and Fuchida as the Air commander carried it out. And last but most Importantly, the EMPEROR gave his blessing for it.

Roshambo Wrote:

That was precisely my point, thank you for noticing that - no, wait, you didn't even pay attention to the damn point at all. Now for your homework tonight,

That is kind of funny coming from a person who evidently has no grasp on military tactics and strategy, remember you saying logistics does not mean shit in modern war Rosh? Or are you going to ignore that that silly statement also? Don't preach to me about military history, you are the one who needs the homework. Oh I forgot, you are a know-it-all. As you are so blinded by your foolishness that you can't even separate that I was just saying that Tojo as the Prime minister was NOT responsible for the Pearl ATTACK, not invasion, geez get a dictionary bub.

Here is a li'l hint, try the other side of the globe in the same time frame for an example of one man being responsible for a war.

Roshambo wrote:

Your argument would be like holding the entire Gulf War, whichever of them, solely on the shoulders of the generals who led and formulated the battle plans. "But technically, it was so and so who came up with the plan, the boss president guy is just the man who told them to do it."

Who the fuck cares? That has nothing to do with my point about Hideki Tojo getting held accountable for the invasion, because essentially, he gave the order for it.

Please point out where I stated that the leader should not be held responsible? You can't because I never did. Like a spoiled brat who can't get his way you are putting words into my mouth with Garbage like that.

Fact is, the Japanese Army and Navy had separate command structures. The Army presented their plans to the Chief of the Army who happened to be Tojo. The Navy presented their plans to the Naval ministry. Each of the services rivalry was so intense it took quite a few interventions by the Emperor to get things moving.

I don't give a fuck what Tojo was brought up on charges for, he did not order the Pearl Attack, not invasion, Yamamoto came up with it, presented it to the war cabinet, then the Emperor gave the final approval. Tojo was never even involved in the Ops what so ever. But then again if you knew any REAL history, instead of your warped perception, you would know that.

If you can't debate like an adult, but only as a spoiled child, I will use your own style of posting in response, tit for tat bub.




Thorgrimm

 

[Roshambo]

You know bub, your strong arm tactics do not work with me.

Your straw man arguments are the quickest route to a banning. I came back, and now my patience is very limited. It is amusing how you will try and troll this, considering it was one sentence you twisted out of context.

As it seems you are the one who doesn't know squat about military history.

You're right, I should have gone on about how a distant relative of mine was in fact, guilty for taking out a carrier, in regards as to whom paid the price for making military decisions to invade another country. That was why Hideki was put on trial, moron, he was the entire catalyst for Japan joining the war.

You were incorrect and just too stubborn to admit it.

You were irrelevant, and now you're just feebly trying to validate it.

Tojo did NOT order the 'Invasion', seems you even use that word incorrectly. As that indicates an attempted landing by ground forces. Wrong again.

It does not matter that he was brought up on charges for it. Yamamoto came up with the concept, Genda Planned it, Nagumo was the Ops commander, and Fuchida as the Air commander carried it out. And last but most Importantly, the EMPEROR gave his blessing for it.

The emperor (or to use the correct term because tenno is unlike what most Westerners can fathom - they tend to think of them as kings, how cute), contrary to Bush, was and is now mostly a figurehead and often not to do with warring. That was left to other ministers, like the WAR MINISTERS.

EDIT: I must also note again, that despite how many times it is mentioned in the history books, the fact that Hideki was the effective dictator of Japan paints a clear picture as to whom is ultimately, but not solely, responsible for the decision to attack Pearl Harbor.

That is kind of funny coming from a person who evidently has no grasp on military tactics and strategy, remember you saying logistics does not mean shit in modern war Rosh? Or are you going to ignore that that silly statement also? Don't preach to me about military history, you are the one who needs the homework. Oh I forgot, you are a know-it-all.

Context, McMoron, context. In regards to any force with logistics, you cannot just rely on a single country to be limited by their own ability or inability to provide for their own. Do you think any of the other countries, with their support in Iraq, had the logistics? Hell, even the US is using a major hospital based out of Germany for the occupation of Iraq.

As you are so blinded by your foolishness that you can't even separate that I was just saying that Tojo as the Prime minister was NOT responsible for the Pearl ATTACK, not invasion, geez get a dictionary bub.

So I make a mistake on one word. Go you.

Here is a li'l hint, try the other side of the globe in the same time frame for an example of one man being responsible for a war.

Sorry, kid, but the Nazi party wasn't Pop. 1, Hitler. Nice try.

Please point out where I stated that the leader should not be held responsible? You can't because I never did. Like a spoiled brat who can't get his way you are putting words into my mouth with Garbage like that.

Nice try, again, but you might want to note that you were basically saying that it was someone else who was responsible, not the Prime Minister. Funny, because the Prime Minister had to give his own blessing as well, and he was in support of it, as you have so claimed. In fact, he was the one who decided to ally Japan with the Axis and then later ordered the attack on Hawaii.

But, damn, what do I and the history books know, eh?

Fact is, the Japanese Army and Navy had separate command structures. The Army presented their plans to the Chief of the Army who happened to be Tojo. The Navy presented their plans to the Naval ministry. Each of the services rivalry was so intense it took quite a few interventions by the Emperor to get things moving.

You know, I might believe such, if I didn't know for a fact that Hideki was the Prime Minister two months before the attack. Before then, he was the WAR MINISTER (edit: true, the army branch, but his decision to okay the attack was as Prime Minister). Before that, he was a General. So yes, he was from the army, but right before the war he was put into power through his family ousting the previous, and subsequently he enacted many of his plans.

In other words, Hideki ordered the attack of naval forces at Hawaii, Admiral Yamamoto was the planner. Or, you might want to let quite a few authors of his biography know that they are in the wrong. You also might want to tell them that he also wasn't the one who first urged and then committed Japan to ally with Germany and Italy. He didn't need the "emperor" to do anything since Japan was essentially ruled by the military. This is a fact I had alluded to in my previous post, but it was my assumption that you might be aware what a tenno was, or whom Hirohito was, much less their hazy involvement in the war and a tenno's position in power at that time in Japan.

1919- 1922 Military Attaché to Berlin
1928- 1929 Chief of Mobilization Section, Economic Mobilization Bureau, Ministry of War
1929- 1931 Commanding Officer 1st Regiment
1931- 1933 Chief Organisation & Mobilization Section, General Staff
1933- 1934 Head of General Affairs Bureau, Ministry of War
1934 Commandant of the Military Academy
1934- 1935 Commanding Officer 24th Brigade
1935- 1937 General Officer Commanding Kempeitai Kwantung Army, Manchuria
1936- 1937 General Officer Commanding Inner Mongolia, China
1937- 1938 Chief of Staff Kwantung Army, Manchuria
1938 Vice-Minister of War
1938- 1940 Inspector-General of Army Aviation
1940- 1941 Minister of War
1941- 1944 Prime Minister
1941- 1942 Minister of Interior
1942- 1944 Minister of Foreign Affairs
1943- 1944 Minister of Education
1943- 1944 Minister of Munitions
1944 Chief General Staff
1944- 1945 Privy Councilor
1948 Condemned to death and hanged as war criminal

"Chief of the Army"? Funny, you seemed to just pull that right from your ass, because Seishiro Itagaki was the "Chief of the Army General Staff" (who was also found guilty of war crimes and hanged - maybe that is where your mental "hang-up" took place to confuse the two, they were both hanged!), right about the same time Hideki went from Minister of War to Prime Minister. Hideki was never a Chief of the Army until long after the war had already started, but it was one of many titles he took onto himself at the same time for more prestige. Military power = govt power, then in Japan.

(Snip a load more drivel.)

If you can't debate like an adult, but only as a spoiled child, I will use your own style of posting in response, tit for tat bub.

Tell you what, bub. Have a week. If you care to waste more of my time and derail topics with bullshit, don't even bother coming back.

========

Some more fun info, from his own journal:

In any case, the way the Imperial Rescript was handled was not by any means intended as a means of concealing the attack on Pearl Harbor. On this matter, according to Fleet Admiral Nagano, it was understood that the declaration of war was to be made before the start of the Pearl Harbor attack, before three in the morning, but this is a grave mistake. That is something that the government would not have known about. Three in the morning would mean getting Privy Seal approval in the middle of the night on Sunday, and the government would not have agreed to something so out of keeping with Japanese custom. Fleet Admiral Nagano has probably confused this with the final official note [to the Americans]. It is most unbecoming that the Fleet Admiral should give the world an impression that is not only mistaken but suggests that Japan deliberately delayed the declaration of war.

At the Imperial Conference on December 1, it was decided to make war against England and the United States. How the procedures for the commencement of hostilities were to be carried out was deliberated upon at the Liaison Conference [a joint meeting of civilian and military personnel] where the agenda of the Imperial Conference was discussed. It was decided to proceed according to international treaty and confirm the propriety of those actions while at the same time avoiding a too-early disclosure of our operations. Ambassador Nomura was to deliver a note by hand to the US State Department an hour and a half ahead of time, and the text, as well as the time of domestic notification [within Japan] were to be the responsibilities of the high command and of the foreign ministry. Therefore, I have thought to this day that the notification that Japan was breaking off diplomatic relations and was shifting to the unfettered conduct of its affairs [by declaring war] should have been under the responsibility of the Foreign Minister, communicated without fail. Of course, if there was failure in this matter, I have no argument with the view that, as Prime Minister, the responsibility is mine.

(December 1st, when Hideki was Prime Minister for at least two months after his opposition is forced to resign for failure in negotiations with the US.)

 

[Melanthius]

Thanks again, Rosh, for affording me the opportunity to clarify my position and intent.

War on Teror somehow gets mixed into the Iraq Invasion. Good one.

Although it was not my intent to lump those two "wars" into the same wad, it is easy to see how one would make the mistake of drawing that conclusion: I simply did not clearly state I wasn't lumping them into the same wad.

My intent was to show two examples in the history of this administration where the U.S. has taken military action and was met dissaproval from the more "vocal" constituents, and how the voting record of congress on these type of issuse seems contrary to what many elected officials tell those same constituents.

You might want to note that the war started BEFORE that condition occured, which now the condition has led to a perpetuation of the war through the usual checks and balances systems being abused for both party and presidential favor. I just bet those of certain committees would like to have a bigger meeting room, right? Just vote this way on this bill, and it will be done.

I am unclear which "condition" you are referring to with relation to the war that started BEFORE same "condition". As for the system being abused for party favor, that I can not dispute; I would like to add that by saying the system, by design and without the interference of abuse, favors the party in majority.

So, in short, I am glad you have numbers to comfort you and delude you, but until you know how something works, numbers mean jack shit."

Those numbers were presented not for the comfort nor delusion of myself, yourself, or anyone else. They were simply presented to make a point that it was not Bush and Bush alone who made the decision to go to war in both cases. In this regard the numbers (those numbers being the congressional voting record) do mean more than "jack shit".

Those numbers were also presented to further clarify the intent of my original point which still seems to elude you; it is not Bush and Bush alone who has responsibility of deciding whether or not to keep troops in Iraq, and for how long. This is a fact that many people seem to be unaware of.



It is a "no shit" kind of statement to anyone with half a brain that those in power look after their own interests and not the interests of the people who elected them. I could tred similarlly dangerous and controversial waters by stating that if a man is hungry, and that man has food, he will eat; there are no leaps of logic required to see the truth in both statements.


You make many interesting arguments, Rosh, but none of them have gone close to far enough to dispute my original point, which I will state yet again in case it still eludes you: It is not Bush and Bush alone who is responsible for making the decision to keep troops in Iraq, congress is charged with the responsibility of making that decision as well.

As for this:

So now I will tear down the straw men as well.

Does that also include the Wicker People?

 

[Roshambo]

Thanks again, Rosh, for affording me the opportunity to clarify my position and intent.

As long as you aren't going to call Hideki a "Chief General of Army War" or something like that.

Although it was not my intent to lump those two "wars" into the same wad, it is easy to see how one would make the mistake of drawing that conclusion: I simply did not clearly state I wasn't lumping them into the same wad.

Yet the initial War on Terror was started with good interests, however it has been twisted and continued under even the most vague connections people can put together. It is also a politician's downfall sometimes to be considered someone with cold feet in a time of crisis, and it could have meant political suicide to not follow along then.

The invasion of Iraq, on the other hand, has never been substantiated, in other words, made legitimate. There is and hasn't been a material cause for invading the country yet, much less inflict war crimes upon the populace. Now THAT is what has many, from the Remocrat party or not, irked.

My intent was to show two examples in the history of this administration where the U.S. has taken military action and was met dissaproval from the more "vocal" constituents, and how the voting record of congress on these type of issuse seems contrary to what many elected officials tell those same constituents.

BINGO! They have their own opinion, but how they vote is pretty much dictated to how well they want to play ball, or if they will vote one way on an issue for a "return favor vote" on another issue. It is the same kind of sleaziness that allows riders, those asinine little tack-ons that can either cripple a good law or sneak something by so that it gets approved along with the bill.

I am unclear which "condition" you are referring to with relation to the war that started BEFORE same "condition".

Context would dictate that I was referring to the same political party occupying all branches of govt designed to act as checks and balances. In which case, it happened after the Afghanistan hunt, and then after the Iraq Invasion, but said condition has allowed the war to perpetuate perhaps even more so now with even more positions being filled by Bush.

As for the system being abused for party favor, that I can not dispute; I would like to add that by saying the system, by design and without the interference of abuse, favors the party in majority.

Indeed, it does, but it was never designed for one party to occupy everything. The founding fathers assumed that there would be enough difference in interest for the people to elect one way or another, as times and policy was needed for the country to grow and prosper.

Those numbers were presented not for the comfort nor delusion of myself, yourself, or anyone else. They were simply presented to make a point that it was not Bush and Bush alone who made the decision to go to war in both cases.

Wrong. Bush and his advisors already decided to go to war, congress' approval would have been after the fact and was only a bandwagon patriot love fest at the time. Bush was also the one who decided to take one war and try to twist another into it. It is indeed Congress' ability to force the troops back, but uh...how about that law you want passed? Not going to happen unless you play ball. Presidential Veto means quite a bit in these situations. Plus, a military withdrawal without full support of the govt, especially those directly answering to the White House, would have meant a HUGE problem, and not just in Iraq.

In this, you also misrepresented yourself. The original article was about keeping troops at war, but indeed, it was Bush that did send them. The first war in Afghanistan was valid and merited. The one in Iraq was not, and the President should be held responsible for sending our troops there in the first place even if congress can't decide either way or wants to say one thing and do another.

In this regard the numbers (those numbers being the congressional voting record) do mean more than "jack shit".

Those numbers can be caused by any means, but the more important lesson is how...well, let's just use a good slogan the Nam vets love:

"Why change Dicks in middle of a screw?
Vote Bush/Cheney for Vietnam II!"

Yeah, they got a lot of support from their Congressmen, especially when they were wanting to get something through the Nixon administration.

Those numbers were also presented to further clarify the intent of my original point which still seems to elude you; it is not Bush and Bush alone who has responsibility of deciding whether or not to keep troops in Iraq, and for how long. This is a fact that many people seem to be unaware of.

Sorry, I hate to break it to you, but this kind of disagreement is a little different than civil rights, and politicians still cannot vote how THEY want, and in a time of war, civvy constituents may be brushed off as well. This is about a time of conflict, which traditionally the US has been all for or against as a whole, with a couple of little exceptions. It isn't as easy as deciding for or against abortion rights.

Then what happens when you publicly expose your leader and have to go about removing them from power? Not too good, politically, and thusly the US tends to stick to the same president during war time due to stability. Germany, Italy, and Japan have experienced what goes on when you have to remove a leader from power and what it does to the country (political and economic instability for starters), but there's an even better recent example.

Remember the last time this happened in the US?

So, I will give you that it would take more than one person to return the troops - with Bush in office. Once out of office and without any reason to be over in Iraq, look for a hasty withdrawal and for the bullshit in Iraq to crumble as fast as South Vietnam.

 

[Bradylama]

This thread title should've been saved for an amusing pun.

Also, how does the Head of Government not receive responsibility for a war, when that war was initiated by the party he presides over?

 

[Melanthius]

Yet again, Rosh, I feel compelled to respond in kind.

You seem unable to distinguish the difference between the type of "responsibility" I speak of and the type of "responsibility" you seem to be obsessed with. In my previous posts, when I used the word responsibility, it was in terms of congress' active and continuous decisions to keep troops anywhere.

What I am talking about is the duty with which they are legally compelled to act upon. You seem to think of responsibility in terms only of "blame". In this case, however, it makes no difference as this congress and all others before it since Bush started the war in Iraq enjoy both forms of responsiblity in this matter.

Yes, Bush did start the war (and I've at least alluded to such before), but it is congress which has done its fair share to keep it alive and running at regular intervals.

The invasion of Iraq, on the other hand, has never been substantiated, in other words, made legitimate.

There is and hasn't been a material cause for invading the country yet, much less inflict war crimes upon the populace. Now THAT is what has many, from the Remocrat party or not, irked.

If they are irked, whomever they are, they must realized they should not be irked at Bush alone, but their representatives (congress) as well.

This still does not dispute my original point, nor does it change the fact that it takes more than just the acting president to approve of contiued military action in any given event. Yes, the acting president can send troops into action without prior congressional approval, but congress must, by law, after 60 days disapprove of such action and call the troops home, approve of the action and let the troops continue, or extend the 60 time limit which, in my mind, is tacit approval.

So, I will give you that it would take more than one person to return the troops - with Bush in office.

Partially right, but still very wrong. It does not matter who the acting president is, Bush, Kerry, Howser, or whomever. By law, in the absence of a congressional declaration of war, congress must make the final, authoritative decision on the contiuation of any military operation after the first 60 days, and every 60 days thereafter. It is within their power to overrule the president at each interval and end any operations. Period.

It was my point from the very beginning, regardless of it's shifting party dominance over various elections, that congress has, at regular intervals, decided in favor of the continued occupation of Iraq by U.S. forces. In this matter, and under these conditions, congress has the final word, and that word has been, at regular intervals, "Keep 'em in Iraq". This is a fact that yourself and "Cindy & Co." seem unable to comprehend.

The main crux of your last post seems to hinge on this statement, and others you make similar too it:

Bush and his advisors already decided to go to war, congress' approval would have been after the fact and was only a bandwagon patriot love fest at the time.

Totally irrelevant. Before the fact, after the fact, it makes not a damn bit of difference; approval is still approval. I understand the various and meaningless arguments you make about politicians making decisions based solely on the desire to keep their jobs. What you leave out of these equations of yours is a little something we like to call "free will". No one held a gun to their collective heads and demanded they keep voting for war in Iraq; that was their choice, their decision to make, and they made it.

Perhaps some did make (and have continued to make) "pro-war" decisions which go against the "anti-war" convictions they pretend to have, for the sake of their political carrers, but one must ask this: If it is so simple a matter for one to go against one's convictions for selfish, material reasons, did one ever truly posses such convictions in the first place.

Context would dictate that I was referring to the same political party occupying all branches of govt designed to act as checks and balances. In which case, it happened after the Afghanistan hunt, and then after the Iraq Invasion, but said condition has allowed the war to perpetuate perhaps even more so now with even more positions being filled by Bush.

Wrong. Context does not dictate "jack shit" in this particular instance as I feel you were quite vauge and unclear in your original paragraph that I refered to, which refered to an original paragraph of mine.

Indeed, it does, but it was never designed for one party to occupy everything. The founding fathers assumed that there would be enough difference in interest for the people to elect one way or another, as times and policy was needed for the country to grow and prosper.

Wrong again. The outcome of all elections in this country, and some others, is based on the plurality, "winner-take-all" system where the individual or party who gets the most votes (which is not always the popularly referenced "popular vote") gets to take control and make the rules. All speculation and conjecture about original intent is meaningless; right or wrong, that is the design.

Also, how does the Head of Government not receive responsibility for a war, when that war was initiated by the party he presides over?

If you ask that question of me, Brady, I can only answer that I never said, nor intended to imply, that Bush does not have his share of responibility in this war. If, in fact, that is what you mean, then the question itself is slightly flawed. It was Bush who initiated the war in Iraq, and a congress comprised of both major parties (parties which the president does not, in fact, "preside over") which continues to vote in favor of the war.

 

[Roshambo]

Also, how does the Head of Government not receive responsibility for a war, when that war was initiated by the party he presides over?

Thank you, I've been wondering that for a few posts now. For a moment there, I almost thought the Geneva and Hague Conventions (and protocols) just split off into another reality without warning me.

Yet again, Rosh, I feel compelled to respond in kind.

You seem unable to distinguish the difference between the type of "responsibility" I speak of and the type of "responsibility" you seem to be obsessed with. In my previous posts, when I used the word responsibility, it was in terms of congress' active and continuous decisions to keep troops anywhere.

Much like the Geneva Conventions of warfare, Congress' code of ethics should include responsibility to the constituents.

Let me know when you pass 5th Grade English, so I can teach you the finer points of contextual meanings.

As for talking about whom is responsible for sending and keeping the troops at war, I think I fairly outlined it in my first post, including the reasons why. I also outlined the responsibility that Bush has for the war, of both an integrity and a criminal aspect, if need be. Then, when some invertebrate decided to derail the thread, I discussed Hideki Tojo in a context of what he did and how he was responsible for what he did in WWII.

So which of those three usages of "responsibility" are you foolishly using to gloss over my posts with?

Fallacy Two. Remember, kids, it's at Fallacy Three that I consider it trolling.

Then let me consider your rather erroneous use of responsibility in context with Congress, when you have yourself admitted that Congress is in doubt and perhaps under pressure from the rest of the government.

So what the hell is your point in all of this? Are the Congressmen suddenly responsible for getting our troops back? I suppose people are stupid for holding the president at fault, mainly because he's the damn figurehead of the whole thing, and without his sanction, life is considerably more difficult. This is, again, as you have again admitted yourself, the shorting of the checks and balances system.

Therefore, I have to pose a logic question to you.

How is Congress, any of them, responsible or able to be held responsible when there is a flaw in the checks and balances system?

You seem to forget that the President's ability to send troops is for the safety of the country - less people involved in the chain of command. To keep troops deployed it does take Congress, but Congress tends to have a "stay in major conflicts to back the president" mentality, as proven with the Nixon administration, because without the president's backing, Congress doesn't get shit done (veto) or it takes them longer to get it done (vote over the veto). Then how does Congress get anything done when the checks and bala...well, there you have your answer to this thread.

No, the people are not at fault for holding the president responsible, because due to his office powers and his party influence over Congress, he can effectively put a stranglehold upon anything that doesn't suit his approval.

Don't hate the puppets, hate the asshole.

So, I will give you that it would take more than one person to return the troops - with Bush in office.

Partially right, but still very wrong. It does not matter who the acting president is, Bush, Kerry, Howser, or whomever. By law, in the absence of a congressional declaration of war, congress must make the final, authoritative decision on the contiuation of any military operation after the first 60 days, and every 60 days thereafter. It is within their power to overrule the president at each interval and end any operations. Period.

You are SO naive in the ways of politics. See previous.

It was my point from the very beginning, regardless of it's shifting party dominance over various elections, that congress has, at regular intervals, decided in favor of the continued occupation of Iraq by U.S. forces. In this matter, and under these conditions, congress has the final word, and that word has been, at regular intervals, "Keep 'em in Iraq". This is a fact that yourself and "Cindy & Co." seem unable to comprehend.

Again, see previous. Like I've had to restate for your benefit for...now five times. What the hell is your problem in understanding what drives a war, especially when the seniors remember a certain war in the past, and if you weren't for America all the way, you were a commie? Or at least supporting the current president is right because changing the presidency might mess up military and diplomatic plans (presidency change is already a worrying time for some people, even moreso during war), and they never go to war without a reason. Yes, that kind of mentality does survive in certain circles.

The main crux of your last post seems to hinge on this statement, and others you make similar too it:

Bush and his advisors already decided to go to war, congress' approval would have been after the fact and was only a bandwagon patriot love fest at the time.

Totally irrelevant. Before the fact, after the fact, it makes not a damn bit of difference; approval is still approval.

So you would hold people responsible without knowing or caring about knowing the reason why they really cannot bow to your whims? It sounds like you're the one who, again I must note, is the one being "willfully ignorant". Not those who do understand politics enough to hold the right person responsible. You know, because said leader took a war and maligned it into attacking another country, then keeps it going through political pressure.

I was also referring to the initial point of "War on Terror" in the bit you quoted above. Or do you still have the two mixed up? The decision for Iraq was on the tails of the decision to go to war in Afghanistan, when patriotism was high and it would have been inexcusable to a majority of constituents if a politician suddenly decided to have the troops pull back. Please tell me you have enough imagination to figure out what that looks like to the international political scene. Oh, yeah, I was saving international political interest concepts for later, since it seems you have difficulties understanding where things are breaking down on the domestic scale, yet even senators do care about international politics, yet you want to call people stupid for holding the instigator and CIC of the invasion force responsible.

BRILLIANT!

I understand the various and meaningless arguments you make about politicians making decisions based solely on the desire to keep their jobs. What you leave out of these equations of yours is a little something we like to call "free will". No one held a gun to their collective heads and demanded they keep voting for war in Iraq; that was their choice, their decision to make, and they made it.

Please tell me you didn't just say something that incredibly STUPID.

Politicians don't stay in office, or for that matter, have much of a career left, if they don't appease the people they are representing. Many also can't campaign without the money from corporate interests.

Damn, so far I've had to instruct you not only on how your own govt works, but I have had to educate you upon high school government material.

So, either you're not young enough to vote, or you're getting ready to enlist into the Army. We could only hope.

Perhaps some did make (and have continued to make) "pro-war" decisions which go against the "anti-war" convictions they pretend to have, for the sake of their political carrers, but one must ask this: If it is so simple a matter for one to go against one's convictions for selfish, material reasons, did one ever truly posses such convictions in the first place.

You are asking this about politicians. Holy fuck, how old are you, kid? You can't be out of high school.

Not to mention, there was also something called house majority that occurred midway in the conflict, that I also have mentioned quite a bit about. There's now more Republicans, so therefore at least a number of seats changed asses, so to speak.

Wrong. Context does not dictate "jack shit" in this particular instance as I feel you were quite vauge and unclear in your original paragraph that I refered to, which refered to an original paragraph of mine.

Now you completely suck at English as well, because in written communication, context is EVERYTHING.

So, which "condition" would be the logical one? Maybe the one that is the one I have to constantly explain for your benefit.

Wrong again. The outcome of all elections in this country, and some others, is based on the plurality, "winner-take-all" system where the individual or party who gets the most votes (which is not always the popularly referenced "popular vote") gets to take control and make the rules. All speculation and conjecture about original intent is meaningless; right or wrong, that is the design.

Nice, however you just pulled that from your ass. You just explained a system designed without checks and balances, it sounds more like an elected dictatorship. Nowhere in that stack of shit you call "writing" do you ever touch upon the intent or ability of any one branch of government to restrain any one branch or party from having total control of the government. In fact, you pretty much have the delusion of the opposite. Back when the structure was established, they had a large variety of political parties to choose from, so a two-party system wasn't really thought of.

Just in case you need history explained to you again:

In selecting an appropriate visual symbol of the Senate in its founding period, one might consider an anchor, a fence, or a saucer. Writing to Thomas Jefferson, who had been out of the country during the Constitutional Convention, James Madison explained that the Constitution's framers considered the Senate to be the great "anchor" of the government. To the framers themselves, Madison explained that the Senate would be a "necessary fence" against the "fickleness and passion" that tended to influence the attitudes of the general public and members of the House of Representatives. George Washington is said to have told Jefferson that the framers had created the Senate to "cool" House legislation just as a saucer was used to cool hot tea.

Think about that a bit. Without the anchor...

If you ask that question of me, Brady, I can only answer that I never said, nor intended to imply, that Bush does not have his share of responibility in this war. If, in fact, that is what you mean, then the question itself is slightly flawed. It was Bush who initiated the war in Iraq, and a congress comprised of both major parties (parties which the president does not, in fact, "preside over") which continues to vote in favor of the war.

Amazing that you understand what went on, yet you fail to understand real world politics.

 

[Bradylama]

If, in fact, that is what you mean, then the question itself is slightly flawed.

No, it really isn't. I was being more specific in response to Rosh's question on Hideki Tojo, who as a Prime Minister was the appointed leader of the Japanese political scene. The closest thing we have to a Prime Minister, I believe, is the Senate Majority Leader, but because the President doesn't officially preside over a party government doesn't mean that the parallels don't exist.

Appointees are accountable to their appointers, and the appointers are (in theory) accountable to their constituents. The effectiveness of the appointed is reflected by the appointee. If the appointed screws up, the nboth heads should roll.

Take for instance, torturing terrorists. The military isn't exactly performing the interrogation, it's being done by civilian contractors. However, those contractors don't come from nowhere. They have to be assigned the task, there has to be a policy established that allows them to do what it is that they do. Since the President is the Commander in Chief, numero uno, in the military, that policy of private contracting for extracting information has to come from within the house. Under the Bush umbrella. It does go to the top, and saying that Bush couldn't have known about it is rediculous, because he certainly does now, yet does nothing to stop it.

If you observe a murder and do nothing to stop it, that is aiding and abetting. It's a crime. It is a crime, because while one is in a position to stop a crime, they aid the actions of a criminal by doing nothing. If you have the power to stop something, yet choose to do nothing, you become accountable. The President, who has the single most concentrated source of power in the federal government, is accountable even in ignorance, or inaction.