What's that supposed to mean?

What is the first rule of secret combinations?

The same as the first rule of fight club!

Which one? WHICH ONE?!?

I knew it.

mocking the mockery

Jeez. Is this another 'race to get the most offended' thread? Bountiful seems to keep having them...

Anyways, on subject, what a lousy thing to happen. Musharaf is no huge prize, but he's the authority of Pakistan. And he was allowing some power sharing with people that weren't him. The Pakistan govt takes a legitimacy hit, whether it had anything to do with it or not.

Pity, cuz we're losing the war over there.

LM

Okay, so you believe in *some* secret combo's but not *all* - that's fine. Everyone probably believes in some but not all, too. I just didn't like the dig being taken at Mirk. Whether you get worked up over perceived innuendos, etc. is your own business.

The assassination is definitely a bad thing. But assassination has definitely become a tool of statecraft in our world of Gadianton led governments.
And Ray, like you, it gives me no pleasure to know that a nuclear power is having internal power struggles.

Ray,

You have good reason to be concerned. Pakistan has, roughly, 30 nukes in inventory. I just found out that the U.S. has spent 100 million in aid to secure Pakistan's nuclear arsenal. It means little however if Al Queda takes power, or even finds inroads to secured facilities. The guy who actually created their nuclear program has such connections (... as does their military, and intelligence service). 

If we have learned anything about Islamofascism, it is that creating governmental chaos is the measure of their success. Today is a big success by that standard.

The comming U.S. election just became way too serious to even think of wasting perfectly conservative votes on an isolationist kook. Hopefully the Republican Party can ralley behind one of the two viable candidates before Hillary taps Obama for V.P.. 

Finding humor in any of this is a real stretch.

So who is behind the assasination. Was it Mushariff's people or Islamofacists? I personally do not think that Mushariff would be dumb enough to risk civil war. Also, the Islamofacists could kill two birds with one stone with her assasination.

Looks like it was a Taliban/Al-Qaeda operation. They have been trying to undermine anything Musharaff does. This will likely make him lockdown harder which in the terrorists mind will anger the population more. That and they like the chaos.

Chaos isn't the exact opposite of freedom and democracy. Absolute control could also be considered an opposite of chaos, and dictators love absolute control, which can also be the opposite of freedom and democracy.

Instability can be a tool for marginal or not-in-power groups to gain or solidify power quickly. Hitler burned the Reichstag and blamed it on his opposition in order to create uncertainty and instability and take absolute power of Germany.

DoubleD wrote:

---

Congress needs to declare war on Islamofascism. In sports the best offense is a great defense. 

---

Under what pretext?

Noel:  Good to see you again.

DoubleD wrote:

---

Noel,

Indeed. I don't understand the Republican candidate who is isolationist nor his rationale for being that way. Claiming that he is supporting the constitution and then "hiding" behind it like an ostrich with it's head in the sand makes no sense.

Congress needs to declare war on Islamofascism. In sports the best offense is a great defense. In Nuclear War and dealing with Islamofacists, the best defense is an agressive offense.   Like the Nephites of old, we have been attacked and we need to continue the offense until they cry uncle.

I hope that Pakistan can stabilize their country before there is more bloodshed.

---

FWIW, I think the candidate to which you refer is not isolationist, so much as "we need to declare a war before we fight it-ist."

While my opinions are forming, as other posters have mentioned, I DO like the idea of actually having congress DECLARE wars BEFORE we commit our troops to years of war-like activities in far-off climes.

And then, we need to have an aggressive offense that makes the fascists cry uncle.

-- Edited by Hoss Cartwright at 17:24, 2008-01-03

Hoss,

There are practical reasons for which I believe;

- Congress will never declare another war (Has not done it in a single instance of deploying U.S. troops since WWII).

- Congress will, only with the greatest of tact, ever seriously challenge executive use of force.

The world we live in simply does not allow for deliberation in responding to modern threats.

That said, how would you go about declaring war on people who have no national allegience, or formal governing structure? Who would you make peace with? Victory would come by making them either dead, or disinterested in further conflict. 

It seems to me the best way to accomplish that, is to give our executive the same freedom of response as our enemies enjoy.

Congress has declared war on such abstract concepts as "Poverty", so why not on terrorist organizations? Besides, unless they are based in Antartica or the Moon, they are basing their operations out of a sovereign country. That was the entire rational behind removing the Taliban from power in Afghanistan; they were unapologetically harboring terrorists.
Giving only Congress the power to declare war is a necessary check on tyranny. A president who has free reign to use the army as he wishes could very realistically seize dictatorial powers.
Sure, limiting the power to declare war to Congress may be inefficient. But it is necessary to put up with certain inefficiencies in order to maintain freedom. A dictatorship is very efficient, but I wouldn't want to live in one. A dictator doesn't need to worry about asking the legislature to declare war, or to fund the troops, or whatever. If he decides that he wants a mandatory draft, he just signs an order implementing it. It is very efficient.
The founders made certain processes inefficient in order to make it harder for anyone to seize power.

noel wrote:

---

Hoss,

There are practical reasons for which I believe;

- Congress will never declare another war (Has not done it in a single instance of deploying U.S. troops since WWII).

And that, in my opinion is wrong.  We are committing troops in foreign lands without formal approvals.  At the very least, these committments should be reauthorized, by congress, every 5 years.

- Congress will, only with the greatest of tact, ever seriously challenge executive use of force.

The world we live in simply does not allow for deliberation in responding to modern threats.

We have the war powers act, which allows the executive to commit troops for a limited amount of time.  But no one enforces the limits.

That said, how would you go about declaring war on people who have no national allegience, or formal governing structure? Who would you make peace with? Victory would come by making them either dead, or disinterested in further conflict. 

Well, they could declare an official war on terror.  Then, declare war on each group that we decide we need to fight in order to prosecute that war.  We had at least a year to deliberate before going into Iraq.  We had many months before we went into Afghanistan.  In neither case, did we declare war, although there was MORE than ample time to do so.  We should declare war if we are using our troops abroad, or bring them home.

It seems to me the best way to accomplish that, is to give our executive the same freedom of response as our enemies enjoy.

Our executive currently has all the war power he or she may need to protect this country, on a short-term basis.  His or her power to commit our military outside this country on a long-term basis must be strictly controlled by congress.  Either that, or just admit that we fully intend to have emperors rather than presidents in the near future.

---

fwiw, I agree that congress should declare war on extended engagements, though I'm not sure how to declare war on AlQaeda. Though I support the fight in Iraq/Afghanistan... But I can't help but feel that as the exemplar democracy in the world, waging war should be really tough.

--Ray

Interesting Noel. I don't know enough to respond or make comment, but that is an interesting, thought provoking comment you made.

Hoss Cartwright wrote:

---

noel wrote:

---

The War Powers Act is unconstitutional.  

---

If that is the case (and it likely is), then every presidential use of war powers since WWII has been unconstitutional.

---

Yeah, that's what Ron Paul's been trying to tell us for months now.

"...Washington acted without approval of Congress to put down a popular armed rebellion. "

Well, okay, and then he brought the troops home.

To equate Shay's rebellion with the Korean DMZ, or Iraq, or (gonna be) Iran, or Germany, or name your non-US-territory is beyond a stretch.

My reading of the constitution does not give the executive power to commit troops for extended periods without a declaration of war.

Arbilad, Hoss, Cocobeen...

I know there are very strong feelings of support for Ron Paul, and that a large amount of this sentiment flows from a belief that Mr. Paul is a strict constructionist. I have probably not been subtle in challenging that perception, perhaps more so than necessary to make my point. 

For me the issue is framed within a few simple propositions;

- There is a genuine threat from Islamofascism to the United States and it's interests, based in theological mandates of the Koran.

-  The threat will not succumb to anything but persistent, and overwhelming military counterforce.

- WE CAN LOOSE THIS WAR BETWEEN CULTURES.

- The Constitution empowers the President to act, at his disgression, to prevent this outcome.

- If the "declare war on all countries harboring terrorists" formula is applied literally, we will find ourselves in conflict with, at least, 60 countries... including many current, or potential allies.

- Congress can not even implement a meaningful police action.  (They defunded the southern border fence a few days ago!) There is not a bat's chance in Hades that they can focus, for an extended period, on protecting vital U.S. interests. It is not in the nature of collective deliberation to function in that manner.

What benefit do you see in hamstringing our country's defense with a Commander in Chief, like Ron Paul, who believes he is constitutionally bound to defer to Congress ? ?

"There can be no need, however, to multiply arguments or examples on this head. A feeble Executive implies a feeble execution of government. A feeble execution of government, is but another phrase for bad execution; and a government ill executed, whatever it may be in theory, must be, in practice, a bad government."  Alexander Hamilton; Federalist #70