| Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Tom Tancredo on Bombing Mecca | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Aug 5 2007, 09:20 AM (2,057 Views) | |
| Jolly | Aug 5 2007, 01:17 PM Post #51 |
![]()
Geaux Tigers!
|
Wouldn't be nuthin' left but a belt buckle and a pair of loafers.... |
| The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros | |
![]() |
|
| Dewey | Aug 5 2007, 01:26 PM Post #52 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Ah, but you see, there's the problem. The history of the past 50 years or so has given many examples to show that opposing the United States specifically, and the West in general, is not necessarily assured self destruction - precisely because, as many of our enemies understand better than even many of we ourselves do, we have lost the understanding of what war truly is, how it must be fought to win, and its inherent moral contradictions. We want to say we believe in just war, but only those wars that are crystalline in their perfect nobility of our own position - in other words, war that is not war. Our vulnerability has arisen exactly because so many people today don't understand, or want to accept, that in order to win a war, you have to be more brutal than your enemy. The real measure of our nation's, and our culture's, military strength, isn't measured by counting how many warheads, satellites, jets, or tanks we have, nearly as much as its measured by our people's willingness to use them effectively when threatened. And our enemies know that history has shown us to have a very short attention span, and stomach for the unpleasantness of fighting, despite the worthiness of the cause. |
|
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685. "Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous "Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011 I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14 | |
![]() |
|
| Frank_W | Aug 5 2007, 02:10 PM Post #53 |
![]()
Resident Misanthrope
|
I disagree. I think it's a sign of our civility and maturity that we don't wage a war of attrition, however, I don't think it's going to take much more before the dam breaks and we go balls-out on this thing. I'm thinking that one more terrorist attack, and people, by and large, are going to be completely fed up with half-measures, and I think England, Israel, and the United States are going to be leading that charge into the fray, followed by Australia, and last and least of all, a reluctant Europe, who can no longer afford to remain neutral. There are some harsh times coming, but I believe that the Islamofascists are going to utter the same words that the Japanese did, after Pearl Harbor: "We have awakened a sleeping giant." |
|
Anatomy Prof: "The human body has about 20 sq. meters of skin." Me: "Man, that's a lot of lampshades!" | |
![]() |
|
| Mark | Aug 5 2007, 02:15 PM Post #54 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Congress does not have the power to grant the power of declaration of war to anyone. It is solely their responsibility to declare war. If they are unable to do so, then war is not permitted under our constitution. The constitution provides for "Captures" and the granting of "Letters of Marque and Reprisal". These can be used to go after individuals or groups that are not tied to a "nation-state". If the congress would simply determine if a declaration of war is necessary against say, Pakistan for harboring those responsible for 9/11 then so be it. The war will be over when Pakistan allows for the execution of said "Capture and or Letter of Marque and Reprisal" AS ENACTED THROUGH CONSTITUTIONAL MEANS! Congress has never issued a declaration of war since WWII. The did not want the responsibility. What a bunch of cowards! These are the type of people you want running this country? I believe that had they voted to declare war on 9/12/2001 that the American people would have stood up and cheered as we were all pretty much "on board" with getting those who committed the atrocities of 9/11/2001. The powers of government were limited by our founders for good reason. There is no power granted to congress to give the power of declaration of war to any other branch of government. Article 1, Section 8: Powers of Congress: To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water; Article 2 - The Executive Branch. Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." Section 2 - Civilian Power over Military, Cabinet, Pardon Power, Appointments The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment. He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments. The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session. Section 3 - State of the Union, Convening Congress He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States. Section 4 - Disqualification The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors. Does the fact that the President does not have this power yet it was done anyway bother any of you at all? |
|
___.___ (_]===* o 0 When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells | |
![]() |
|
| Horace | Aug 5 2007, 03:09 PM Post #55 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
But that's never been tested to any great extent since ww2, and I doubt America would lack for political support for genocide level warfare if, say, we were attacked on our home soil. Terrorist attacks not outwardly backed by any nation and indirect power grabs don't really count. I very much doubt America would have been attacked by another nation even if our armies had stayed home for the last 60 years. |
| As a good person, I implore you to do as I, a good person, do. Be good. Do NOT be bad. If you see bad, end bad. End it in yourself, and end it in others. By any means necessary, the good must conquer the bad. Good people know this. Do you know this? Are you good? | |
![]() |
|
| Dewey | Aug 5 2007, 04:03 PM Post #56 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
No war is civil or mature. We may value these traits in our culture (and in many instances, I think even there the concepts get more lip service than true admiration), but if we agree that any war is just, we are by extension saying that we are willing to modify our stance on civility or maturity in that situation. And if we are not willing to adjust our stance on these things, then a.) we haven't really honestly answered the question of whether we feel that any war is just; or b.) we don't really know what it takes to win a war at all. I'm simply saying that we have to be honest with ourselves, whatever our real opinion is. Other than that distinction, I agree with everything in your post, Frank. |
|
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685. "Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous "Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011 I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14 | |
![]() |
|
| Frank_W | Aug 5 2007, 04:24 PM Post #57 |
![]()
Resident Misanthrope
|
By "civil" and "mature," I meant the contrasts between WWII and this current war. In WWII, we bombed the crap out of Berlin and Tokyo, and then dropped the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, killing untold more. Right after Pearl Harbor, Japanese Americans were rounded up, herded onto trains, and taken to internment camps. Their land was seized, businesses closed, and homes taken away. By contrast, we did nothing of the sort with Americans of Middle Eastern descent, and thus far, we've done our best to avoid indiscriminate killing of civilians. |
|
Anatomy Prof: "The human body has about 20 sq. meters of skin." Me: "Man, that's a lot of lampshades!" | |
![]() |
|
| TomK | Aug 5 2007, 04:26 PM Post #58 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
And we sure aren't going to bomb Mecca. |
![]() |
|
| Klotz | Aug 5 2007, 04:31 PM Post #59 |
|
Middle Aged Carp
|
Then ...perhaps... Ras El Bakbook ? |
| |
![]() |
|
| TomK | Aug 5 2007, 04:35 PM Post #60 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
I would mind bombing your little friends in Gaza a good one.
|
![]() |
|
| Klotz | Aug 5 2007, 04:40 PM Post #61 |
|
Middle Aged Carp
|
I would mind bombing your little friends in Gaza a good one. [/QUOTE]Do not fear the Gaza people. Fear the Far East fanatics. BTW, you wouldn't believe how beautiful the residential district of Gaza is (was ?). |
| |
![]() |
|
| TomK | Aug 5 2007, 04:48 PM Post #62 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Do not fear the Gaza people. Fear the Far East fanatics. BTW, you wouldn't believe how beautiful the residential district of Gaza is (was ?). [/QUOTE] I've been to Gaza. 8-9 years ago. Lovely place in some ways. Lots of goats and cheap ass high rises, too. I for one am MUCHLY disappointed in those people. I honestly thought they would do something positive with their independence. All the seem to do is obsess about Israel. |
![]() |
|
| Axtremus | Aug 5 2007, 06:54 PM Post #63 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
I wouldn't be surprised if Buddha, Lao Tzu, Confucius, Jesus, Ghandhi, and Mother Theresa would question that statement. (Bart Simpson, though, would be harder to predict.) |
![]() |
|
| Dewey | Aug 5 2007, 07:25 PM Post #64 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Yes, there are many who would disagree with the statement. There are many people who feel that no war is ever just. I'm not one of those people. If one believes that some wars are just, the extension of that belief is that they must be fought to win - and while not in life, in war, the object is exactly to be more brutal - stronger, strategically and tactically superior, more committed, and maintaining commitment to the goal longer - than the enemy. Gratuitous brutality is never just; however, harsh actions which have actual strategic or tactical purpose in punishing and stopping an unjust enemy may be just. While comparing my viewpoint to Bart Simpson, compare it also to the viewpoints of Thomas Aquinas and Augustine, posted by TomK earlier. I'm hardly making up my opinions on the fly; they have longstanding position within the faith. Not everyone agrees with this interpretation (e.g., pacifists), and people may argue over whether a particular war is, or is not, just. But the fact remains that it has long been consistent with Christian thought that to be a "peacemaker" as we have been charged, we may at times have to engage in war to achieve a lasting and meaningful peace - and once that bridge is crossed, the goal is to win, to win decisively, and win as quickly as possible in order to minimize the inevitable human misery caused by the war. As to what Jesus would say or do, it's quite obvious that he would say to not start a war to begin with. Of course, we failed to heed God's sound advice back "in the beginning," with devastating results - including war - being a reality of our existence ever since. Now that it is an inevitable part of our existence, we have to find ways to deal with it. And in light of the way that God has acted within human history in the past, I don't think the question of what Jesus would say or do regarding war is quite as clear cut as some may think. Jesus said that peacemakers are blessed, and so they are. But I can't find any similar text, or even implication, that we are called not only to peacemaking, but to pacifism. |
|
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685. "Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous "Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011 I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14 | |
![]() |
|
| Frank_W | Aug 5 2007, 07:39 PM Post #65 |
![]()
Resident Misanthrope
|
Even Jesus resorted to force, at times. (forcibly driving the moneychangers out of the temple, for instance) Dewey, how was your sermon, today? I'm sure it went wonderfully!
|
|
Anatomy Prof: "The human body has about 20 sq. meters of skin." Me: "Man, that's a lot of lampshades!" | |
![]() |
|
| Larry | Aug 5 2007, 07:45 PM Post #66 |
![]()
Mmmmmmm, pie!
|
What Buddha, Lao Tzu, Confucius, Ghandhi, and Mother Theresa might have to say on the matter is of no more consequence than what any of us have to say. |
|
Of the Pokatwat Tribe | |
![]() |
|
| greg | Aug 5 2007, 07:47 PM Post #67 |
![]()
Middle Aged Carp
|
WWJB? (Who Would Jesus Bomb?) |
| "What do you think it is, stupid? It's a string for my lute." | |
![]() |
|
| Larry | Aug 5 2007, 07:50 PM Post #68 |
![]()
Mmmmmmm, pie!
|
The democrat national headquarters, and the Daily Kos, for a couple...... |
|
Of the Pokatwat Tribe | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Aug 5 2007, 08:03 PM Post #69 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
Actually, that was Quirt's rephrasing. Dewey's original point was
Not the goal, as Quirt incorrectly suggests, but the means of winning decisively. Regardless of what they might have thought of war, I don't see any grounds for anyone on your list to question that statement. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| Jeffrey | Aug 5 2007, 08:32 PM Post #70 |
|
Senior Carp
|
Bombing Mecca would itself be an act of terrorism, since it is not a military command center. Looking back with half a dozen years of hindsight, the main effect of 9/11 on its primary target was to promote a baby boom in Manhattan and a surge in its local economy. The reason Muslim terrorists want to kill us is envy. Our economy and culture is thriving and growing, and theirs is not. This annoys them and so they lash out. Bombing Mecca will not change this fact, and so it will not stop Muslim terrorism against the West. It's practical result would be more conflict. More people die each month in car crashes than terrorism, both in the US and in Israel. What is needed, and what the current administration has singularly failed to do, is to promote specific action against the specific paramilitary organizations that want to kill Western civilians rather than lashing out at big, obvious targets of doubtful relevance. |
![]() |
|
| Axtremus | Aug 5 2007, 08:43 PM Post #71 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Are you sure? Dewey replied to QuirtEvans "Yes, absolutely," which indicated pretty conclusively to me that Dewey thought QuirtEvans interpreted his earlier post accurately.
Let's say Jesus accepts Dewey's statement. I still have a very hard time imagining Lao Tzu, Confucius, Ghandhi, or Mother Theresa ever accepting Dewey's statement. Do enlighten me if you can think of any of these figures' action or teaching can lead one to think that any of them would accept Dewey's statement. (BTW, Dewey, while we disagree on this issue, I wasn't comparing you or your statement to Bart Simpson... I was cracking a joke referencing another thread: http://z10.invisionfree.com/The_New_Coffee...dpost&p=2080657 ). |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Aug 5 2007, 09:07 PM Post #72 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
I am of course assuming that any of those thinkers you listed would be intelligent (logically consistent) enough to know that they only way to beat your enemy unconditionally in a war would be to be at least as brutal as your enemy. If your opponent is more brutal than you, you won't win unconditionally. Your list of luminaries might not think that winning is worth being brutal, but that was not the point of the discussion. I am not sure what term you find objectionable. Maybe you think they are illogical? |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| Larry | Aug 5 2007, 09:09 PM Post #73 |
![]()
Mmmmmmm, pie!
|
Like I said before - what they accept doesn't matter. |
|
Of the Pokatwat Tribe | |
![]() |
|
| Steve Miller | Aug 5 2007, 09:24 PM Post #74 |
|
Bull-Carp
|
Don't be so sure. No one ever thought we'd invade another country preemptively, either. Look at some of the comments posted above. They're coming from voters. |
|
Wag more Bark less | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Aug 5 2007, 09:28 PM Post #75 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
From Ax's argument it does matter, since he is picking up on Dewey's view that no one would reasonably disagree with the idea. I agree with Dewey that if a country wants to win a war unconditionally and totally then they must be willing to be at least as brutal as their opponent. Unless Ax can point out some instances of wars won by groups who refused to match the ferocity of their opponent with equal or greater intensity, I don't see how Dewey's position can be assailed. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic » |












6:46 AM Jul 11