What about this Ron Paul fellow??????

Guessing you did not click on the link for non-interventionism

How have we done in those "military actions" since WWII that we have not declared war in? Remember the US is the only country to use nuclear weapons on people. We are not the policeman, judge, moral compass etc. of the world. You bring up the Holocaust, but yet Stalin killed more people and he was our "ally".

 

How are we going to recover from being owned by the rest of the world? We will collapse much like the Soviet Union did. They could not afford to keep up with us and we can not afford to be the policeman, judge, or moral compass.

 

I think we dealt with the pirates quiet well. I also think we were right in going after Afghanistan we just should have had Congress declare war.

 

No, I did and there was nothing there that indicated anything which would have not kept us out of WWII, for example.

Not that badly over all, but the nuclear weapons would not have been developed because we would have been more like Switzerland and no need to develop them.

Yes, we could just ignore such things but most of us do not see the benefit in ignoring the abuses of the weak any more than we have.

 

Really, when was there a war declared and against whom?

On whom? There was no nation involved with the attack.

 

No, and those who bombed Pearl Harbour were not sovereign entities either. They were just a bunch of guys in planes.

 

And by Master_Shake you mean Wayne Stollings, right? He was, as usual, the one who began the insults and personal attacks.

Thanks for the compliment, but you are wrong as usual. I am not Stinger. I'm not in his league, but if you wish to keep comparing me to him I welcome the flattery. Oh, and I take it from your post that you think that this type of debate tactic is a waste of time and just plain dumb. Well, I agree whole heartedly. Unfortunately, your fellow liberals think that it's a completely legit way to do business. I guess when you have nothing else to add you become the Grammar Police.

I'll have to agree with you on that. KD is old and has obviously lost her wits, and by your spelling errors it appears you never had any. It was fun at first, but then I began feeling sorry for the two of you.

 

For one who is so quick to judge another on grammar errors, you should know that "wholeheartedly" is one word, not two.

By the way, I know you're not Stinger. He was never one to quibble over spelling and grammar errors. He was (is) annoying, but he definitely acted like an adult.

 

Oh, you have this all wrong. I'm simply using KD's debate rules, which state that spelling, word, or grammar errors automatically renders your argument meaningless and invalid. Gotta play by the rules, ya know!

 

Sorry, but you mixed grammatical numbers. You can say "...errors automatically render...", but not "...errors automatically renders...".

If you want to run with the big dogs, you're going to have to run hard.

 

But they were the naval air force of a soverign nation under the direction of that nation, which is a huge difference.

 

I have to agree that Master-Shake is not acting as adult as Stinger generally did so there is little comparison there.

 

<poking troll with sharp stick> Nope, that has never been her rules nor her style and if you wish to make the statement you should be able to provide evidence to support your claim.


PS Your own ignorance of what others state is not their fault, but your own.

 

Ahhh!!! guess we should have rolled over and let them continue to hamper our shipping.

so it appears this was the first mistake in a young country that we have taken to a new level since WWII.

Guess you really think the Taliban ran Aghanistan after the Russians left and the freedom fighters that we sponsored, which became Al-Qaeda, left peacefully.

 

No, but upon whom would we have declared war in order to use the armed forces?

Not really, just pointed out the flaw in the thoughts on warfare and declared war.

Yes, I believe they did, who did you believe was the government?

Yes, they left and returned as they pleased, but they were not a government nor did they have a set border for their territory did they?

 

I think you should actually click on a few links. How many more documents
do you need to be provided or do you want to ignore them and stick to your opinion. After making payments to the Pirates over a 15 year period when Jefferson refused after becoming elected President, the Pasha of Tripoli (that is your sovereign nation to declare war on) declared war on the US. Why the young congress did not declare war I do not know, but that probably was a mistake. What are the advantages of not declaring war?

Do you really believe the Taliban ran Afghanistan and were not puppets of Al-Qaeda?

 

No, as there were OTHER entities involved as well and a declaration of war against the Pasha would not have allowed force to be used against the others. The Pasha did declare war on the US but it was not taken as a threat was it?

In a conventional war, none. In an unconventional war, quite a few especially since to get to the target you might have to declare war on a few other entities.

The point is the views of how the government should work quickly changed when the realities of the world were encountered.

Odd the first attempts were to form a confederation on nations and not dealing with the situation ourselves. The French and British did not share our views and their powerful lead collapsed the attempts. The fact that Jefferson sent the navy without Congressional approval and that no war was declared indicates a change in the views from what is presented now.

Jefferson also changed his mind on a navy as noted in your link:

After previously trying to negotiate treaties to form a conferation which seems to indicate a change in this view:

Yes, do you have proof otherwise?

 

Some background and additional information on the subject:

http://www.answers.com/topic/laws-of-war

On 11 September 2001 an attack by a terrorist organization undirected by any state, but apparently sheltered by a theocratic de facto government in Afghanistan, destroyed the towers of the World Trade Center in New York, one of the largest office buildings in history and a center of the commercial world. The attack killed nearly three thousand people, mainly Americans but including people from many nations. The response of the United States and its allies was to demand surrender of the leaders of the attack, and, in the absence of satisfaction, to attack the armies of the Afghan government while seeking to arrest the terrorists. As much criminal enforcement as military action, this response further signaled a comprehensive change in the structure of the laws of war, which now include an element of the enforcement of international criminal law.

http://www.answers.com/topic/dow-technology

declaration of war

A declaration of war is a formal declaration issued by a national government indicating that a state of war exists between that nation, and one or more others.


Background
Declarations of war have been acceptable means and diplomatic measures since the Renaissance, when the first formal declarations of war were issued.

In public international law, a declaration of war entails the recognition between countries of a state of hostilities between these countries, and such declaration acted to regulate the conduct between the military engagements between the forces of the respective countries. The primary multilateral treaties governing such declarations are the Hague Conventions.

The League of Nations formed in 1919 in the wake of the First World War, and the General Treaty for the Renunciation of War of 1928 signed in Paris, demonstrated that world powers were seriously seeking a means to prevent the carnage of the world war. However, these powers were unable to stop the Second World War and, thus, the United Nations System was put in place after that war in an attempt to prevent international aggression through declarations of war.

 

Pirate, I'm sure we are not going to agree on the appropriate role of government in all cases. Some things I hope we can agree on - for example, it is the federal government's responsibility to provide for national defense. What that means, specifically, we can probably argue about, but we might be closer than we think. I think that means we need to keep a strong military - invest in training and equipment, but not pie in the sky stuff like the "star wars" missile defense system. I think we should be very cautious about intervening in the affairs of other nations, but sometimes we have to do something. Going to Afghanistan was the right thing to do; going into Iraq was wrong. We should be prepared to do something militarily in Darfur if we cannot come to a diplomatic resolution to the problem there.

The interstate highway system was developed with national defense in mind. While it meets our travel needs in many ways, the main justification for spending the money was defense, and we need to maintain the system for the same reasons.

Education is crucial to the future of our country, to our ability to compete in the global economy. I think all levels of government have a role to play, and all levels of government should contribute to the planning and execution of our educational system. While I agree that "throwing money at the problem" is not a solution, I also believe there is no good education system that does not require an investment of money, time and talent. Adequate funding is a necessary but not sufficient factor in successful, comprehensive education. We have to spend money on education, but we have to be smart about it.

That may be enough issues for now. I can think of several others, but perhaps we can save those for another thread.

Pat

 

The threat to our commerce was real. Why else would we have paid bribes for 15 years. It appears Jefferson in his first annual message in 1801 clears up any confusion.

So he clearly states that it is unconstitutional except in defense. Now why Congress chose to authorize offensive actions without declaring war I am not sure. Maybe it was because their were no entities to declare war against.

As late as 1805 here are Jefferson's thoughts:

This proves that the realities of the world did not change their views.

The mission for the nation at that time was to pay off debt and build infrastructure. Jefferson realized in 1786 that the American temperament would rather fight than pay bribes, but diplomacy required a need for a confederation of nations to combat the piracy. Jefferson dispatched frigates for defensive measures and informed Congress who authorized offensive measures against Tripoli and other acts of precaution and hostility as the state of war justify. We had to address the harm to our commerce because we were not self sufficient at the time. Jefferson during this time period was advocating self reliance.

The Taliban was a puppet regime set up for drug smuggling and funded by Al-Qaeda who moved there once the Sudan kicked them out.