21 ms·

Techthroway's that have never experienced war and don't study international relations and geopolitics should stop suggesting bullshit like this. I get so tired

Techthroway's that have never experienced war and don't study international relations and geopolitics should stop suggesting bullshit like this. I get so tired of people advocating more aggressive stances with other nations when it's not their ass or their offsprings that will go to war. This is also why I advocate that next war all the politicians sons and daughters get drafted and then we can see if they still want to go to war. Oh wait, the congress abdicated it's constitutional duty to be responsible for declaring war via the unconstitutional War Powers Act and AUMF's...

dragonwriter 7y ago
> Oh wait, the congress abdicated it's constitutional duty to be responsible for declaring war via the unconstitutional War Powers Act and AUMF's... AUMFs are (often limited and/or conditional) declarations of war, from a Constitutional perspective, not an abdication of the power; the Supreme Court has consistently held that the Constitution doesn't require magic words when exercising the Constitutional power to declare war.
- chishaku 7y ago
  While valid, this is a technical interpretation that misses the point IMO. Look at the range of actions the AUMF's are applied to. The AUMF's, in effect, allow the executive to wage war pretty much anywhere on the planet for an indefinite amount of time. In your view, is Congress honoring the spirit of their Constitutional duty?
  - dragonwriter 7y ago
    > Look at the range of actions the AUMF's are applied to. The AUMF's, in effect, allow the executive to wage war pretty much anywhere on the planet for an indefinite amount of time. Most declarations of war do not have temporal or geographic bounds. What was unusually expansive about the 9/11 AUMF (not AUMFs more generally, neither prior nor subsequent AUMFs have had this feature) is that it also delegates the decision of the actual primary opponent(s) to executive discretion, which, yes, is an abdication of Congressional responsibility. But that's the 9/11 AUMF, not AUMFs in general.
DarthGhandi 7y ago
> don't study international relations and geopolitics Know quite a few people with these qualifications, they are highly polarized human beings who seem to have trouble discussing politics.
allovernow 7y ago
I'm not pro war but at the other end of the spectrum, appeasement in Europe allegedly gave us WWII.
- jessaustin 7y ago
  There is no sense of the word "appeasement" that includes the Treaty of Versailles. USA entering WWI and allowing UK and France to win decisively was what caused WWII. Because apparently it must be said, I am not a "Nazi sympathizer". I would have preferred that the Nazis had never existed let alone dominated a large portion of Europe. Similarly, it would have been better had we not invaded Iraq and caused ISIS to exist.
- sand_castles 7y ago
  Not really, the great depression caused by private interests in US overlending to europeans lead to a sovereign debt issue that finally made it possible for Hitler to gain power leading to WW2. But sure you can ignore the nuance.
throwaway_tech 7y ago
>Techthroway's that have never experienced war and don't study international relations and geopolitics should stop suggesting bullshit like this. I would venture to guess I have significantly more experience and knowledge with the UN Charter Article 2(4), the UN Security Council and the international laws on the use of armed force than you. No one said anything about "go to war", the Use of armed force is not "going to war". The UN Charter permits the use of armed force in response to acts that infringe on the sovereignty of any nation by military action. To bury ones head in the sand at this point in history to foreign military acts against a populace is inviting more invasive and damaging acts of cyber warfare. Do you honestly think China is going to say we got away with this we should deescalate?
- luckylion 7y ago
  > No one said anything about "go to war", the Use of armed force is not "going to war". ??? > The UN Charter permits the use of armed force in response to acts that infringe on the sovereignty of any nation by military action. Should France have nuked Fort Meade to stop the NSA from infringing on their sovereignty? I don't understand this line of thinking, it's basically "if we do it, yeah, it's cool. If they do it, it's an act of war against our innocent republic", and you figure everybody will agree to that and not treat your cyber attacks similarly?
  - throwaway_tech 7y ago
    >> No one said anything about "go to war", the Use of armed force is not "going to war". ??? Consider the US Seal Team military operating in Pakistan where Bin Laden was killed. That was use of armed force, we infringed on Pakistani territorial sovereignty, conducted a military operation and even killed a couple people...I hope you understand that this example of using armed force is not the equivalent of "going to war."
    - arminiusreturns 7y ago
      The thing you are missing is that every action like that carries a risk of causing a war much larger than the original action. As a matter of fact within military circles even the Bin Laden raid was criticised because almost all other operations were cordinated with Pakistan and since Pakistan is particularly unstable and also nuclear the risk was considered worth it for the value of the target, but there was a major potential for escalation and lots of political capitol was expended to quell the reaction to that action. China is not nearly as constrained by diplomatic inroads or other mechanisms at play (such as cultural considerations) that would vastly change the potential of any overt action against China causing an exponential series of increasing escalations that could end up as a major war. I'm not excusing China and not saying the US or other western countries should lay down for China's increasingly agressive diplomatic and strategic actions, but rather that the utmost care should be taken in the response, just as the US is doing in the conflicts going on in the south China sea and increase in espionage cases. As an Iraq combat vet who has spent quite a bit of time trying to understand these subjects, my general thought is that I really dislike so many armchair quarterbacks speculating and being so eager to throw away others lives, even if in the of potentialities such as your suggestion. War is one of the most horrible things humans can ever experience and any avoidance of it should be sought in almost all cases possible. It's also annoying how many of those armchair quarterbacks usually don't volunteer to serve themselves.

dragonwriter 7y ago

> Oh wait, the congress abdicated it's constitutional duty to be responsible for declaring war via the unconstitutional War Powers Act and AUMF's... AUMFs are (often limited and/or conditional) declarations of war, from a Constitutional perspective, not an abdication of the power; the Supreme Court has consistently held that the Constitution doesn't require magic words when exercising the Constitutional power to declare war.

chishaku 7y ago
While valid, this is a technical interpretation that misses the point IMO. Look at the range of actions the AUMF's are applied to. The AUMF's, in effect, allow the executive to wage war pretty much anywhere on the planet for an indefinite amount of time. In your view, is Congress honoring the spirit of their Constitutional duty?
- dragonwriter 7y ago
  > Look at the range of actions the AUMF's are applied to. The AUMF's, in effect, allow the executive to wage war pretty much anywhere on the planet for an indefinite amount of time. Most declarations of war do not have temporal or geographic bounds. What was unusually expansive about the 9/11 AUMF (not AUMFs more generally, neither prior nor subsequent AUMFs have had this feature) is that it also delegates the decision of the actual primary opponent(s) to executive discretion, which, yes, is an abdication of Congressional responsibility. But that's the 9/11 AUMF, not AUMFs in general.

DarthGhandi 7y ago

> don't study international relations and geopolitics Know quite a few people with these qualifications, they are highly polarized human beings who seem to have trouble discussing politics.

allovernow 7y ago

I'm not pro war but at the other end of the spectrum, appeasement in Europe allegedly gave us WWII.

jessaustin 7y ago
There is no sense of the word "appeasement" that includes the Treaty of Versailles. USA entering WWI and allowing UK and France to win decisively was what caused WWII. Because apparently it must be said, I am not a "Nazi sympathizer". I would have preferred that the Nazis had never existed let alone dominated a large portion of Europe. Similarly, it would have been better had we not invaded Iraq and caused ISIS to exist.
sand_castles 7y ago
Not really, the great depression caused by private interests in US overlending to europeans lead to a sovereign debt issue that finally made it possible for Hitler to gain power leading to WW2. But sure you can ignore the nuance.

throwaway_tech 7y ago

>Techthroway's that have never experienced war and don't study international relations and geopolitics should stop suggesting bullshit like this. I would venture to guess I have significantly more experience and knowledge with the UN Charter Article 2(4), the UN Security Council and the international laws on the use of armed force than you. No one said anything about "go to war", the Use of armed force is not "going to war". The UN Charter permits the use of armed force in response to acts that infringe on the sovereignty of any nation by military action. To bury ones head in the sand at this point in history to foreign military acts against a populace is inviting more invasive and damaging acts of cyber warfare. Do you honestly think China is going to say we got away with this we should deescalate?

luckylion 7y ago
> No one said anything about "go to war", the Use of armed force is not "going to war". ??? > The UN Charter permits the use of armed force in response to acts that infringe on the sovereignty of any nation by military action. Should France have nuked Fort Meade to stop the NSA from infringing on their sovereignty? I don't understand this line of thinking, it's basically "if we do it, yeah, it's cool. If they do it, it's an act of war against our innocent republic", and you figure everybody will agree to that and not treat your cyber attacks similarly?
- throwaway_tech 7y ago
  >> No one said anything about "go to war", the Use of armed force is not "going to war". ??? Consider the US Seal Team military operating in Pakistan where Bin Laden was killed. That was use of armed force, we infringed on Pakistani territorial sovereignty, conducted a military operation and even killed a couple people...I hope you understand that this example of using armed force is not the equivalent of "going to war."
  - arminiusreturns 7y ago
    The thing you are missing is that every action like that carries a risk of causing a war much larger than the original action. As a matter of fact within military circles even the Bin Laden raid was criticised because almost all other operations were cordinated with Pakistan and since Pakistan is particularly unstable and also nuclear the risk was considered worth it for the value of the target, but there was a major potential for escalation and lots of political capitol was expended to quell the reaction to that action. China is not nearly as constrained by diplomatic inroads or other mechanisms at play (such as cultural considerations) that would vastly change the potential of any overt action against China causing an exponential series of increasing escalations that could end up as a major war. I'm not excusing China and not saying the US or other western countries should lay down for China's increasingly agressive diplomatic and strategic actions, but rather that the utmost care should be taken in the response, just as the US is doing in the conflicts going on in the south China sea and increase in espionage cases. As an Iraq combat vet who has spent quite a bit of time trying to understand these subjects, my general thought is that I really dislike so many armchair quarterbacks speculating and being so eager to throw away others lives, even if in the of potentialities such as your suggestion. War is one of the most horrible things humans can ever experience and any avoidance of it should be sought in almost all cases possible. It's also annoying how many of those armchair quarterbacks usually don't volunteer to serve themselves.