9 ms·

The AUMF needs to be sunsetted. Heck, if necessary, pass a resolution/law that congratulates everybody on a job well-done and declares victory. Whatever it take

The AUMF needs to be sunsetted. Heck, if necessary, pass a resolution/law that congratulates everybody on a job well-done and declares victory. Whatever it takes. A state of war is a temporary thing in a democracy. It has to be. Otherwise the natural tendency of the executive to overreach will be completely unchecked. I suggest that the job we're doing now is much more like "global policeman", including using lethal SWAT forces, than being in a war. I think such a role is necessary, and I also think that there's no way in hell all the nations of the world are going to overtly agree to this. (Although I suspect a majority are very happy having the yanks clean up the nuts using Predators as long as the PR isn't too bad. Even better, they can support various strikes and options with their intelligence services while publicly railing against the Evil Empire. A lot of foreign political leaders have been playing this game long before 9-11.) That's a fine and dandy pickle for the world, and I have sympathy for the problem of crazy people wanting to come and hurt civilians in order to affect political change. The problem is, democracies can't be in a state of war for decades. Even assuming that all of the threats are clear and present. We need a way out of this, and pronto. This is a structural problem for the U.S. that is much worse than slavery ever was. Here's hoping the light will come on for the voting public and they'll start pressuring their elected representatives to do their damned jobs and stop spending so much time politically posturing and positioning their party for the next election.

northwest 13y ago
> We need a way out of this, and pronto. This is a structural problem for the U.S. that is much worse than slavery ever was. Absolutely. And to find a way out of this, you first need to completely take the money out of politics - radically, entirely. I see the corruption of Washington (and then: democracy) via money as the core problem, in the US.
- DanielBMarkham 13y ago
  Politics is about votes, not money. You can get votes by promising free chickens in every pot. You can get votes by bringing a big defense contract into an area. Politicians get elected by votes, and the political system runs on votes. Yes, money is used to fight the battle. But focusing on the money is idiotic. Money is a completely secondary factor. It's main modern use (I speak of direct contributions, not the sweetheart deals to relatives that really is at the heart of corruption) is to attack the opponent's base and prevent them from turning out to vote. Also, political power is much more important than money. Being able to launch a Predator strike trumps any amount of campaign contributions. This focus on money has to stop. It's like saying businesses are all about making money. It's not that it's a false statement -- it's that it misses the point entirely of what's going on. Business provide value by giving folks stuff they want. Money is a secondary way to keep score. Political power is accumulated by votes. If you can gain a thousand votes by simply making a speech, much better than throwing money at folks. It's an easy win. Focusing on money ignores the entirety of what's really going on. You want a really corrupt system, start overengineering the money side.
  - bigiain 13y ago
    I fear that perhaps the money problem is at the other end of the process. The money required to "get the votes" isn't the only monetary consideration. Once you get voted in, all of a sudden you've got control over a – for all intents and purposes – unlimited money tap. This encourages the sort of people who think "skimming a little bit off the top" of the government provided money flow (aka "stealing from the taxpayer") is OK, to enter the political arena for self-serving reasons. I don't know how much this is a real problem – there's a good argument that "enlightened self interest" is perhaps the best motivator for politicians, but I know where I live (Sydney, Australia) our local state government is currently involved in many many scandals where politicians have been caught using their positions to create great wealth for themselves and their family/friends under extremely suspicious circumstances (mysterious real estate deals in areas which subsequently get significant changes in legal status, planning permission given to industries with no public consultation followed by executive level jobs or board positions when responsible politicians leave office). In an "ideal world", people seeking political power for personal self-interest would be excluded in favour of people with purely altruistic intentions. Unfortunately that's about as practical as appointing me as Emperor of the Universe.
  - griffordson 13y ago
    Maybe you've already heard Lessig's arguments on the subject, but if you have not, you should give 18 minutes to his recent TED Talk: http://www.ted.com/talks/lawrence_lessig_we_the_people_and_the_republic_we_must_reclaim.html http://www.ted.com/talks/lawrence_lessig_we_the_people_and_t...
  - northwest 13y ago
    Ok, we disagree. But, as an example, I'd just like to mention the obscene amounts of money being wasted during presidential elections. Why should candidates be allowed to be able to get more votes because they spend more money because they literally got paid/owned by some private interests/ultra-rich people? It's just plain stupidity. How can we allow that? We're technically not exactly there yet, b/c not every household has an Internet connection yet, but why shouldn't the goal be this: Set up just 1 website where all political parties can express their positions. And let that be the only allowed form of communication with the voter. It's a sane pull versus an insane push approach. And it would take a lot of money out of politics, which can then be spent for intelligent things like research, for example.
thret 13y ago
I think you'll find most of your allies are not happy being dragged into US wars where nobody thinks they belong.
- ojbyrne 13y ago
  Perhaps not happy, but they do seem to send troops. Both Iraq and Afghanistan are ostensibly being fought by coalitions/NATO.
  - knowaveragejoe 13y ago
    Ostensibly, sure. In reality, More than 2/3rds of ISAF are US troops.

northwest 13y ago

> We need a way out of this, and pronto. This is a structural problem for the U.S. that is much worse than slavery ever was. Absolutely. And to find a way out of this, you first need to completely take the money out of politics - radically, entirely. I see the corruption of Washington (and then: democracy) via money as the core problem, in the US.

DanielBMarkham 13y ago
Politics is about votes, not money. You can get votes by promising free chickens in every pot. You can get votes by bringing a big defense contract into an area. Politicians get elected by votes, and the political system runs on votes. Yes, money is used to fight the battle. But focusing on the money is idiotic. Money is a completely secondary factor. It's main modern use (I speak of direct contributions, not the sweetheart deals to relatives that really is at the heart of corruption) is to attack the opponent's base and prevent them from turning out to vote. Also, political power is much more important than money. Being able to launch a Predator strike trumps any amount of campaign contributions. This focus on money has to stop. It's like saying businesses are all about making money. It's not that it's a false statement -- it's that it misses the point entirely of what's going on. Business provide value by giving folks stuff they want. Money is a secondary way to keep score. Political power is accumulated by votes. If you can gain a thousand votes by simply making a speech, much better than throwing money at folks. It's an easy win. Focusing on money ignores the entirety of what's really going on. You want a really corrupt system, start overengineering the money side.
- bigiain 13y ago
  I fear that perhaps the money problem is at the other end of the process. The money required to "get the votes" isn't the only monetary consideration. Once you get voted in, all of a sudden you've got control over a – for all intents and purposes – unlimited money tap. This encourages the sort of people who think "skimming a little bit off the top" of the government provided money flow (aka "stealing from the taxpayer") is OK, to enter the political arena for self-serving reasons. I don't know how much this is a real problem – there's a good argument that "enlightened self interest" is perhaps the best motivator for politicians, but I know where I live (Sydney, Australia) our local state government is currently involved in many many scandals where politicians have been caught using their positions to create great wealth for themselves and their family/friends under extremely suspicious circumstances (mysterious real estate deals in areas which subsequently get significant changes in legal status, planning permission given to industries with no public consultation followed by executive level jobs or board positions when responsible politicians leave office). In an "ideal world", people seeking political power for personal self-interest would be excluded in favour of people with purely altruistic intentions. Unfortunately that's about as practical as appointing me as Emperor of the Universe.
- griffordson 13y ago
  Maybe you've already heard Lessig's arguments on the subject, but if you have not, you should give 18 minutes to his recent TED Talk: http://www.ted.com/talks/lawrence_lessig_we_the_people_and_the_republic_we_must_reclaim.html http://www.ted.com/talks/lawrence_lessig_we_the_people_and_t...
- northwest 13y ago
  Ok, we disagree. But, as an example, I'd just like to mention the obscene amounts of money being wasted during presidential elections. Why should candidates be allowed to be able to get more votes because they spend more money because they literally got paid/owned by some private interests/ultra-rich people? It's just plain stupidity. How can we allow that? We're technically not exactly there yet, b/c not every household has an Internet connection yet, but why shouldn't the goal be this: Set up just 1 website where all political parties can express their positions. And let that be the only allowed form of communication with the voter. It's a sane pull versus an insane push approach. And it would take a lot of money out of politics, which can then be spent for intelligent things like research, for example.

thret 13y ago

I think you'll find most of your allies are not happy being dragged into US wars where nobody thinks they belong.

ojbyrne 13y ago
Perhaps not happy, but they do seem to send troops. Both Iraq and Afghanistan are ostensibly being fought by coalitions/NATO.
- knowaveragejoe 13y ago
  Ostensibly, sure. In reality, More than 2/3rds of ISAF are US troops.