4 ms·

>Lots of "wrong people" get killed in all wars. What war are we in currently?!

melling 13y ago
Are you playing the we never declared war game? We didn't declare war in Korea either. It was the Korean Conflict. Anyway, let's try not to run into the weeds playing games. It adds no value to the conversation.
- stefan_kendall 13y ago
  The question is not whether the US military is murdering on a consistent, timely basis. It's a question of why the murdering is happening in the first place. I have no power to change any aspect of the US military, but that doesn't mean I can't decry it as evil.
- galois17 13y ago
  USA and its allies are occupying two countries and they are fighting the local resistance. The occupied countries never threatened the offensive forces. Does it reminde you of anything similar that happened 70 years ago? And btw when was the last time that USA was in a war as a defensive force? When did the American soldiers defend their homes and their American soil?
  - melling 13y ago
    Your stance is that we should never involve ourselves in any foreign conflict and only fight when we are domestically attacked? Please be more explicit so the discussion can be more focused. Certainly, we could move all our our soldiers in all countries back to the US. We still have troops in Korea, Japan, Germany, and many other countries.
- macspoofing 13y ago
  >Are you playing the we never declared war game? Maybe. The 'declared war game' has several nice properties: 1) It provides a definite start and end to hostilities. 2) Clearly identifies a target. 3) Has relatively clear rules of war, especially with regards to treatment of POWs and civilians. You don't want to play that game. Ok. So what are we left with?! We have not-really-POWs at Guantanamo. We drone-strike targets in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and apparently Yemen. There is no clarity around who the targets are, why they are targeted, who sentences them to death and what the procedure is, how long this will last, and any other information that would introduce some sort of accountability. Just a few weeks ago, a wedding convoy was mistakenly targeted and 17 innocent people died. Clearly there was some MASSIVE lapse in intelligence. Worse, why is a convoy EVER targeted given that more than likely most convoy-travelers are either innocent or not-deserving of a death sentence even if a known terrorist is among them. So...why did this happen? who was responsible for the 'mishap'? what was done to make sure this doesn't happen again? Who was fired/disciplined/court-marshaled?
dragonwriter 13y ago
> What war are we in currently?! The one initiated by the 9/11 attacks and declared by Congress via Pub.L. 107-40 (September 14, 2011)
- macspoofing 13y ago
  It wasn't a declaration of war. It was an authorization of military force against targets that that committed or aided in the 9/11 attacks. Using this Act almost 15 years later to justify drone attacks against targets that had nothing to do with 9/11 stretches the interpretation a little. No? I mean, surely, you're not suggesting that this act means the office of the president has perpetual authorization and apparently such a huge leeway in its interpretation.
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    > It wasn't a declaration of war. It most emphatically was a conditional declaration of war. > It was an authorization of military force against targets that that committed or aided in the 9/11 attacks. "An authorization of military force" is an exercise of Congress' power to declare war. And it was against those "nations, organizations, or persons" that the President of the United States determines to have committed or aided, or harbored those who have committed or aided, in the 9/11 attacks. > Using this Act almost 15 years later to justify drone attacks against targets that had nothing to do with 9/11 stretches the interpretation a little. No? The attacks are against al-Qaeda, an organization which did not have "nothing to do with 9/11". > I mean, surely, you're not suggesting that this act means the office of the president has perpetual authorization and apparently such a huge leeway in its interpretation. Until and unless it is repealed, yes, by its plain language the AUMF gives the President perpetual authorization with very broad discretion -- which is why a number of people (including Barack Obama) have called for it's authority to be conclusively sunsetted by Congress -- though the continuing attacks against al-Qaeda aren't really any kind of a stretch.

Are you playing the we never declared war game? We didn't declare war in Korea either. It was the Korean Conflict. Anyway, let's try not to run into the weeds playing games. It adds no value to the conversation.

stefan_kendall 13y ago
The question is not whether the US military is murdering on a consistent, timely basis. It's a question of why the murdering is happening in the first place. I have no power to change any aspect of the US military, but that doesn't mean I can't decry it as evil.
galois17 13y ago
USA and its allies are occupying two countries and they are fighting the local resistance. The occupied countries never threatened the offensive forces. Does it reminde you of anything similar that happened 70 years ago? And btw when was the last time that USA was in a war as a defensive force? When did the American soldiers defend their homes and their American soil?
- melling 13y ago
  Your stance is that we should never involve ourselves in any foreign conflict and only fight when we are domestically attacked? Please be more explicit so the discussion can be more focused. Certainly, we could move all our our soldiers in all countries back to the US. We still have troops in Korea, Japan, Germany, and many other countries.
macspoofing 13y ago
>Are you playing the we never declared war game? Maybe. The 'declared war game' has several nice properties: 1) It provides a definite start and end to hostilities. 2) Clearly identifies a target. 3) Has relatively clear rules of war, especially with regards to treatment of POWs and civilians. You don't want to play that game. Ok. So what are we left with?! We have not-really-POWs at Guantanamo. We drone-strike targets in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and apparently Yemen. There is no clarity around who the targets are, why they are targeted, who sentences them to death and what the procedure is, how long this will last, and any other information that would introduce some sort of accountability. Just a few weeks ago, a wedding convoy was mistakenly targeted and 17 innocent people died. Clearly there was some MASSIVE lapse in intelligence. Worse, why is a convoy EVER targeted given that more than likely most convoy-travelers are either innocent or not-deserving of a death sentence even if a known terrorist is among them. So...why did this happen? who was responsible for the 'mishap'? what was done to make sure this doesn't happen again? Who was fired/disciplined/court-marshaled?

dragonwriter 13y ago

> What war are we in currently?! The one initiated by the 9/11 attacks and declared by Congress via Pub.L. 107-40 (September 14, 2011)

macspoofing 13y ago
It wasn't a declaration of war. It was an authorization of military force against targets that that committed or aided in the 9/11 attacks. Using this Act almost 15 years later to justify drone attacks against targets that had nothing to do with 9/11 stretches the interpretation a little. No? I mean, surely, you're not suggesting that this act means the office of the president has perpetual authorization and apparently such a huge leeway in its interpretation.
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  > It wasn't a declaration of war. It most emphatically was a conditional declaration of war. > It was an authorization of military force against targets that that committed or aided in the 9/11 attacks. "An authorization of military force" is an exercise of Congress' power to declare war. And it was against those "nations, organizations, or persons" that the President of the United States determines to have committed or aided, or harbored those who have committed or aided, in the 9/11 attacks. > Using this Act almost 15 years later to justify drone attacks against targets that had nothing to do with 9/11 stretches the interpretation a little. No? The attacks are against al-Qaeda, an organization which did not have "nothing to do with 9/11". > I mean, surely, you're not suggesting that this act means the office of the president has perpetual authorization and apparently such a huge leeway in its interpretation. Until and unless it is repealed, yes, by its plain language the AUMF gives the President perpetual authorization with very broad discretion -- which is why a number of people (including Barack Obama) have called for it's authority to be conclusively sunsetted by Congress -- though the continuing attacks against al-Qaeda aren't really any kind of a stretch.