PDA

View Full Version : Don't Be Fooled: New Bipartisan AUMF Greenlights Endless War



Green Arrow
06-10-2015, 08:40 PM
Don't Be Fooled: New Bipartisan AUMF Greenlights Endless War (http://www.commondreams.org/news/2015/06/10/dont-be-fooled-new-bipartisan-aumf-greenlights-endless-war)


Amid a dearth of congressional debate, and fresh announcements of more troop deployments to Iraq, a group of bipartisan lawmakers is pushing yet another piece of legislation authorizing open-ended and geographically-limitless war against the Islamic State or ISIL.

Introduced by Sens. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) and Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) this week, the new authorization for use of military force (AUMF) is being framed by its backers as a bid to jump-start a real debate over the war and pursue a "narrow" mission.


However, analysts say that this new legislation, in fact, calls for extremely broad war powers, in some ways going beyond the failed AUMF proposed by President Barack Obama in mid-February.

I'm a little disappointed in Sen. Kaine for backing such terrible legislation, but I do give him credit for at least defending the separation of powers and demanding Congress actually vote on a new AUMF, rather than just giving the president unspoken license to wage war wherever he likes.

I would rather we have congressionally-approved endless war than non-congressionally-approved endless war.

Mac-7
06-11-2015, 04:15 AM
I can see what liberal non interventionists/isolationists want.

No military involvement for America outside our borders.

Let the world fall apart.

Libs don't care if radical islam takes over the entire Middle East and Europe.

And btw most of the libs supporting that idea cheer whenever obumer opens the door to more Muslim immigration into this country.

Peter1469
06-11-2015, 05:09 AM
Again, there are more types of foreign policy than non-interventionism on the one hand and rabid neocon intervention on the other.

Rational realism / realpolitik is the most reasonable option. Create policies that further vital national security interests. Don't let emotion drive you to spread resources thin for peripheral issues.

The rabid Neocons are being true to form - label anything not rabid Neocon as isolationist. It is unbelievably retarded, but most Americans are clueless, so they get away with it.

Mac-7
06-11-2015, 05:14 AM
Its odd that Peter claims to be different from the radical wackos on the left who want no military and no war against terrorism but thinks every person on the right is identical to the most radical war monger he can find.

Peter1469
06-11-2015, 05:16 AM
Its odd that Peter claims to be different from the radical wackos on the left who want no military and no war against terrorism but thinks every person on the right is identical to the most radical war monger he can find.

Neocons are not actually on the right. They are just as much statists as the hard left is. They pretend to be on the right.

And we have some members here who say if you are not a Neocon, you are an isolationist. Stupid, I know.

Mac-7
06-11-2015, 05:24 AM
Neocons are not actually on the right. They are just as much statists as the hard left is. They pretend to be on the right.

And we have some members here who say if you are not a Neocon, you are an isolationist. Stupid, I know.

Very few people posting on this forum are honest about themselves.

But clearly the mushy middle considers anyone who supports national defense and foreign intervention to be a neocon.

Peter1469
06-11-2015, 05:27 AM
Very few people posting on this forum are honest about themselves.

But clearly the mushy middle considers anyone who supports national defense and foreign intervention to be a neocon.


I pay attention to the foreign policy threads (as opposed to the useless ones)- and I start a good percentage of them. I don't see anyone accusing people who aren't Neocons of being Neocons.

The leader of the Neocons here routinely calls all non-Neocons Isolationists, when we really only have a couple of trueIsolationists on the forum.

Mac-7
06-11-2015, 05:30 AM
I pay attention to the foreign policy threads (as opposed to the useless ones)- and I start a good percentage of them. I don't see anyone accusing people who aren't Neocons of being Neocons.

The leader of the Neocons here routinely calls all non-Neocons Isolationists, when we really only have a couple of trueIsolationists on the forum.

So there are no wacko isolationists.

That's just a damn lie put out by the neocons.

But there are neocons?

Peter1469
06-11-2015, 05:32 AM
So there are no wacko isolationists.

That's just a damn lie put out by the neocons.

But there are neocons?

Where did you get confused? Go back, re-read the thread and tell me which post by # made you think the bolded.

Mac-7
06-11-2015, 05:37 AM
Where did you get confused? Go back, re-read the thread and tell me which post by # made you think the bolded.

Hey yourself.

In post #2 I responded to Green Arrow.

If you were not part of his posse on this subject why jump in with your comments about neocons.

i guess you figure a good offense is the best defense.

But why defend GA unless he represents your views too?

donttread
06-11-2015, 05:45 AM
Don't Be Fooled: New Bipartisan AUMF Greenlights Endless War (http://www.commondreams.org/news/2015/06/10/dont-be-fooled-new-bipartisan-aumf-greenlights-endless-war)



I'm a little disappointed in Sen. Kaine for backing such terrible legislation, but I do give him credit for at least defending the separation of powers and demanding Congress actually vote on a new AUMF, rather than just giving the president unspoken license to wage war wherever he likes.

I would rather we have congressionally-approved endless war than non-congressionally-approved endless war.

And here I thought ISIS wasn't going to do the trick and we'd have to create a new terrorist group "BAFHA" to get the sheep to swallow more war. But once again even my low opinion of the American voter has proven to be to high.

Peter1469
06-11-2015, 05:45 AM
Hey yourself.

In post #2 I responded to Green Arrow.

If you were not part of his posse on this subject why jump in with your comments about neocons.

i guess you figure a good offense is the best defense.

But why defend GA unless he represents your views too?

I didn't defend GA. All he said in the OP is that he prefers that Congress authorize the use of military force. That is the intent of the Constitution. It isn't controversial.

Post 2 is where you seem to lump all non-rabid Neocons into the isolationist camp.

OK, we have identified the source of your confusion in this thread.

Now study post 3 to get unconfused.

If you are still confused just ask.

Mac-7
06-11-2015, 05:50 AM
I didn't defend GA. All he said in the OP is that he prefers that Congress authorize the use of military force. That is the intent of the Constitution. It isn't controversial.

Post 2 is where you seem to lump all non-rabid Neocons into the isolationist camp.



Yes, Green Arrow gets a lot of abuse on this forum and its only natural for you to stick up for him.

Peter1469
06-11-2015, 05:52 AM
Yes, Green Arrow gets a lot of abuse on this forum and its only natural for you to stick up for him.

Confusion again.

I am not defending GA. Can you explain why you think that I am? Last time you pointed to your own post. That didn't answer the question.

So what tipped you off?

Mac-7
06-11-2015, 05:56 AM
Confusion again.

I am not defending GA. Can you explain why you think that I am? Last time you pointed to your own post. That didn't answer the question.

So what tipped you off?

when you tried to change the subject from Green Arrow and the non interventionist isolationists to neocons instead.

Like I said sometimes the best defense is a good offense.

Peter1469
06-11-2015, 06:06 AM
when you tried to change the subject from Green Arrow and the non interventionist isolationists to neocons instead.

Like I said sometimes the best defense is a good offense.

Your conclusions as to my purpose are mistaken, but that is OK. I don't expect better.

So why are all non-rabid Neocons isolationists? Do you understand the term?

Mac-7
06-11-2015, 06:16 AM
Your conclusions as to my purpose are mistaken, but that is OK. I don't expect better.

So why are all non-rabid Neocons isolationists? Do you understand the term?

I don't think everyone to the left of myself is an isolationist/non interventionist/pacifist.

But I think many people who throw the neocon label around are being very defensive and probably hiding their own radicalism.

Here I see "non-rabid neocons" attacking anyone who thinks Isis is a greater threat than the "non-rabid neocons" are willing to admit.

the self described moderates are far more sympathetic to the left than right.

And I don't that that is a coincidence.

Peter1469
06-11-2015, 06:45 AM
I don't think everyone to the left of myself is an isolationist/non interventionist/pacifist.

But I think many people who throw the neocon label around are being very defensive and probably hiding their own radicalism.

Here I see "non-rabid neocons" attacking anyone who thinks Isis is a greater threat than the "non-rabid neocons" are willing to admit.

the self described moderates are far more sympathetic to the left than right.

And I don't that that is a coincidence.

I only expect simplicity in thought process from some people.

Back to something other than being a Neocon or an isolationist.

Do you understand the term realism as it applies to foreign policy?

Mac-7
06-11-2015, 06:53 AM
Do you understand the term realism as it applies to foreign policy?

A better question is do I understand realism the way you use the term and the answer to that is no.

Better that you just tell us what you mean rather than making me guess.

Peter1469
06-11-2015, 06:58 AM
A better question is do I understand realism the way you use the term and the answer to that is no.

Better that you just tell us what you mean rather than making me guess.

LoL, as I expected.


realpolitik, politics based on practical objectives rather than on ideals. The word does not mean “real” in the English sense but rather connotes “things”—hence a politics of adaptation to things as they are. Realpolitik thus suggests a pragmatic, no-nonsense view and a disregard for ethical considerations. In diplomacy it is often associated with relentless, though realistic, pursuit of the national interest. (http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/493161/realpolitik)

Here is Wiki (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realism_%28international_relations%29) on the topic- a bit on the advanced side, so be careful.

Mac-7
06-11-2015, 07:02 AM
LoL, as I expected.



Here is Wiki (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realism_(international_relations)) on the topic- a bit on the advanced side, so be careful.

Thats just boilerplate that anyone could claim applies to their position.

But at least we have a common definition to work with in spite of your snide personal attacks.

Peter1469
06-11-2015, 07:05 AM
Thats just boilerplate that anyone could claim applies to their position.

But at least we have a common definition to work with in spite of your snide personal attacks.

Do you see how it is not isolationism? Will you stop calling people who clearly are not isolationists, isolationists?

Take your time. New concepts should be absorbed slowly.

Mac-7
06-11-2015, 07:18 AM
Do you see how it is not isolationism? Will you stop calling people who clearly are not isolationists, isolationists?

Take your time. New concepts should be absorbed slowly.

Many people are isolationists/non interventionist/pacifists.

For you to argue that not everyone is that bad while at the same time indiscriminately attacking others as neocons is just not going to work with me.

Peter1469
06-11-2015, 07:54 AM
Many people are isolationists/non interventionist/pacifists.

For you to argue that not everyone is that bad while at the same time indiscriminately attacking others as neocons is just not going to work with me.

So post #2 was a mistake or a strawman?


I can see what liberal non interventionists/isolationists want.

No military involvement for America outside our borders.

Let the world fall apart.

Libs don't care if radical islam takes over the entire Middle East and Europe.

And btw most of the libs supporting that idea cheer whenever obumer opens the door to more Muslim immigration into this country.

Mac-7
06-11-2015, 08:27 AM
So post #2 was a mistake or a strawman?

You mean I should have said "some libs?"

Maybe.

But the unconservative libs change colors here faster than a lizard.

I can barely keep up with who or what they claim to be from day to day.

Peter1469
06-11-2015, 08:29 AM
You mean I should have said "some libs?"

Maybe.

But the unconservative libs change colors here faster than a lizard.

I can barely keep up with who or what they claim to be from day to day.

Bolded: understood. :wink:

As far as "some libs"- probably wouldn't help because you have a "unique" concept of the word.... :shocked:

magicmike
06-11-2015, 08:38 AM
I can see what liberal non interventionists/isolationists want.

No military involvement for America outside our borders.

Let the world fall apart.

Libs don't care if radical islam takes over the entire Middle East and Europe.

And btw most of the libs supporting that idea cheer whenever obumer opens the door to more Muslim immigration into this country.

That's more of a libertarian stance than liberal. Liberals don't mind involvement as long as its carefully thought out.

Mac-7
06-11-2015, 08:43 AM
That's more of a libertarian stance than liberal. Liberals don't mind involvement as long as its carefully thought out.

Liberals wanted a complete pullout of Iraq as much as libertarians did.

And liberals want gitmo closed.

Sure there are liberal democrats in congress who support defense.

But they are regarded as wackos by most of the liberal democrat base.

Peter1469
06-11-2015, 08:46 AM
That's more of a libertarian stance than liberal. Liberals don't mind involvement as long as its carefully thought out.

Untrue. Liberal warhawks advocate war for humanitarian reasons vice national security reasons. Thought doesn't enter into the equation.

Ransom
06-11-2015, 08:55 AM
Many people are isolationists/non interventionist/pacifists.

For you to argue that not everyone is that bad while at the same time indiscriminately attacking others as neocons is just not going to work with me.

Where there are but a few true blue isolationists here, I have explained to Peter repeatedly that where he wears their uniform, he cannot whine about coming under artillery fire. Pete...in my humble opinion....is often the wolf in sheep's clothing. He often wanders over to the Isolationists tent during discussions.....and then will complain when he's defeated, complain harder when he's defeated wearing neutral colors. I've tried to explain to him....waddle and quack like a duck during duck season.......don't whine when the 12 gauge comes raining in.

Ransom
06-11-2015, 08:56 AM
Untrue. Liberal warhawks advocate war for humanitarian reasons vice national security reasons. Thought doesn't enter into the equation.

Wholesale untrue. And I mean...not even close.

Get my duck call out here.....let's see.....

quack quack........quack quack......

Peter1469
06-11-2015, 11:38 AM
Where there are but a few true blue isolationists here, I have explained to Peter repeatedly that where he wears their uniform, he cannot whine about coming under artillery fire. Pete...in my humble opinion....is often the wolf in sheep's clothing. He often wanders over to the Isolationists tent during discussions.....and then will complain when he's defeated, complain harder when he's defeated wearing neutral colors. I've tried to explain to him....waddle and quack like a duck during duck season.......don't whine when the 12 gauge comes raining in.

Hence the label rabid Neocon....

Peter1469
06-11-2015, 11:39 AM
Wholesale untrue. And I mean...not even close.

Get my duck call out here.....let's see.....

quack quack........quack quack......

You can't deny reality rabid Neocon. Liberal warhawks are a known fact. We had a long discussion about it with regards to 3 female warhawks close to Obama.

Green Arrow
06-11-2015, 07:37 PM
I can see what liberal non interventionists/isolationists want.

No military involvement for America outside our borders.

Let the world fall apart.

Libs don't care if radical islam takes over the entire Middle East and Europe.

And btw most of the libs supporting that idea cheer whenever obumer opens the door to more Muslim immigration into this country.

I'm not an isolationist and I don't believe America should just sit back and watch as the world falls apart.

That strawman was pretty weak.

donttread
06-11-2015, 08:23 PM
Someone should take the song "Endless Love" re write it and sign it as "Endless war"

Mac-7
06-12-2015, 12:25 AM
Where there are but a few true blue isolationists here, I have explained to Peter repeatedly that where he wears their uniform, he cannot whine about coming under artillery fire. Pete...in my humble opinion....is often the wolf in sheep's clothing. He often wanders over to the Isolationists tent during discussions.....and then will complain when he's defeated, complain harder when he's defeated wearing neutral colors. I've tried to explain to him....waddle and quack like a duck during duck season.......don't whine when the 12 gauge comes raining in.

All the libs here have "happy feet" in the pocket and Peter is no exception.

They are one place today but somewhere else tomorrow.

Mac-7
06-12-2015, 12:27 AM
I'm not an isolationist and I don't believe America should just sit back and watch as the world falls apart.

That strawman was pretty weak.

Of course not.

You only give that false impression because everything you post reeks of military non intervention.

Peter1469
06-12-2015, 04:35 AM
Lib, lib, lib

retard, retard, retard :shocked:

donttread
06-12-2015, 07:59 AM
Someone should take the song "Endless Love" re write it and sign it as "Endless war"

Or maybe we could take Steve Miller's "Keep on Rocking me baby " and instead of "Philadelphia, Atlanta, LA keep on rockin me baby" plus in something like

"Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran and Pakistan we'll keep on rockin your babies ( with bombs) we'll keep on rockin your babies ( with drones) we'll keep on rockin your babies ( with forced democracy)" C'mon everybody sign!!

Green Arrow
06-12-2015, 09:49 AM
Of course not.

You only give that false impression because everything you post reeks of military non intervention.

That's because you're not really that intelligent, no offense.

Common Sense
06-12-2015, 10:00 AM
LOL @no offense.

donttread
06-12-2015, 07:44 PM
That's because you're not really that intelligent, no offense.

Interventionism has failed completely. Oh sure it may have won elections and made megacorps richer but the America, Iraqi and Afghani people are all worse off because of western interventionism. Same story with Iran albeit more covert interventionism.
By any reasonable scientific measurement interventionism does not work. Period