A whole new war, a dazzling hate I never knew

POSTED BY: dreamtrove
UPDATED: Friday, January 30, 2009 20:59
VIEWED: 6353
PAGE 6 of 10

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE

SHINYGOODGUY

Tuesday, January 27, 2009 12:53 AM

There's more to this than meets the eye, but here's something that I read somewhere that, at first glance, I felt wasn't true - Obama would turn out to be more conservative than people would suspect.

But I look at this air strike as more of the same which leads me to think several things such as:

1. The cozy and somewhat surreal relationship between Clinton and Poppa Bush. What's up with that?
Is the elder Bush still controlling things behind the scenes from his watchtower?

2. What was in that note that W left for Obama?
Was it really the Book of Secrets everyone talks about? Or is it his "intelligence" reports (and we all know how that turned out). One has to wonder what intelligence was passed on to the President by the W Administration. I wouldn't put anything past Cheney and his little War machine (remember Cheney was with Poppa Bush in his administration, hmmmmmm coincidence?).

3. I found a report by CNN that states that this "bombing" by drones has been going on for quite some time in that region of Pakistan and that this latest salvo is nothing new, except for the fact that it took place under a new president.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/01/23/pakistan.missile/index.htm
l?iref=newssearch

4. Obama had made it known, on several occasions, that he was going after the Taliban in Afghanistan and into Pakistan strongholds. So the only surprise for me was how decidedly quickly he struck. But more info is needed, and here I will venture a guess that we, the general public, might never get all the facts in the latest turn of events in that region.

So, although it is true that this throws a monkey wrench into the Muddle East (yes, I meant to say muddle) one has to take a "wait and see" attitude, at least until the dust settles, before condemning the new president for his actions. Did the president act responsibly in allowing such airstrikes to continue? Was he given indisputable intelligence that would cause him to act?

I must admit that I was not surprised when Bush attacked Iraq, but I am somewhat shocked that Obama called for such action in a highly volatile region. This is disconcerting to me, but I will reserve judgment until I hear the president's thinking on this. Jury's out.

SGG

Tawabawho?

PIZMOBEACH

Tuesday, January 27, 2009 12:58 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Unless you have some evidence proving he knew about them before hand?

Hey, let's not let facts slow the hate parade - they have a schedule.

HERO

Tuesday, January 27, 2009 1:06 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
I do note, though, that Hero called this a war. It was my understanding that, constitutionally, only congress can declare war, and they haven't done that since the 1940's. Is this an admission that Bush acted unconstitutionally?

No. The legal use of military power outside a formal Declaration of War has been well established..."since the 1940's".

Korea, Vietnam, Libya, Kuwait, etc.

You could argue that Congress acted unconstitutionally by giving the President authorization for every military action since 1945...but you'd lose. In fact I suspect the Court has ruled on that issue at some point.

Makes sense when you consider that, and this is only one example, it would take about five minutes for a surprise SLBM launched from a Soviet sub to hit Washington obliterating Congress BEFORE they get the opportunity to listen to a fine speech, debate a bit, and then call for a formal vote.

H

HERO

Tuesday, January 27, 2009 1:13 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Hero is right that when Obama reviewed the policies to and okayed them, they are Obama policies. Now maybe he did not want this, but he should speak up.

Jan 20, 2009. Military briefing:

Obama option #1:
"Ok, guys. Sounds like you got this whole war thing under control. We'll take it up tomorrow, gotta run, wife and I gotta shindig...say which way to the residence?"

Obama option #2:
"Ok, guys. Sounds like we need more time to really get into the details of what we are doing here...lets take this up first thing tomorrow, till then hold off on any new operations or bombing countries other then Iraq or Afganistan. Gotta run...oops thats the closet, which way...never mind, I'll figure it out."

He chose option #1.

H

DREAMTROVE

Tuesday, January 27, 2009 1:31 AM

SGG, very thoughtful post, a lot to gnaw on there. I want to comment on those interrelationships. I'll get back to this. The shocking thing to me was that Obama would use predator drone airstrikes. Robot bombings clash radically with the now tarnished nice guy image he's been polishing for the last two years.

I knew he had a policy of getting into this mess, why I couldn't vote for him, but I was expecting time, planning, caution, and subtlety, maybe some CIA, maybe some special forces, etc. Small rambo stuff, not just go all skynet on us, first week out of the gate.

Characterwise... I'm doing something else, I'll get back to this

HERO

This is one of my brother's areas. He says that since the UN basically outlawed war, war had to evolve. Now it exists in four basic ways

1. The UN backed intervention. This could include arguably Iraq, Afghanistan, Kosovo, Bosnia, Somalia.

2. The invitation invasion. The recognized host govt. invites you in to help them defend. This includes Korea, Vietnam, Kuwait, etc.

3. The "illegal war": You have no UN resolution and no invite, but you go in anyway. This is like Saddam Hussein invading Kuwait. Anyone is basically allowed to go in and stop you at this point. That gives two creds for the US in Kuwait.

4. Civil war. This is an internal dispute, and intervention is a violation of national sovereignty.

#4 represents probably the biggest hole in UN logic, because it prevented intervention in Rwanda. That's why Clinton's veto of the Rwandan exception resolution was a blatantly evil act. But it's a problem again in Sudan, which is waging war not just in Darfur, but in all the southern provinces. Also, Ethiopia. Some of that mess was cleared up by recognition of Eritrea.

Now Russia in S. Ossetia was an invitation. The US in Pakistan is iffy. We have created a puppet govt. where the defacto head of state is a US govt. official. The international recognition of that govt. is in question, but it's certainly a tyranny, with one of the lowest approval ratings of any govt. The sitting figurehead of state is wanted for murder, conspiracy to commit terrorism, and a 1.5 billion dollar fraud. Of course the US could buy international recognition for a puppet govt., and then get its invite. Sure, it's only a matter of time before the rest of the Bhutto clan is executed, but rewind a sec. and you see an additional flaw in the UN: Set up a puppet govt. and then bribe govts. to recognize it. Or, absorb it, have your puppet govt. willingly surrender, and make it a member territory, and then any conflict is "internal" like China and Russia like to do.

So, it's unquestionably a flawed system. I believe there can be no open declarations of war between member states of the united nations.

This is a problem for the moron idea of war with Iran: We will never get an invite, it's highly unlikely we'll get a UN resolution, Bush tried to provoke them into invading someone else, to justify a response, leaving us with only one option, the illegal war. The main problem with the illegal war is not its name and connotation, it's that international law allows anyone to defend. Russia and China are both desperate to see us out of the mideast, they would defend anyone it was legal to defend.

DREAMTROVE

Tuesday, January 27, 2009 2:46 AM

Okay, SGG, back to your comments about connections. (continuation of the above.)

IMHO, encapsulated analysis:

The globalist movement has lots of clans, conspiracies, gangs, and just regular old special interests. Like any movement, it moves in a particular direction because there are a number of groups aligned more or less in that direction.

That said, some are powerful globally, some locally. The Bush-Clinton thing is a marriage made in hell. Bush Sr. has his little CIA international empire, and Clinton has his Texarkana drug empire. Cheney is part of the military industrialists, and also has oil connections. Bush has oil connections.

Cheney's globalist group is separate from Bush's. He is bent on ...

Well, rewind. Cheney isn't an entity. He's 1/2 of a team, life long, it's been Cheney/Rumsfeld. Rummy is a hardcore MIC guy, and a member of the asymmetrical warfare crowd, which is like 7th day adventists of military science. The trick twist to the asymmetrical warfare crowd is that they try to convince you that they are trying to restore balance, and that the threat du jour, like terrorism, is creating imbalance. Really, the asymmetricalists want to create an imbalance, so they can dominate.

Cheney is also part of the oil tyranny crowd. This crowd believes that they can hold the world hostage by controlling its energy supply. Eventually, they figure, nations would cry uncle, and change policy.

Along the way on any of these ideologies, personal or group greed can take over an f&*k things up, but I'm just discussing the ideologies themselves.

So, Cheney had a big fight with Bush Sr., (Bush Sr. wouldn't invade Iraq) and switched to support Clinton. The Perot campaign got a huge underhanded influx of support, and like most third party guys, he didn't know, but he knew enough to play Clinton for control of 1st term fiscal policy (another long story.)

Anyway, the Clinton empire was born. Or put in power. Clintons are gangsta types, I think they're after themselves, money, power, drugs, not unlike Bushes. It took a long time before the Clintons and Bushes really joined forces. But these are just petty power cabals that are after themselves, and behind the scenes, more targeted ideologues are pushing them into policy.

The one world crowd, CFR, is really looking for permanent global domination, and finds people without scruples easy to manipulate, or work with. As do most agenda globalist groups, like the corrupt banker crowd, and sure, there's some cross over there.

Where Obama fits in? Is he the pretty face for the new Clinton admin? Or the ugly globalist goons behind the curtain?

Wait and see I guess. There was no denouncement of the attacks, no apology, I have to assume that Obama is on board with this idea. We'll know for sure when the next one hits, because now we are certain he has held a national security meeting on this precise issue, directly after the last attack.

It's possible that Obama is an ideologue with his own agenda, and willing to compromise everything else in order to achieve it.

Just some random thoughts on the matter

CITIZEN

Tuesday, January 27, 2009 12:37 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
No. The legal use of military power outside a formal Declaration of War has been well established..."since the 1940's".

Korea, Vietnam, Libya, Kuwait, etc.

Doesn't prove war can constitutionally be declared by an entity other than Congress, just that war has been declared. Though of course most of the above weren't 'wars' they were 'police actions'.

Quote:

You could argue that Congress acted unconstitutionally by giving the President authorization for every military action since 1945...but you'd lose. In fact I suspect the Court has ruled on that issue at some point.

Ah, but they didn't declare war, that's the point.

Quote:
Makes sense when you consider that, and this is only one example, it would take about five minutes for a surprise SLBM launched from a Soviet sub to hit Washington obliterating Congress BEFORE they get the opportunity to listen to a fine speech, debate a bit, and then call for a formal vote.

I'm sure Nuclear war with the Russians was fore-front of the founding fathers minds.

CITIZEN

Tuesday, January 27, 2009 12:40 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:

Now Russia in S. Ossetia was an invitation.

Georgia (the only legitimate and recognised government in the region) invited the Russian's in to fight them?

CITIZEN

Tuesday, January 27, 2009 12:45 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Shinygoodguy:
So, although it is true that this throws a monkey wrench into the Muddle East (yes, I meant to say muddle) one has to take a "wait and see" attitude, at least until the dust settles, before condemning the new president for his actions. Did the president act responsibly in allowing such airstrikes to continue? Was he given indisputable intelligence that would cause him to act?

I must admit that I was not surprised when Bush attacked Iraq, but I am somewhat shocked that Obama called for such action in a highly volatile region. This is disconcerting to me, but I will reserve judgment until I hear the president's thinking on this. Jury's out.

Indeed.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

DREAMTROVE

Tuesday, January 27, 2009 1:21 PM

Quote:
CITIZEN
Georgia (the only legitimate and recognised government in the region) invited the Russian's in to fight them?

Good point. Though Russia and I think one other country recognized S. Ossetia and Abkhazia, the UN did not. The Govt. of Georgia did not. I guess this falls under meddling in the inside affairs of another member state.

The same argument could be made for Kosovo, the war has NATO backing, I'm not sure it had UN backing, but there was a UN condemnation of Serbia.

Did Russia seek a UN resolution against Georgia for cutting off supplies to S. Ossetia?

I suspect that the war was a PR stunt. Russia had been sort of dismissed by other world powers as an ex-superpower, and afterwords, they were back on the superpower list.

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE