Berkeley City Council Doing Its Anti-Democracy Bit

[Flint]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Hey, I don't think we should be there either, Iraq that is.

There may be some valid reason for us to be there. I'd like to think that there is, and I can imagine what it might be. But, the stated reasons (various and ever-shanging) weren't capable of sustaining political support. That is why we were doomed to failure from the beginning. Every one of our enemies knows that our lack of political will is the key to defeating us. How come we haven't figured that out yet? We can't afford to rush into stupid wars for half-cocked reasons. People aren't going to support that. It's a waste of resources.

If we have some tangible reason for going to war, then, like it or not, in a Democracy you have to say what that reason is, in order to get people to support you. The drawback to that may be "tipping our hand" to the enemy, but the alternative is starting un-winnable (un-finishable) wars.

[Radar]

A mental midget like you are in no position to judge the intellect of his intellectual superiors like me.

How hilarious that a shitbird like you who has absolutely zero understanding of the Constitution would question someone like me who knows it better than any Supreme Court Justice in the last century.

The war in Iraq is 100% unconstitutional. Anyone who says otherwise is a liar, a complete idiot, or an asshole. This includes you.

I have proven many times the unconstitutionality of this war.

1. The U.S. Constitution defines the scope of our military as being a DEFENSIVE one. This means America doesn't start wars or attack first. It means all "pre-emptive" military action is unconstitutional.

2. Only Congress has war making powers and only when it is in the defense of American ships or soil and then only when a formal declaration of war is made and voted upon by Congress.

3. Congress does not have the authority to distribute its powers to other branches of government so it may not "authorize" the president to make war.

4. The invasion of Iraq was not in the defense of America in 1991, in 2002, or at any time in history. Iraq never posed even the slightest threat to America.

5. The war powers act is unconstitutional in its face and the Supreme Court itself said that all laws which contradict the Constitution are automatically null and void without the requirement of judicial review.

6. Each and every single war that the United States has entered into in which America was not defending American soil or ships is unconstitutional. Each and every single war the United States has entered into where a formal declaration of war was not made by CONGRESS, is unconstitutional.

I've stated these indisputable facts many times over. You are just too stupid to read them or too dishonest or morally bankrupt to admit they are true.

Dont' ever try to take the moral or intellectual high ground with me. You will lose every time.

You ask "How could it possibly be wrong for freedom to kill unfreedom?" The question itself proves your ignorance and I'm not just talking about your use of a fictional word.

Freedom doesn't kill anything. Freedom is about living the way you want to live your life without being molested, forced, coerced, or cajoled into doing what others want you to do. Democracy and freedom are not synonymous .

America's authority ends at our own borders. Neither America, nor the UN has any authority whatsoever to tell another country what weapons it may or may not develop or what system of government it will or won't have. America isn't here to "liberate" the people of other nations or to practice nation building. America's military is for the sole use of defending America.

America's military is here to be a DEFENSIVE force to be used when we are attacked and not otherwise. It's not here to be spread out all over the globe like the Roman Empire bullying other nations or sticking our noses into the disputes of other nations. It's not here for humanitarian aid or peacekeeping missions. It's not here to overthrow or prop up dictators or to spread democracy. It's not even here to kill "unfreedom".

Anyone who would use the U.S. military for any of these reasons is a traitor and an idiot.

[Flint]

Originally Posted by Radar

This is not an isolationist stance. It's a military non-interventionist stance, and they are not the same thing.

Okay, I used the wrong word. The difference in the two things we're describing is: the specific (stated) reason why the troops are there. Which is highly debatable. We're framing it differently, but as a practical matter the results are the same.

I'm saying there may be a good reason for us to be over there, but, mysteriously we are silent on that point.

As a result, we've barrelled into a war with no hope of sustained political support.

[Radar]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerilla

Repetition, dear fellow, is not persuasion,

True, but you continue to repeat lies. Also, one can hardly expect to persuade those who are intellectually dishonest and morally bankrupt and whose minds (what little they have) are not open to be persuaded.

In other words, you can't persuade a rock, or those who have the intellect and/or stubbornness of one.

[deadbeater]

Oh they didn't bankroll, they just stored what the Nazis and Faciscts have stolen, and intend to keep the stuff after the Nazis died off, if it weren't for that pesky guard. I got it.

[Radar]

As I said, they remain neutral. There is no moral ambiguity or wrong in doing this. The reward is in never having to fight a war that you don't belong in....like Iraq.

Switzerland didn't judge the actions of other nations or get involved in their disputes. If someone brought money or art, or something valuable and wants to store it in their bank, they assumed it was gotten legitimately. If it wasn't, the blame is on the person who stole it, not the person who stored it.

Also, banks in America do the same thing. If you die, and nobody comes forward to collect your money, after a certain period of time, the bank gets to keep it. I highly doubt banks leave accounts open that have had no activity for 50 years.

[Bullitt]

No officer I didn't think anything was wrong with letting some random guy hide a stolen Ferrari in my garage so no one would know. Honest! I didn't steal it, i just helped the guy who did! I'm neutral!

ac·com·plice -noun: a person who knowingly helps another in a crime or wrongdoing

[Radar]

Originally Posted by Bullitt

No officer I didn't think anything was wrong with letting some random guy hide a stolen Ferrari in my garage so no one would know. Honest! I didn't steal it, i just helped the guy who did! I'm neutral!

ac·com·plice -noun: a person who knowingly helps another in a crime or wrongdoing

No, it's more like this....

ME: "Yes officer, that person stored a Ferrari in my garage. He paid to store it there."

COP: "Didn't you think it might be stolen?"

ME: "I didn't ask. That's none of my business. If he stole it, he is the one who must deal with the authorities, not me."

[Flint]

Sir, these gentlemen are telling me that they did see a sign on your garage that said "Stolen Ferrari Storage" ...

[deadbeater]

That sure placated the Jews. No, it didn't. They sued for their forebears' things.

[Undertoad]

Also, America is harder to attack than Switzerland. They are surrounded by other nations and America has an ocean on either side and only 2 nations bordering ours.

America was attacked.

You can't imagine a war where a nation had to cross an ocean to attack and was successful? Cause that's half of them recently, starting with WW2. You can't imagine asymmetric warfare being an issue?

From what I can tell, Switzerland wasn't attacked because

A) its only strategy was defense, which was made possible by geography (a limited number of passable chokepoints) and the enlistment of 20% of its population into the army;

B) its economic concessions to Germany (why concentrate on taking it when it's giving you all you need anyway?), and

C) its basic aversion to nazism and distrust of the Germans made it a harder pill to swallow.

Hitler would have gotten back to Switzerland. He just moved it down the list and then his list got tore up before he could finish it.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

America was attacked.

You can't imagine a war where a nation had to cross an ocean to attack and was successful? Cause that's half of them recently, starting with WW2. You can't imagine asymmetric warfare being an issue?

Switzerland is more open to bombing (WWII) and terrorism (9-11) than the US is. It is within much closer range of many more countries, and has borders (with more countries) that are at least as open.

Their biggest defense is their foreign policy.

[Radar]

Nice.

That's the only scene in any movie where I'm not completely disgusted by Quentin Tarantino's acting. Still one of my favorite films of all time.

[Shawnee123]

Me too, Radar.

[Undertoad]

If that's not true it kind of blows your entire narrative on terror