PDA

View Full Version : Not a war, not an occupation, not a treaty



Osborne Russell
12-03-2007, 07:14 PM
OK, what then?

The chimp squad signed some kind of deal with Iraq.

Not a war because Saddam and the WMD's (the justification for pre-emptive war) are gone.

Not an occupation because they want us there.

They said they wanted us there because they elected a government that signed a deal with the chimp squad.

The deal is not a treaty because . . . if it's not a treaty, it requires no action by Congress . . . refusing to ratify it, to pick an example.

So the Chimp is not only the commander in chief in war, but also the not-treaty-maker to deal with the not-occupying troops

That way, if we need a justification to launch from Iraq to Iran, we can say we just happened to be there not-occupying pursuant to a not-treaty, and that's how America teaches the nations of the world to become democratic republics.

Osborne Russell
12-03-2007, 07:21 PM
Maybe we'll have to quit calling him the Chimp and start calling him the weasel.


Bush's next pre-emptive strike could doom Republicans in 2008
By Harold Meyerson
Special to The Washington Post

http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/ci_7603926


On Monday, Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki signed a declaration pledging that their governments would put in place a long-term political and security pact sometime next year. ''The shape and size of any long-term, or longer than 2008, U.S. presence in Iraq will be a key matter for negotiation between the two parties, Iraq and the United States,'' Lt. Gen. Douglas Lute, the White House official in charge of Iraq war matters, said at the briefing unveiling the agreement.

What Bush will almost surely be pushing for is permanent U.S. bases in Iraq, enshrined in a pact he can sign a few months before he leaves office. And here, as they used to say, is the beauty part: As far as Bush is concerned, he doesn't have to seek congressional ratification for such an enduring commitment of American force, treasure and lives.

''We don't anticipate now that these negotiations will lead to the status of a formal treaty which would then bring us to formal negotiations or formal inputs from the Congress,'' Lute said. The
administration is looking to sign a status-of-forces agreement, which requires Senate ratification if it's classified as a treaty but not if it's classified as an executive agreement. One need not be able to solve the riddle of the sphinx to guess which of those classifications the Bush White House will go for.

skuthorp
12-03-2007, 07:56 PM
And so by degrees you loose you freedoms. your choices, your independence and your constitution is subverted. Wanna bet nothing changes even if the Dems get in?

Greg P H
12-03-2007, 09:53 PM
I doubt much will change at all

We are in the denial phase....

Unfortunately, the longer we fail to recognize it, the more intense the repercussions will be when we do. If we do......

WX
12-03-2007, 11:18 PM
We are in the denial phase....
I think it's passing Greg, Bush is running out of "friends and allies" that want to be involved in pointless wars.

Wild Wassa
12-03-2007, 11:36 PM
When I watch the Mcniel Lehrer news hour from the US this evening and at the end of the program when they show the 'Roll of Honour' honouring the US dead in Iraq ... that now means that the people who have died, have died for absolutely nothing? ... died not in a war? ... died not during an occupation? ... they have died not for anything except because they were there, just in the wrong place at the wrong time?

Is that right? ... I thought that only in backward cultures life is considered cheap?

Could the US President show even less respect for the US dead? ... all done just to suit himself. How low can the US President go?

If a US serviceman or woman dies not in a war, or not during an occupation does his/her dependant's war benefits become null or change. Will the dependants still be entiitled to war service benefits or a tourist travel insurance payout? ... is this designed to save the US taxpayer a few lousy bucks so that more tax breaks can be given to the overly deserving rich? ... then just go for it !!!

So where do the new recruits go now to enlist? ... Harvey World Travel.

Warren.

Greg P H
12-03-2007, 11:56 PM
I hope it's passing. But I'm not encouraged by what I see, a lot of people just 'shut down'. They may be fed up with Bush and the congress, but still don't want to look too deep....


The fed gov is in denial for sure, and congress is mostly worrying about campaine contributions.

Osborne Russell
12-04-2007, 11:24 AM
If a US serviceman or woman dies not in a war, or not during an occupation does his/her dependant's war benefits become null or change. Will the dependants still be entiitled to war service benefits or a tourist travel insurance payout? ... is this designed to save the US taxpayer a few lousy bucks so that more tax breaks can be given to the overly deserving rich? ... then just go for it !!!

These are only a few of the issues made more manageable by the extensive use of mercenaries. The relationship is between contracting parties who settle these things in advance. None of the messy clutter involved with oaths to defend the constitution, bring freedom to the middle east and such.

Osborne Russell
12-04-2007, 11:33 AM
At risk of pointing out the obvious, the people who need to act are the Congress. Congress is not supposed to "micro-manage a war" it's true, but this is no longer a war to any but the most obtuse. It's
a long-term political and security pact.

Congress must speak one way or the other. Otherwise, since there are already precious few checks on the executive power to make war in the short term, if the legislature refuses to involve itself in the long term as well, well, we may as well not have a Congress and just have a King elected every four years, unless that should prove inefficient as well.

BTW, American faux conservatives (i.e. Republicans) are all done complaining about Clinton in the Balkans, and indeed any American overseas involvement anywhere, on any scale, under any circumstances, now and forever. Their leader asserts that the executive's power in this area never was limited by the Constitution; they say, yeah, support the troops, duh.

paladin
12-04-2007, 03:52 PM
The term "Mercenaries" may be a little misleading in the context that most folks are accustomed to using the word. In the presently accepted form, mercenaries have been used in the defense of this country since it's inception.
During the war of independence, mercenaries were used by both sides, predominately Prussian and french.
During the war of Northrun' Agression it was Scots, Irish, French and Spanish......
During WWI American mercenaries went to France.
During WWII American mercenaries went to China
During Korea American mercenaries went to Korea
During Vietnam American mercenaries went to vietnam, but were most prevalent in Cambodia, Lao and Northrun' Thailand......later in Angola...........and every little firefight in between.
Mercenaries carrying guns and shooting people was the rarity(until now).....most were running supply operations, moving cargo, maintaining aircraft and communications.
Soldiers are supposed to fight the wars.......

Osborne Russell
12-04-2007, 04:04 PM
The term "Mercenaries" may be a little misleading in the context that most folks are accustomed to using the word.

Think the administration gives a crap one way or the other?

LeeG
12-04-2007, 06:44 PM
It does make for a dificult storyline that we came to liberate Iraq from a dictator like Hitler in the greatest battle of our nation ,,but we had to pay soldiers from Figi, Columbia and Peru to guard our bases or a corporate entity to guard our diplomats.