Berkeley City Council Doing Its Anti-Democracy Bit

[Undertoad]

They surrender and then there is a negotiation of terms. In some cases the enemy is not permitted to have a standing army after the war. Partly because it is not real terms of surrender if they only mean to call time for a while, reconstitute and re-attack. It is a period during which there can either be terms that will lead to lasting peace, or terms that will lead to continuance of fighting.

There is a period during which the enemy has "given up" and no longer considers itself at war. According to your definition, we are still at war at that point.

At what point are we not at war?

[Radar]

We don't get to decide if a fallen enemy gets to have a standing army before, during, or after a war. Surrender terms do not mean giving up sovereignty unless the losing country is being acquired as part of an empire. Unless this is the case, we do not have the authority to build permanent military bases within their country. In fact we don't have the authority to have a military base there when the war is concluded.

We are not at war when we are at peace. When a country has surrendered and we have accepted their surrender, we are no longer at war.

When is a boxing match over? When someone either gives up, get's knocked out, or time runs out. With war, time is also an issue. The longer you are at war, the fewer resources you have to fight one.

We never had legitimate justification to invade Iraq in 1991 or at any time since then. Every soldier who went there did so in violation of the Constitution. Every bullet fired, ship prevented from taking in good, no fly zone, or bomb dropped was done so illegally.

[Undertoad]

Either the defeated country is absorbed or they get to have a standard army back immediately following surrender.

Just checking, is that in the Constitution?

[TheMercenary]

[Radar]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Either the defeated country is absorbed or they get to have a standard army back immediately following surrender.

Just checking, is that in the Constitution?

No, the Constitution just says the only valid use of the U.S. military is for defending America. That doesn't mean defending defeated enemies. That doesn't mean starting unprovoked wars like the one in Iraq. It doesn't mean provoking others into war either. It doesn't include anything other than defending America.

America was created to escape the tyranny of imperialism, not to practice it. This means the option of absorbing other nations into an empire is out. Therefore the only valid option for a DEFENSIVE military is to leave the defeated country and let them figure out how to defend themselves after we're gone.

Actually, unless another country attacks ours and then retreats home, our army should never fight any wars outside the borders of America and we should never have any military bases outside of our own borders unless such an extremely unlikely event actually occurs.

[Undertoad]

Therefore the only valid option for a DEFENSIVE military is to leave the defeated country and let them figure out how to defend themselves after we're gone.

They're taken over by the nearest neighbor. Japan 1945 is taken over by China... and slaughtered. It's not really your ideal outcome.

[Radar]

Nobody said it was ideal. Perhaps after torturing and murdering millions of Chinese, that should have been the fate of Japan. Japan killed more Chinese than the Germans killed Jews or Russians.

Although if we minded our own business and didn't provoke Japan the way we did, we probably wouldn't have had to fight them at all and wouldn't have to worry about China taking over Japan. Japan might have a big part of China though.

[deadbeater]

Er, Radar, the US Gov't eventually would have to fight Japan over Pacific Ocean superiority. They left most of the fighting over China and the Korean Penisula to the USSR and and to the natives.

One of the reasons they hurried the war with Japan in WW2 was because the USSR declared war on Japan a few days before Japan surrendered. Can't have Russia take over the Japanese archipelago.

[busterb]

Hello. Anyone wanting to join the jarheads, I sure after 218 post you can find a place other than the one that started this goat roping!

[deadbeater]

Originally Posted by Radar

No, the Constitution just says the only valid use of the U.S. military is for defending America. That doesn't mean defending defeated enemies. That doesn't mean starting unprovoked wars like the one in Iraq. It doesn't mean provoking others into war either. It doesn't include anything other than defending America.

America was created to escape the tyranny of imperialism, not to practice it. This means the option of absorbing other nations into an empire is out. Therefore the only valid option for a DEFENSIVE military is to leave the defeated country and let them figure out how to defend themselves after we're gone. That's how some countries view America.

An example of how good ideas get fucked up. America may not control a country per se but it does more or less control the country's GDP and the means of production. Imagine a Warren Buffett-type replacing Uncle Sam as the icon.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by deadbeater

Er, Radar, the US Gov't eventually would have to fight Japan over Pacific Ocean superiority. They left most of the fighting over China and the Korean Penisula to the USSR and and to the natives.

One of the reasons they hurried the war with Japan in WW2 was because the USSR declared war on Japan a few days before Japan surrendered. Can't have Russia take over the Japanese archipelago.

Hell we could just split the world up between Russia, China, and us. But of course you know that the rest of the world would not really stand for that and sooner or later Russia or China would want what we had.

[Radar]

Or we could mind our own business, take care of our own problems in our own country instead of meddling in the affairs of other nations, and we could live in peace and prosperity. We could trade freely with all nations and make friends with them, and hope that everyone finds their own way to liberty, freedom, and justice.

We can have a smaller, cheaper, and less intrusive government that doesn't get involved in our daily lives and which still provides an adequate defense for America without overspending on the military and becoming an economic burden for Americans.



Our military spending is 10 times higher than any other country on earth, and is being more than all of the next highest spenders including China, Russia, Great Britain, and most other nations with a large military.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Radar: no strikes accrue to me. I read the Constitution too, and draw conclusions, based on its text and upon our history, much the opposite of yours. Narcissistic bellowings on your part cannot constitute proof.

I reject your reading of our Constitution, and your rationalizations of your xenophobic streak, and your antiglobalism. Narcissists are often selfish, and selfishness keeps oozing out of your sentences.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Narcissists are often selfish, and selfishness keeps oozing out of your sentences.

Imagine that...

[Urbane Guerrilla]

After reading the flensing you gave Radar, I am imagining indeed.

I don't much complain about our large military budget. That's an inevitable concomitant of our generating the "flow of security" into the Non-Integrating Gap, where security is conspicuous by its absence.

There are four essential "flows" that make up the global economy and related endeavors, all pretty inextricably interrelated, though distinguishable: the flow of people, immi- and emigration; the flow of security; the flow of finances/resources; the flow of energy. All these flows about our economic sphere naturally go from where there is an abundance to where there is a, or some, scarcity. The freer these flows, the more smoothly the global economy functions. Mess with any and trouble follows in short order.