DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Bleacher Bums Forum
HTML https://bbf.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Archives
*****************************************************
#Post#: 7785--------------------------------------------------
Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
DIR By: Jes Beard
Date: May 14, 2011, 3:08 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Dave, while I know none of this is going to change your opinion,
safe harbor to tens of thousands of troops in the middle of a
shooting war is not quite the same as safe harbor to an
individual, who may have been hiding from the Pakistan
government every bit as much as from the US, during a
non-existent "war." As to Jefferson, Jefferson did NOT send US
troops in to Tunisia to get the pirates. He sent naval forces
to the Mediterranean with instructions to protect US merchant
ships and to enforce existing treaties and punish infractions of
them, but not to "go after" the pirates. Additionally, Yusuf
Karamanli, the pasha of Tripoli, who also governed Tunisia,
declared war on the United States in May 1801, before Jefferson
sent any forces in that direction.
HTML http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_2_urbanities-thomas_jefferson.html
If we had evidence Pakistan was in fact providing "safe harbor,"
your position might at least have an initial premise, even if I
disagreed with your position, but there is no real evidence
which has been reported which indicates Pakistan was doing that.
#Post#: 7792--------------------------------------------------
Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
DIR By: Robb
Date: May 14, 2011, 4:18 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I think what makes Ron Paul unelectable in addition to his
foreign policy is his whiny little voice. America just won't
elect someone who they are going to want to punch after hearing
him speak for less than 2 minutes.
#Post#: 7877--------------------------------------------------
Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
DIR By: davep
Date: May 14, 2011, 8:23 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Jes - contrary to the premise of the author, the conflict in
Tunis has a large number of parallels to the situation in
Pakistan, although he tries his best to avoid mentioning them.
He ignores the fact that the Pasha of Tripoli was in charge of a
small province of the Turkish Empire, and that the Pasha had no
more legal right to declare war on the United States than the
Governor of Michigan has to declare war on Canada. The Turkish
Empire did NOT declare war on the US, nor did the US declare the
war on it. In fact, the US did not even bother to declare war
on Tripoli. They DID, however, authorize the fleet to conduct
whatever necessary operations ON SEA AND ON LAND to protect US
citizens and interests, even in the absence of a declaration of
war.
At that point in history, the Turkish Empire had little control
over it's provences, just as Pakistan has little control over
much of it's own territory. When Osama declared a fatwa against
the US, the US did not bother to declare war on him, but merely
took it's own action when the government who had jurisdiction
over him either was unable or unwilling to take it's own action.
The first responsibility of any government is to protect its
borders and citizens. If it can do this through diplomacy, that
is wonderful. But when diplomacy does not work, it is necessary
to take whatever reasonable measures to protect it's borders or
citizens. What they did was appropriate in every respect.
#Post#: 7879--------------------------------------------------
Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
DIR By: Jes Beard
Date: May 14, 2011, 8:32 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
So, since the US is not doing a very good job of maintaining its
southern border, and since the federal government does not
really control the states, I suppose it would be okay, by that
reasoning, for another nation to act similarly toward whomever
that nation might decide was their equivalent of bin Laden.
#Post#: 7880--------------------------------------------------
Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
DIR By: Jes Beard
Date: May 14, 2011, 8:52 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
As to there having been no declaration of war, even if we ignore
the fact that the Pasha declared war on the US, the US did
declare war on the "regency of Tripoli, on the coast of Barbary,
(which had) commenced a predatory warfare against the United
States.... (stating that) the Senate and House of
Representatives of the United States of America in Congress
Assembled, (authorized the President) to equip, officer, man,
and employ such of the armed vessels of the United States as may
be judged requisite by the President of the United States, for
protecting effectually the commerce and seamen thereof on the
Atlantic ocean, the Mediterranean and adjoining seas.... (I)t
shall be lawful for the President of the United States to
instruct the commanders of the respective public vessels
aforesaid, to subdue, seize and make prize of all vessels, goods
and effects, belonging to the Bey of Tripoli, or to his
subjects, and to bring or send the same into port, to be
proceeded against, and distributed according to law; and also to
cause to be done all such other acts of precaution or hostility
as the state of war will justify, and may, in his opinion,
require."
HTML http://www.warpower.us/1802_barbarypirates.htm
That "state of war" language would seem to me to constitute a
declaration of war. But the authorization, despite your
contention that it authorization actions on land, and despite
the fact that operations in fact took place on land.... in fact
included no such authorization, and the word "land" appears
nowhere in the authorization.
#Post#: 7887--------------------------------------------------
Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
DIR By: davep
Date: May 14, 2011, 9:20 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
"So, since the US is not doing a very good job of maintaining
its southern border, and since the federal government does not
really control the states, I suppose it would be okay, by that
reasoning, for another nation to act similarly toward whomever
that nation might decide was their equivalent of bin Laden.
If there were terrorists in southern Arizona that were
conducting terror raids into Mexico, and the US government
refused to do anything about it, I would certainly expect Mexico
to come over the border to eliminate them. And I would have no
problem with it.
#Post#: 7888--------------------------------------------------
Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
DIR By: Robb
Date: May 14, 2011, 9:21 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Huckabee announced he isn't running. Interesting.
#Post#: 7893--------------------------------------------------
Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
DIR By: davep
Date: May 14, 2011, 9:35 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Good.
#Post#: 7894--------------------------------------------------
Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
DIR By: Jes Beard
Date: May 14, 2011, 9:40 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
You might not, but that exact border issue was a very serious
one when in the late 1800's and early 1900's bandit groups were
operating along the border and moving from one country to the
other to evade capture, and even earlier when native Americans
such as the Apache and the Yaqui were doing the same. Both
Mexico and the U.S. were quite hostile toward the idea of troops
from another nation, even a border nation in hot pursuit,
entering their territory to get the perceived bad guys. The
idea that the U.S. today would "have no problem with it" is not
at all realistic.... even if you personally would not.
#Post#: 7897--------------------------------------------------
Re: Politics, Religion, etc. etc.
DIR By: davep
Date: May 14, 2011, 9:48 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
You asked me my opinion, not the opinion of others. As I said,
I would not have problem with mexican troops coming over the
border after terrorists that were hitting their citizens from
the sanctuary of our southern border, just as I would have had
no problem with Mexican troops chasing Apaches into our
territory.
Back in the 1880s the Fienians gathered in the northern US in
preparation for an invasion of Canada. We stopped them. If we
hadn't, Canada would have had every right to do so on their own,
just as the Israelis should be flattening the ground where the
Palistinians shoot missles into Israel today.
*****************************************************
Page 15 of 328
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page