Comments on: Ron Paul vs. James Baker on Revised War Powers Act

By: Da Martyr

Da Martyr — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 21:14:15 +0000

I hate how Baker totally ignores the point of Dr. Paul about how the President can Veto the vote against the war. What a war mongering moron.

By: James Anderson Merritt

James Anderson Merritt — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 00:50:01 +0000

The Constitution won’t be well and truly dead unless and until officials whose violation of their oaths of office are clearly pointed out to the public remain in office. That is to say, unless and until there aren’t enough people left among the ranks of voters to toss out rascals when they are identified. I know that a lot of the later get away with a lot of constitutional crime, but there have been successful recalls and impeachments, even lately, so while the Constitution may be on life support, it isn’t gone yet. We can revive it by holding to the fire the feet of politicians-as-usual. My suggestion is to start by kicking out all incumbents (especially anyone who voted for PATRIOT or the Bail Out) and replacing them NOT with their major-party opponents, but with independents or members of third parties who show evidence of having read the Constitution and who already pledge to preserve, protect, and defend it. This is extreme, strong medicine, to be sure, but sometimes you simply have to cut out the disease and cauterize the wound: the consequences of previous mischief are VERY extreme, and we need to use similarly drastic measures to fix the problem and prevent a repeat. If we could flush the incumbents for the next two or three elections, we could leave the Constitution with some very good prospects.

By: Orville H. Larson

Orville H. Larson — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 05:08:24 +0000

James Baker is a member in good standing of the Washington Establishment. Protecting the Establishment–sucking up to the Establishment!–is what he does. He ignores the fact that the Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war.

If the President wants to go to war with somebody, let him be man enough to go before Congress and lay out his case. If Congress agrees, they can declare war.

Piss on the War Powers Act. Repeal the Goddamn thing, and let’s get back to first principles, shall we?

By: Andy

Andy — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 04:48:47 +0000

Absolutely true. I would argue that ALL wars since at least the civil war were wars of agression that could have been avoided and benefitted ordinary Americans not at all. Even the civil war may have been avoidable. As far as WW2 the so-called “good” war it cannot be shown that America’s intervention saved many Jewish lives and the USSR would have defeated Germany all by itself. (See the book No clear and present danger). In any case if America had just stayed out of the Great war there would have been no Versailles peace treaty and no WW2.

By: Andy

Andy — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 04:28:49 +0000

As a matter of fact they WERE going to call the conquest, er, “liberation” of Iraq “Operation Iraqi Liberation”, until they realized the acronyms O.I.L. were just too obvious and might not fool even the dull-witted American sheeple.

By: Bill K.

Bill K. — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 00:13:42 +0000

Or Operation Chicken Hawk.

Well what kind of positive public reaction would they get from:

Operation Expanding Empire
Operation Desert Land Grab
Operation Enduring Tyranny
Operation Black Gold

Invasions have to be appealing(“feel good”) to the American public. And they can’t spell OIL like an Operation Iraqi Liberation would have.

Like from the “Simpsons” movie where “Operation Soaring Eagle” involved massacring the animated American citizens in the fictional city of Springfield.

By: Bill K.

Bill K. — Sun, 08 Mar 2009 23:35:27 +0000

If the United States maintained a policy of Self Defense on its own territory then “deciding on going to war” would not be difficult, if the US is attacked then the US Military retaliates against the Aggressor and Congress votes to declare war on the Aggressor and the Executive branch and the Defense Department are giving powers to plan and execute the war.

But the problem is the United States since the late 19th Century is an Empire, and I think many here realize that. Empires don’t normally wage a defensive war. Empires wage wars of Expansion and Conquest, and this has been true of the US since the US Military became involved in the Spanish-American War, the “conquest” of Hawaii, and the seizure of “American” Samoa islands.

Expanding Empires need unregulated powers to wage war against their victims. Those connected this kind of policy, like Mr. Baker, promote such unregulated powers because they will benefit from them. If Mr. Baker was forced to serve in the most dangerous regions of a conflict he would not be such a great supporter of war.

By: Mark W. Stroberg

Mark W. Stroberg — Sun, 08 Mar 2009 22:13:29 +0000

Bill, our math is wrong. It is more trivial than you suspect. $200 Million is 1/100 of 1% of $2 Trillion, not 1/10 of 1%..

By: Brad Smith

Brad Smith — Sun, 08 Mar 2009 21:30:42 +0000

I guess they think it will sound like the opposite of what it should be called. I wonder how many people have the job of sitting around comeing up with this BS. Do they have another group that looks it over or do they just take a few polls first? I guess Yellow Bellied War Hawk didn’t fly.

By: Lear K

Lear K — Sun, 08 Mar 2009 20:57:14 +0000

What with the naming of US wars and military operations as if they were Hollywood productions or movies?”Golden Pheasant”?