That wasn't even a sentence.

> spends life posting political views on the forums of a site where people come to play online Risk

> expects to be taken seriously

mysides.jpg

Edited 7/8/2015 05:03:39

What's funnier is people who join Warlight to play still post comments on threads they don't take seriously because they are here to play online risk.

You'll see... in 20 years when you fucks finally have no more power over the world.

I think everyone is missing Kellen's point. He's saying that why Congress officially has the power to declare war, the power is often subverted because the president can use his commander and chief powers to deploy the military into a war like situation without needing any real approval.

What's funnier is people who join Warlight to play still post comments on threads they don't take seriously because they are here to play online risk.

Also, this^

Ben Carson 4 President!!!!!

no eklipse, the point is that debating someone who refuses to inform himself of the issues is a sisyphean task. you and kellen are so wrong i could write a book about it. but books already exist. go pick one up.

no eklipse, the point is that debating someone who refuses to inform himself of the issues is a sisyphean task. you and kellen are so wrong i could write a book about it. but books already exist. go pick one up.

No shyb, you go read a book. Everything I said is true. The fact I need to lay it out for you is the sad part:
1. The President is Commander and Chief of the U.S armed forces.
2. The President thus can deploy the military into combat situations without war being declared by Congress.
3. The U.S has been in multiple conflicts without war being officially declared. (I.E: Almost every campaign in the Middle East)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States#Other_undeclared_wars (If you're one of those, "Wikipedia isn't valid"types then simply check the sources provided on the page, it'll lead you to a non user edited website)

how about the section " military engagements authorized by congress"? or maybe the introduction where it states "However, that passage provides no specific format for what form legislation must have in order to be considered a "declaration of war" nor does the Constitution itself use this term." (talking about congress' war declaring powers in the constitution).

I've been searching through wikipedia for a conflict that the president started but coongress opposed but was powerless to stop and the closest i could find is secret military actions that don't really count since congress obviously can't oppose anything they have no knowledge of.

funny that nearly everything in that article proves my point...

military actions brought on by un resolutions were funded by congress. i assume if congress votes to fund something, they are not too opposed to it.

also look at the war powers act. after vietnam congress passed this to be more specific on what a president can do without congress' approval. still, nearly every time the president sought approval from congress AND kept the action within the bounds of the war powers act.

the only recent action that has been questioned is obama's use of the military in libya's civil war. congress didn't even come close to rebuking him.

yes, potentially the president has the power to start a conflict that congress doesn't want. but congress has the power to stop funding for the conflict and even impeach the president if the situation calls for it.

why cant we just all get along?

funny that nearly everything in that article proves my point...

"On at least 125 occasions, the President has acted without prior express military authorization from Congress.[20] These include instances in which the United States fought in the Philippine–American War from 1898–1903, in Nicaragua in 1927, as well as the NATO bombing campaign of Yugoslavia in 1999."

125 is a pretty big number. Now personally, I have faith in checks and balances, and don't seek to change the war declaration part of the system. However, I think it's unfair how everyone is treating Kellen like an idiot when he is right: The President can start a war without any need of Congress if he was determined to.

Edited 7/8/2015 16:37:58

so which of those 125 did congress try and fail to stop? which of those led to conflicts requiring more troops than the war powers acts permitted? how much of that article did you read beyond that one paragraph? my point, if you care to try to understand it, is that the president has not subverted congress and congress has the means to stop any subversion.

i wish i could delve into this further, but doing so on a 3g phone is a pain, and you seem to not understand the point being made. maybe im not making it clear enough, but i no longer care.

"Why can't we all get along?"

That is the most ignorant though I have ever heard. As long as there are humans in the world there will be hate, violence, and political rants. It is simply in our nature.

My take: I think Kellen has the right idea with many of his foreign policy and government reforms points.

From a Constitutional perspective only congress can declare war. So technically the presidents who went to war without congresses approval have broken the law and should have been impeached. Yes, that is a lot of presidents.

His foreign policy is "mostly right". I don't think he understands that the Kurdish forces operating in Turkey are TERRORISTS and COMMUNISTS (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurdistan_Workers%27_Party). While the Europeans have removed the TERRORIST label on the PKK (Kurdistan Workers Party), the US and many other nations that like Turkey still recognize them as terrorists.

Furthermore, Kurds outside of Turkey often gain training in their home country and then leave to join the PKK or another insurrectionist group. Even worse, when Americans decided to arm the Kurds in Iraq and Syri those weapons may have been smuggled over to the recourse deprived PKK while the Kurds in Syria and Iraq ask for EVEN MORE WEAPONS. So by arming the Kurds you are actually indirectly arming COMMUNISTS (sounds a lot like Afghanistan 1989s or Cuba). Don't even get me started on arming the "moderate" Muslim rebel groups in Syria.

The PKK have bombed Turkish civilians and many other soft targets killing hundreds of innocent people. They are by no means "the good guys" in the middle east and the Kurdish groups outside of Turkey, while well meaning, are supporting this kind of terrorism as a means to an end.

To make matters worse, the Turkish prime minister just said that "The crimes of the Jews against the Palestinians are far more brutal than those of Hitler."

TLDR: There are no good guys in the middle east. There isn't a winning team and there isn't a peaceful way to deal with them. The Arabs, and Kurds have to have a Renaissance, or a civil rights movement. We can NOT force this on them. All Civil rights movements and Renaissances have been from the inside out and we can't possibly fix the problem from the outside.

The main problem is that Islam has NOT had a reform since the medieval times unlike Christians, Jews, and Hindis. That reform has to come from other Muslims otherwise it will just be looked at as "Westernization."

Edited 7/8/2015 17:05:50

Finally someone gets my point. My main argument was a lot less literal and more reform urging. Not just Congress and War.

*Edit* Communism isn't bad as you will see in my next update.

Edited 7/8/2015 17:01:19

Communism is good..... In theory.... However in practice you get guys like Stalin. I mean I guess that if everyone decided to "get along" ( think about let's all just get along, abandon our self interests), then we should establish a one man leadership to responsibly rule the world( Call me John brown cause this is truly RADICAL!!!! At least I guess). of course leadership will be hard to find, but true equality is great. I mean I guess military force, ruthlessness, and propaganda might be needed to raise tolerance into future generations but, after that transcendentalism should be the way to go.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Find me a decentralized Socialism/Communism sub ideology and I we might start a debate. There are also many problems with Collectivism. For Example, seeing people as groups and treating people based on what group they are in rather than what they have done is on the road to Serfdom.

Updated

Yea that's kinda what happens in practice :P

I've been playing minecraft and it's interesting to see communist theory play out in practice.

So 3 good friends (me included) worked very hard to construct a base and make it sustainable. We all did good share of work, and all had trust.

We lived without rules, but we always shared everything in organized fashion.

We let in a few people who are working types and are loyal. They do not keep many things to themself, but they disorganize the warehouse system very badly.

We try to establish some Faction rules and make an objective board. We struggle to find people willing to farm or gather wood,or even mine. Most wanting to just make a room in our base and act as though they are special.

We recruit a massive amount of people, everything gets haywire. People keep vast amounts of things to themself, nobody truly obeys the authority and all construction projects are abandoned. The warehouse becomes a scavenging ground, people taking the resources for themselves whenever there is any available.

Several players leave, but not before trying to burn down and destroy a lot of the base and the warehouse. They call up very well armored/armed players from other factions to help them in their "raid" of our faction. We have to call in a few buddies to assist. I end up leading 3 of the only loyal/working types as soldiers along with 3 buddies against about 5 raiders.

After a lot of running around, constant respawning and pillaging / looting / razing, they all retreat from our base. My buddies leave, and the worker types leave save 1. The base is trashed, the resources are scattered. I had made several safe rooms in preparation for a possible raids, but they all got ignored or they were not used properly. A lot of things were lost.

My 2 good friends came online to see the damage, and our pitiful rebuilding efforts. They decided to cease the faction's existence. The worst thing of the entire experience was seeing this contained group slowly decay, until everything went haywire and the resources were never there. A lot of progress had been lost.

It goes you show that Communism is a poor man's fantasy, and something unattainable due to natural human jealousy.