damn it, I was waiting for someone to disagree so I could go on my tirade about military indoctrination and the public's fascinations with explosions and bullets and saturday morning cartoons glorifying war.
searchKmarion wrote:
Using war powers to fight a war against an abstract idea and an unidentifiable victory. If intentional it's brilliant.
I disagree 100%God Save the Queen wrote:
damn it, I was waiting for someone to disagree so I could go on my tirade about military indoctrination and the public's fascinations with explosions and bullets and saturday morning cartoons glorifying war.
I disagree with your disagreement.
Don't forget who you are talking to.CoronadoSEAL wrote:
searchKmarion wrote:
Using war powers to fight a war against an abstract idea and an unidentifiable victory. If intentional it's brilliant.
http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?pi … 4#p1198344
http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?pi … 0#p1211280
http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?pi … 1#p1231291
http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?pi … 6#p1279316
http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?pi … 5#p1333475
Note to self.. get a new slogan.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Why bother. It isn't like the Obama is going to do jack in office to address -Well, anything let alone radical muslims. Hell, he'll probably apologize to Ahdinnajaket on behalf of the American people. All Pelosi and her single digiters' will do is applaud him and tax us more. We're screwed. I'm getting my hi-cap mags and stockpiling ammo while I still can. I'm also seriously considering pulling out of the market if it appears Obama is going to be successful in raising the capital gains tax.
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something. - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
Good point. We think the Brady bill was bad, Obama's ideas would be 10x worse if implemented. He'll probably just continue his theme for everything else and tax guns and ammo to the moon.
what ideas? serious question. You must know em in order to say that they would be 10x worse.Stingray24 wrote:
Good point. We think the Brady bill was bad, Obama's ideas would be 10x worse if implemented. He'll probably just continue his theme for everything else and tax guns and ammo to the moon.
Last edited by God Save the Queen (2008-07-08 20:22:12)
stopped reading after it said new york times
The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is the President's senior military advisor. In that role, he/she provides the "best military advice" to the Commander in Chief.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
What I would also like to see is the Joint Chiefs of Staff also required to be at this consultation. I would like to think that our elected officials truly know what they are getting themselves into when considering war, but I don't believe that is the case.
So, basically, the JCS involvement is prior to the President consulting with Congress.
And the whole point of this proposal is to solidify the War Powers and remove the Constitutional ambiguity that has prevented enforcement.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
how so ? you like to kill people ?God Save the Queen wrote:
He lost me right there. I happen to feel that we as a nation jump at the chance for war. America is not peace loving. We are a very warlike culture, not dissimilar to most any other civilization. Not that thats bad, I happen to like that fact.Baker wrote:
THE most agonizing decision we make as a nation is whether to go to war.
@OP:
sounds good. I never liked the fact that the president has so much power over sending his fellow citizens to war. It just seems like atm, the threshold for going to war is so low in the US. And even though GS seems to like it, I don't think it's a good thing that war can be waged so easily.
A little more democratic control could do good, I figure.
sounds good. I never liked the fact that the president has so much power over sending his fellow citizens to war. It just seems like atm, the threshold for going to war is so low in the US. And even though GS seems to like it, I don't think it's a good thing that war can be waged so easily.
A little more democratic control could do good, I figure.
A single data point to develop the position that "the threshold for going to war is so low in the US".
Nice.
Nice.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Sounds sensible.
If you have enough data to make a curve, you already know that the threashold is too low.FEOS wrote:
A single data point to develop the position that "the threshold for going to war is so low in the US".
Nice.
My point is, you don't. A single data point doesn't make a curve.PureFodder wrote:
If you have enough data to make a curve, you already know that the threashold is too low.FEOS wrote:
A single data point to develop the position that "the threshold for going to war is so low in the US".
Nice.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
I am not a mathematician, and it's not a "position". It's simply my opinion, based on the number of conflicts the US has gotten into after WWII, and my perception of the reasons for engaging in these conflicts.FEOS wrote:
A single data point to develop the position that "the threshold for going to war is so low in the US".
Nice.
Or are you arguing that the US have not been one of the most, if not the most militarily active nation of the 20th and the 21st century ?
Speaking as a scientist, curves are often over-rated and have nothing to do with thresholds.FEOS wrote:
My point is, you don't. A single data point doesn't make a curve.PureFodder wrote:
If you have enough data to make a curve, you already know that the threashold is too low.FEOS wrote:
A single data point to develop the position that "the threshold for going to war is so low in the US".
Nice.
Thresholds measure the limits, not the average so you actually don't need a curve, if there is one example of an event triggering then you know the minimum that the threshold could be. If the justification of the Iraq war is believed to be below the acceptable justification, then the threshold is too low. The threshold can only be lower than the Iraq war case.
But the direct equating of science to the extreme complexity of human affairs is pretty pointless anyway.
I understand, but I would rather have military leaders at the meeting in case the politicians get together and just go wild. He can just sit there quietly if there are no problems.FEOS wrote:
The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is the President's senior military advisor. In that role, he/she provides the "best military advice" to the Commander in Chief.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
What I would also like to see is the Joint Chiefs of Staff also required to be at this consultation. I would like to think that our elected officials truly know what they are getting themselves into when considering war, but I don't believe that is the case.
So, basically, the JCS involvement is prior to the President consulting with Congress.
And the whole point of this proposal is to solidify the War Powers and remove the Constitutional ambiguity that has prevented enforcement.
what do I like. that war could be waged so easily? wtf.B.Schuss wrote:
@OP:
sounds good. I never liked the fact that the president has so much power over sending his fellow citizens to war. It just seems like atm, the threshold for going to war is so low in the US. And even though GS seems to like it, I don't think it's a good thing that war can be waged so easily.
A little more democratic control could do good, I figure.
21st Century? Sure.B.Schuss wrote:
I am not a mathematician, and it's not a "position". It's simply my opinion, based on the number of conflicts the US has gotten into after WWII, and my perception of the reasons for engaging in these conflicts.
Or are you arguing that the US have not been one of the most, if not the most militarily active nation of the 20th and the 21st century ?
20th Century? Nope.
Are you arguing that the threshold for invading Afghanistan was low? Seriously? Because I'm throwing that one out of consideration for meeting "low threshold" criteria.
The threshold for invading Iraq was certainly too low (that would be your single data point)...don't think we'll be making that mistake again any time soon, though.
You brought up the curve here, not me. But to be esoteric, curves DO have something to do with thresholds, if you view a limit as a threshold.PureFodder wrote:
Speaking as a scientist, curves are often over-rated and have nothing to do with thresholds.
Thresholds measure the limits, not the average so you actually don't need a curve, if there is one example of an event triggering then you know the minimum that the threshold could be. If the justification of the Iraq war is believed to be below the acceptable justification, then the threshold is too low. The threshold can only be lower than the Iraq war case.
But the direct equating of science to the extreme complexity of human affairs is pretty pointless anyway.
I was speaking about sample size more than anything else. A single event that meets the vague criteria of "low threshold" does not substantiate the position that the US has a "low threshold for going to war".
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular