Story Comments
Posted by: jimdoze 1 year, 5 months ago
This page is a permanent archive of the comment below and its replies.
To view this comment in the context of the full discussion for the story, use this link.
-
-
Neutral
Beau78901 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Pragmatism can be a virtue (even in these post-Cold War days), especially when one considers the destruction wrought by basing policy decisions on ideology while excluding consideration of their consequences.
But the plan Baker and Christopher outline (see the link in my first comment) is not all that radical. It's based on the fact that the War Powers Resolution is considered by almost everyone to be unconstitutional and needs reworking.
The main effect of implementing Baker's and Christopher's ideas is to give more careful bipartisan consideration to any thought of sending Americans into battle. Surely you don't have a problem with that?
Reply-
Neutral
jimdoze1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I agree with you about pragmatism (in its literal sense)... in fact, I believe that pragmatism is one of the higher virtues in the formulation of foreign policy and use of the military. The problem with the old Realpolitik folks is that the world has passed them by. Their pragmatism is based on a set of assumptions that is no longer valid... much as the French did so glaringly prior to WWII.
Now, as far as "the destruction wrought by basing policy decisions on ideology while excluding consideration of their consequences", I assume you mean U.S. involvment in Iraq. Frankly, I see just the opposite. Iraq was an explosion waiting to happen. Realpolitik would suggest kicking that can down the road... or worse, rearming Saddam as a counter to Iran. Frankly, the only pragmatic solution was was to do what we did, utilizing the resources we had available.
Reply-
Neutral
antibrainwasher1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
What a steaming pantload. Iraq invasion was devised by the neocon zionist dual citizen presidential advisors like the American Enterprize Institutes Paul Wolfawitz, and was being contemplated before 911, which Iraq had NOTHING to do with.
Using the confusion, the neocon zionists sold this Israeli nation building fantasy to the oil neocons cheney and bush, with the fantasy that the oil profits would pay for it all.
You are talking like some neocon propangda artist hired by the pentagon, and it smacks of a west point mal-education. Shotgun Dick Cheney was a memgber of the Baker/Reagan/Bush Senior regime, and your Realpolitic Iraq was inevatable is just a huge pantload.
vote republican, to elevate westpoint militant gungho warmongers like JD to policy positions in the McSenile administration.
Bombing Iran is inevitable with JD at the helm. Gung Ho, Exon, Gung ho Walmart, Gung ho, USA!
Reply
-
-
Neutral
jimdoze1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"give more careful bipartisan consideration to any thought of sending Americans into battle"
Yes, I probably would have a problem with that, depending on a very careful consideration of its wording. I see it as likely hamstringing the executive branch and subjecting the whole process in a decision to deploy military force to analysis paralysis. It would effectively preclude the use of military force in any situation that was not a direct corollary to Pearl Harbor. In today's world, most of the bad guys know history better than members of congress do. Never mind world opinion. They would dance freely, poking and jabbing at us or cavorting through someone else's fields, yet avoiding direct Pearl Harbor type confrontations as Gulliver remained tied down by the Lilliputians of our own congress.
Reply-
Neutral
Beau78901 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The executive branch was originally meant to be "hamstrung" by the specific and sole power granted to Congress to declare war. If you feel this is not realistic, then try to amend it.
I'd say Baker's and Christopher's proposal would give the president more power than originally granted by the Constitution, wouldn't you?
Regardless, our government is not powerless without the immediate threat of military action left to the whim of one man.
Reply-
Neutral
Radiofreeeuropa1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Certainly Madison is disturbed in his grave. He, after all, primarily drafted the constitution and the Bill of Rights. He is on record as being horrified by an autonomous executive branch. (He did not feel the Bill Of Rights was even necessary as any power not specifically granted in the Constitution to government would be illegal.
There is no way the War Powers Act is constitutionally sound to begin with.
Reply -
-
-
-
Neutral
Searchbeam1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I thin a non-partisan consideration is more appropriate, considering that each of these two parties are known to slip sneaky mickeys into the legislation in the dark of night when nobody's watching.
In my view, every new piece of legislation must be in FULL PUBLIC VIEW for at least two weeks, posted on the Internet, newspapers and Post offices (right next to the FBI's "Most Wanted" list) so that people can read and comment on it before it becomes a law.
Reply
-
-
loading ...
People Who Liked This Comment (4)
Eagle_Eye
Searchbeam
Albmore
Wolfie2007People Who Didn't Like This Comment (0)
No one voted this comment negatively.
Post Reply
You are not signed in to Propeller.com. Please sign in to post a reply.