Canadians are slightly annoyed

[BIGUN 1,323]

1 hour ago, JoeWeber said:

instead of cherry picking

I was addressing the blanket statement, not the "and in particular." 

1 hour ago, JoeWeber said:

So what were you actually serving to protect, the documents or what they stand for?  You know, equality, unalienable rights, all religions

As in going to other countries and fighting for their right to have the same whilst you built your little DZ and increased your coffers, or do you mean like now; where I help veterans every day (of any creed, color, race, gender, or religion) whilst you sit on your yacht drinking $300 bottles of wine and send politicians money to pat yourself on the back. 

[JoeWeber 2,734]

1 hour ago, BIGUN said:

As in going to other countries and fighting for their right to have the same

Where is that in the constitution? 

[BIGUN 1,323]

58 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

Where is that in the constitution? 

Article II, Section 2, Clause 1:

[gowlerk 2,216]

33 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

Article II, Section 2, Clause 1:

In other words "because the boss told me to". 

[JoeWeber 2,734]

29 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

Article II, Section 2, Clause 1:

Oh, so hegemony and nation building to protect the interests of citizens in other nations was a vision of the framers? Good to know. Now I can be further at peace knowing that all of the tax dollars I've paid and my employees have paid over the 40 years I was building my little business's to pay for our military to be out saving their rights went not for naught. 

[BIGUN 1,323]

57 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

Oh, so hegemony and nation building to protect the interests of citizens in other nations was a vision of the framers? Good to know. Now I can be further at peace knowing that all of the tax dollars I've paid and my employees have paid over the 40 years I was building my little business's to pay for our military to be out saving their rights went not for naught. 

So for being a world traveler; you really don't know how the world works beyond your purse strings. Well, unless you would rather we be communist than a democratic republic. Maybe you got something against Africans, or Asians, or other dark-skinned people that are either fighting to keep communism out or dying to come to our country to be free from oppression. 

Class #1: https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1981/04/02/100-green-berets-us-navy-destroyer-will-go-to-liberia-for-demonstration/e1699232-05bb-45d3-9ce6-85fe8dd0cf46/

Class #2: meh. just go make some more money. It's all you really care about.    

[JerryBaumchen 1,371]

39 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

So for being a world traveler; you really don't know how the world works beyond your purse strings. Well, unless you would rather we be communist than a democratic republic. Maybe you got something against Africans, or Asians, or other dark-skinned people that are either fighting to keep communism out or dying to come to our country to be free from oppression. 

Class #1: https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1981/04/02/100-green-berets-us-navy-destroyer-will-go-to-liberia-for-demonstration/e1699232-05bb-45d3-9ce6-85fe8dd0cf46/

Class #2: meh. just go make some more money. It's all you really care about.    

Hi Keith,

I have known Joe for many, many yrs; that is simply not true.

Jerry Baumchen

[JoeWeber 2,734]

2 hours ago, BIGUN said:

So for being a world traveler; you really don't know how the world works beyond your purse strings. Well, unless you would rather we be communist than a democratic republic. Maybe you got something against Africans, or Asians, or other dark-skinned people that are either fighting to keep communism out or dying to come to our country to be free from oppression. 

Class #1: https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1981/04/02/100-green-berets-us-navy-destroyer-will-go-to-liberia-for-demonstration/e1699232-05bb-45d3-9ce6-85fe8dd0cf46/

Class #2: meh. just go make some more money. It's all you really care about.    

You might not have me pegged. Just because the US, or any nation, can assemble special forces to go in support of any insurgents anywhere or to topple an offensive government anywhere in no way means we should. I think some time back you argued about protecting female rights in Afghanistan or Iraq as a justifiably noble cause worthy of US efforts and sacrifice. It is not. Nor have been any of our miserable failures at nation building. Yes, we should send our special forces in to whack bad guys and stop horrors from continuing but only when the exit strategy is clear and not long in the future. That you would offer up Article II, Section 2, Clause 1 as the legal and constitutional basis for such actions seems more of an imposition of personal values than legal ones.

[BIGUN 1,323]

10 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

Just because the US, or any nation, can assemble special forces to go in support of any insurgents anywhere or to topple an offensive government anywhere in no way means we should.

Just because we can, doesn't mean we do. There is a whole lot of process and legal that happens first. The US used to do it without that process, but as you state later, not the best track record - about 70/30.

 

10 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

I think some time back you argued about protecting female rights in Afghanistan or Iraq as a justifiably noble cause worthy of US efforts and sacrifice. It is not.

Only because you have not been in the muck to see the atrocities that man can do - to women. You want to thump your chest and parade around for gay, black, brown, women's rights, but you do it in the safety of US laws. 

10 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

That you would offer up Article II, Section 2, Clause 1 as the legal and constitutional basis for such actions seems more of an imposition of personal values than legal ones.

You really didn't think that through.  

Edited Saturday at 02:01 PM by BIGUN

[JoeWeber 2,734]

3 hours ago, BIGUN said:

Just because we can, doesn't mean we do. There is a whole lot of process and legal that happens first. The US used to do it without that process, but as you state later, not the best track record - about 70/30.

 

Only because you have not been in the muck to see the atrocities that man can do - to women. You want to thump your chest and parade around for gay, black, brown, women's rights, but you do it in the safety of US laws. 

You really didn't think that through.  

I've thought it through, it's you who are missing the point you yourself made. 70/30 is a ridiculous success rate and even that I don't buy. Of course there is horror in the muck around the world but our constitution isn't the authority for sending our military to fix it, for the most part it's religion and it's attendant moral imperatives. We are simply in total disagreement on whether we ought to be spending our lives and treasure sending our military to fix social injustice in other countries and whether our constitution is the justifying vehicle. Peace.

[BIGUN 1,323]

25 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

I've thought it through,

But, but, but . . . You didn't ask about the process. You asked me where in the constitution it states that we can go protect other rights ". . . going to other countries and fighting for their right to have the same" 

Article II Section 2, Clause 1 - So according to the Constituion s/he has the ability to issue those orders. 

The Process:

The State Department monitors about 130 countries at any given time. If country X is violating human rights, they bring it to a House Intelligence committtee; we decide if it's in the best interest to take action (what type), to fund it and to take action. Including taking out that government and replacing it with a democratic-ish form. 

The specifics of that process is spelled out in 22 USC Human rights and security assistance - ya know, the laws by congress, ya know the people we elected - which states:

(a) Observance of human rights as principal goal of foreign policy; implementation requirements

(1) The United States shall, in accordance with its international obligations as set forth in the Charter of the United Nations and in keeping with the constitutional heritage and traditions of the United States, promote and encourage increased respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms throughout the world without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion. Accordingly, a principal goal of the foreign policy of the United States shall be to promote the increased observance of internationally recognized human rights by all countries.

(2) Except under circumstances specified in this section, no security assistance may be provided to any country the government of which engages in a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights. Security assistance may not be provided to the police, domestic intelligence, or similar law enforcement forces of a country, and licenses may not be issued under the Export Administration Act of 1979 for the export of crime control and detection instruments and equipment to a country, the government of which engages in a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights unless the President certifies in writing to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate and the chairman of the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the Senate (when licenses are to be issued pursuant to the Export Administration Act of 1979).1 that extraordinary circumstances exist warranting provision of such assistance and issuance of such licenses. Assistance may not be provided under part V of this subchapter to a country the government of which engages in a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights unless the President certifies in writing to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate that extraordinary circumstances exist warranting provision of such assistance.

(3) In furtherance of paragraphs (1) and (2), the President is directed to formulate and conduct international security assistance programs of the United States in a manner which will promote and advance human rights and avoid identification of the United States, through such programs, with governments which deny to their people internationally recognized human rights and fundamental freedoms, in violation of international law or in contravention of the policy of the United States as expressed in this section or otherwise.

(4) In determining whether the government of a country engages in a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights, the President shall give particular consideration to whether the government-

(A) has engaged in or tolerated particularly severe violations of religious freedom, as defined in section 6402 of this title; or

(B) has failed to undertake serious and sustained efforts to combat particularly severe violations of religious freedom when such efforts could have been reasonably undertaken.

SOURCE: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:22 section:2304 edition:prelim)

SUGGESTED READING: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid%3AUSC-prelim-title22&saved=|KHRpdGxlOjIyIHNlY3Rpb246MjMwNCBlZGl0aW9uOnByZWxpbSk%3D|||0|false|prelim&edition=prelim

And, two more things before I peace you out too.  

1. Please don't tell me you think the Peace Corps is just about building schools in its endeavor for world peace. 

2. Where in the Constitution does it give the President the authority to hire mercenaries?

Peace Out. 

[JoeWeber 2,734]

3 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

But, but, but . . . You didn't ask about the process. You asked me where in the constitution it states that we can go protect other rights ". . . going to other countries and fighting for their right to have the same" 

Article II Section 2, Clause 1 - So according to the Constituion s/he has the ability to issue those orders. 

The Process:

The State Department monitors about 130 countries at any given time. If country X is violating human rights, they bring it to a House Intelligence committtee; we decide if it's in the best interest to take action (what type), to fund it and to take action. Including taking out that government and replacing it with a democratic-ish form. 

The specifics of that process is spelled out in 22 USC Human rights and security assistance - ya know, the laws by congress, ya know the people we elected - which states:

(a) Observance of human rights as principal goal of foreign policy; implementation requirements

(1) The United States shall, in accordance with its international obligations as set forth in the Charter of the United Nations and in keeping with the constitutional heritage and traditions of the United States, promote and encourage increased respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms throughout the world without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion. Accordingly, a principal goal of the foreign policy of the United States shall be to promote the increased observance of internationally recognized human rights by all countries.

(2) Except under circumstances specified in this section, no security assistance may be provided to any country the government of which engages in a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights. Security assistance may not be provided to the police, domestic intelligence, or similar law enforcement forces of a country, and licenses may not be issued under the Export Administration Act of 1979 for the export of crime control and detection instruments and equipment to a country, the government of which engages in a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights unless the President certifies in writing to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate and the chairman of the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the Senate (when licenses are to be issued pursuant to the Export Administration Act of 1979).1 that extraordinary circumstances exist warranting provision of such assistance and issuance of such licenses. Assistance may not be provided under part V of this subchapter to a country the government of which engages in a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights unless the President certifies in writing to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate that extraordinary circumstances exist warranting provision of such assistance.

(3) In furtherance of paragraphs (1) and (2), the President is directed to formulate and conduct international security assistance programs of the United States in a manner which will promote and advance human rights and avoid identification of the United States, through such programs, with governments which deny to their people internationally recognized human rights and fundamental freedoms, in violation of international law or in contravention of the policy of the United States as expressed in this section or otherwise.

(4) In determining whether the government of a country engages in a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights, the President shall give particular consideration to whether the government-

(A) has engaged in or tolerated particularly severe violations of religious freedom, as defined in section 6402 of this title; or

(B) has failed to undertake serious and sustained efforts to combat particularly severe violations of religious freedom when such efforts could have been reasonably undertaken.

SOURCE: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:22 section:2304 edition:prelim)

SUGGESTED READING: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid%3AUSC-prelim-title22&saved=|KHRpdGxlOjIyIHNlY3Rpb246MjMwNCBlZGl0aW9uOnByZWxpbSk%3D|||0|false|prelim&edition=prelim

And, two more things before I peace you out too.  

1. Please don't tell me you think the Peace Corps is just about building schools in its endeavor for world peace. 

2. Where in the Constitution does it give the President the authority to hire mercenaries?

Peace Out. 

And I used to believe people who saw Jesus on grilled cheese sandwiches had overactive imaginations. Please show me where sending our military was envisioned by the framers as a necessary response as opposed to, say, holding our breaths, simply deploring it all, or maybe imposing economic encouragements.

[BIGUN 1,323]

48 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

Please show me where sending our military was envisioned by the framers as a necessary response as opposed to, say, holding our breaths, simply deploring it all, or maybe imposing economic encouragements.

<puts down his cheese sandwich> 

Ahhh, so we're back to boiling frogs - wringing our hands and pointing our wagging school marm finger at 'em.   

[billvon 3,006]

48 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

You asked me where in the constitution it states that we can go protect other rights ". . . going to other countries and fighting for their right to have the same" 

First off I agree with you that the US has a responsibility to promote basic human rights in other countries.  How you define "promote" will always be a point of contention of course but I agree with the basic concept.

Quote

1. Please don't tell me you think the Peace Corps is just about building schools in its endeavor for world peace.

That's about 10% of what it does.  It does, of course, do far more than that.

Quote

2. Where in the Constitution does it give the President the authority to hire mercenaries?

The Constitution explicitly gives Congress the right to hire mercenaries (in their language, "grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal") and that has become just another right that the president has usurped over the years.

 

[JerryBaumchen 1,371]

6 hours ago, BIGUN said:

Just because we can, doesn't mean we do. There is a whole lot of process and legal that happens first. The US used to do it without that process, but as you state later, not the best track record - about 70/30.

 

Only because you have not been in the muck to see the atrocities that man can do - to women. You want to thump your chest and parade around for gay, black, brown, women's rights, but you do it in the safety of US laws. 

You really didn't think that through.  

Hi Keith,

Re:  Only because you have not been in the muck to see the atrocities that man can do - to women.

I've never a black person lynched.  That does not mean that I cannot stand against it.

There is lot more to the world than what you or I have seen.

Jerry Baumchen
 

[JoeWeber 2,734]

2 hours ago, BIGUN said:

<puts down his cheese sandwich> 

Ahhh, so we're back to boiling frogs - wringing our hands and pointing our wagging school marm finger at 'em.   

No. When all else fails, as it has, there's always getting gosh darn mad. In my view, the purpose of our military is to defend our interests. You appear ready to call issues of morality that offend Christian sensibilities legitimate US interests for our militaries occupation. I'd stop well short of that at somewhere near harm to US citizens and economic interests be it at home or abroad. 

[gowlerk 2,216]

27 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

You appear ready to call issues of morality that offend Christian sensibilities legitimate US interests for our militaries occupation.

Didn't the Cheney-Bush-Rumsfeld neo-con gang try to impose pretend Christian values some offending nations? I think that may be one of the key things the led you to where you are now.

[billvon 3,006]

50 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

You appear ready to call issues of morality that offend Christian sensibilities legitimate US interests for our militaries occupation. 

I would hope that sexual slavery, rape and murder would offend most people, not just those with Christian sensibilities.

[JoeWeber 2,734]

21 minutes ago, billvon said:

I would hope that sexual slavery, rape and murder would offend most people, not just those with Christian sensibilities.

Of course they do but it seems to take religion to fire up a nation for selective salvation. Sadly, we know that those things can not be solved with war no matter how offended we are. Now that we are here, those things go on around the world and are prevalent in America, too. How do we choose where to send our troops and to whom to send our hopes and prayers?

[billvon 3,006]

2 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

Of course they do but it seems to take religion to fire up a nation for selective salvation.

That's one way, yes.

Quote

How do we choose where to send our troops and to whom to send our hopes and prayers?

Well, we sent our troops Fort Sumter, and that worked out pretty well in the end.

[JoeWeber 2,734]

1 hour ago, billvon said:

That's one way, yes.

Well, we sent our troops Fort Sumter, and that worked out pretty well in the end.

Fort Sumpter, Liberia?

[BIGUN 1,323]

7 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

Fort Sumpter, Liberia?

See! Application is the third step on Bloom's Taxonmy of Learning. Good job. 

[jakee 1,500]

14 hours ago, gowlerk said:

Didn't the Cheney-Bush-Rumsfeld neo-con gang try to impose pretend Christian values some offending nations? I think that may be one of the key things the led you to where you are now.

Aside from hiring kids who’d never worked in government or the region to design new governments for the region from scratch (a mistake that DOGE is now repeating in the US) I think one of the original fatal mistakes of both Afghanistan and Iraq was that Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld etc initially planned for there to be no nation building agenda at all. 
 

Perhaps there is a fraction of a chance that things would have been different if the coalition hadn’t initially planned to simply be a hostile occupying force and had actually considered how they would go about imposing some form of western style government before the troops arrived

[BIGUN 1,323]

On 2/16/2025 at 6:43 AM, jakee said:

I think one of the original fatal mistakes of both Afghanistan and Iraq was that Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld etc initially planned for there to be no nation building agenda at all. 
 

Perhaps there is a fraction of a chance that things would have been different if the coalition hadn’t initially planned to simply be a hostile occupying force and had actually considered how they would go about imposing some form of western style government before the troops arrived

Thank you for adding to the conversation. You are 100% accurate. At the end of 2003, it went from a liberation to an occupation. 

[JoeWeber 2,734]

2 hours ago, BIGUN said:

Thank you for adding to the conversation. You are 100% accurate. At the end of 2003, it went from a liberation to an occupation. 

Both of which were ideas doomed from the start. The problem is, was, and will continue to be that in either country it was never going to be a festival of competing ideas winning hearts and minds and ultimately coalescing into a wonderful, western, (read Christian) and peaceful society. Nope.