tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15907727.post4283197438154238033..comments2023-11-10T04:17:00.492-05:00Comments on View From The Porch: "Limited Military Action"Tamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07285540310465422476noreply@blogger.comBlogger36125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15907727.post-36723139161979507322013-09-06T20:46:20.930-04:002013-09-06T20:46:20.930-04:00"Don't worry, everything's cool. All ..."Don't worry, everything's cool. All the warheads are made from Nobel Peace Prizes.<br /><br />5:30 PM, September 06, 2013"<br /><br />I'm thinking it was Ted Nugent, in one of his more recent works, that said "kill 'em all; throw 'em a love grenade".mustangernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15907727.post-87078632108964729892013-09-06T18:59:07.518-04:002013-09-06T18:59:07.518-04:00"Limited military actions" are still act..."Limited military actions" are still acts of war. You can put lipstick on a pig, but it is still a pig. <br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lipstick_on_a_pig<br />Ednoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15907727.post-37351983175144345082013-09-06T17:30:14.391-04:002013-09-06T17:30:14.391-04:00Don't worry, everything's cool. All the wa...Don't worry, everything's cool. All the warheads are made from Nobel Peace Prizes.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15907727.post-73334958559003227322013-09-05T19:00:42.178-04:002013-09-05T19:00:42.178-04:00Limited Military Action = Performance Art by the D...Limited Military Action = Performance Art by the DOD.<br /><br />He doesn't care what actually happens. He wants to create the appearance of doing something, to create an impression in the minds of the viewer.<br /><br />Alath<br />Carmel INAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15907727.post-87154289359550681352013-09-05T18:35:27.474-04:002013-09-05T18:35:27.474-04:00I need to ask one question are the people killed d...I need to ask one question are the people killed during "limited military actions" any less dead ? Derfel Cadarnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00904779790523776248noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15907727.post-65296850059588983702013-09-05T18:26:33.386-04:002013-09-05T18:26:33.386-04:00Les said "I recommend Zilch."
"Zil...Les said "I recommend Zilch."<br /><br />"Zilch" works for me.<br /><br />Also "Bupkis".rickn8orhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16911803300343351338noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15907727.post-84061448931682371052013-09-05T14:35:12.417-04:002013-09-05T14:35:12.417-04:00Don't forget arming a bunch of "rebels&qu...Don't forget arming a bunch of "rebels" again, trained by the CIA no less (those paragons of skillful war-making) who will no doubt soon be left in the lurch based on an political timetable.<br />The worst thing about Foreign Entanglements isn't necessarily the Foreignness but the fact that it becomes a local Political Tool with which to thrash the opposition and gin-up the base.NotClauswitzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14358707844087117280noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15907727.post-78714748030877562622013-09-05T10:58:16.630-04:002013-09-05T10:58:16.630-04:00Tam, I deliberately didn't touch the Indian is...Tam, I deliberately didn't touch the Indian issue. The question I addressed was about the Constitutionality of chasing pirates. I didn't say I <i>like</i> the idea of the President taking military action without Congress's explicit approval, just that there is at least some justification for it in the Constitution.<br /><br />And I <i>really</i> don't like where it potentially leads. But that doesn't erase the clause cited.davehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13579043129470256468noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15907727.post-58801537629814575832013-09-05T07:22:16.017-04:002013-09-05T07:22:16.017-04:00"but if you had sailed the USS Constitution u..."but if you had sailed the USS Constitution up the Thames and lobbed a broadside into London, you would have had a hard time convincing the Limeys that it wasn't war"<br /><br />Actually, pre this latest vote, if you'd have done just that, aiming precisely at Wastemonster, we'd have called it a favour (and since it was a random blip of sense in a sea of idiocy - we'd still probably see it that way).Ablehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18109723804885979128noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15907727.post-394886638272829842013-09-05T06:43:37.131-04:002013-09-05T06:43:37.131-04:00If [insert nation here] worked a submarine up the ...If [insert nation here] worked a submarine up the Atlantic Seaboard and lobbed a few missiles into one of our cities "as a warning", you can bet your ass we'd call it an act of war. Because it would be.<br /><br />Same here. Obama wants war. <br /><br />Wherever you fall on the idea of it, you must first admit that we are talking about starting a war with another nation. There is no "limited" action. If we try to kill them, they are free to to try and kill us right back.<br /><br />Our society has become insulated from war. We fight it like we play video games: by remote control with no real skin in the game. We can literally attack a nation from across the globe with little more risk than a sore finger from pushing the buttons. <br /><br />Or can we?<br /><br />Look to the Navy and see how many requests for proposals they have out there for ways to detect enemy subs approaching our shores. Everything from accoustic sensors to snorkel detection. This is one of the few things they are paying for right now. <br /><br />The Russians had good subs that have been made ridiculously better using rare-earth motors and lithium batteries. Super quiet and longer ranging. The idea that Syria or Iran (who has subs) is unable to mount a lone-wolf mission to NY or even DC is not too far flung. <br /><br />Does that mean the US should cower from a necessary war (when needed)? No. But the idea that we can "limit" war to the other guys is a concept that we are too accustomed to and one I fear we will soon learn was temporary.Patrickhttp://www.google.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15907727.post-8098522619788121382013-09-05T02:11:32.755-04:002013-09-05T02:11:32.755-04:00Operation SQUIRREL! is what I am calling it.Operation SQUIRREL! is what I am calling it.Cincinnatushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10424218376882403880noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15907727.post-72494675253981781092013-09-05T00:29:14.098-04:002013-09-05T00:29:14.098-04:00TomB,
Did you just make the assertion that the Pr...TomB,<br /><br />Did you just make the assertion that the President is using the #OCCUPY Doctrine in matters of foreign policy?<br /><br /><i>Whaddawewant?!<br />WHATEVER!<br />Whennawewan'it?!<br />NOW!!!</i><br /><br />gviglobal village idiothttp://www.alpharubicon.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15907727.post-27343989183794983492013-09-05T00:13:53.378-04:002013-09-05T00:13:53.378-04:00dave,
"As a counterpoint on the Barbary issu...dave,<br /><br />"<i>As a counterpoint on the Barbary issue, it could be legitimately argued that it wasn't so much a war as a law enforcement action.</i>"<br /><br />Right. And the Indians were a sort of 18th Century pest extermination problem?<br /><br />The point of the matter is that "civilized" countries tend to be a lot more circumspect about wars <i>vis a vis</i> punitive expeditions when the other side can punch back.<br /><br />Vladimir Putin could nerve gas two million of his own citizens tomorrow and Barry wouldn't launch so much as a bottle rocket, but if I were to use a can of Raid wrong, the EPA would be on me like stink on shit.Tamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07285540310465422476noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15907727.post-29184806954789003652013-09-04T22:46:43.771-04:002013-09-04T22:46:43.771-04:00Steve, I don't think you'll find the inter...Steve, I don't think you'll find the international community has embraced that definition of WMD yet.<br /><br />Give me the night to chew on this and do more research. I'm fairly sure I'm on to something, but it's possible I'm just on something. I'll have a more substantive comment tomorrow.davehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13579043129470256468noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15907727.post-71506373318592179192013-09-04T22:33:35.248-04:002013-09-04T22:33:35.248-04:00Blogger Tam said...
"You mean like where ...<i>Blogger Tam said...<br /> "You mean like where I said "the ink was barely dry on the Constitution before the founders were launching limited military actions against Injuns and Arabs"?"<br /><br /> 6:37 PM, September 04, 2013</i><br /><br />What, you don't actually expect people to <i>read</i> your post before emoting, do you? Next you'll be asking people to engage their brain before running their, er, fingers...Robnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15907727.post-35854296889334238702013-09-04T22:16:09.220-04:002013-09-04T22:16:09.220-04:00Another point, dave, is that "Weapons of Mass...Another point, dave, is that "Weapons of Mass Destruction" has been defined down to include pressure cookers stuffed with fireworks.<br /><br />So just about any of us can now be in violation of "International Law" and entitled to... a drone launched Hellfire through the bedroom window? Hey, it's the law, pal... I don't make them up, I just enforce them.Steve Skubinnanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15907727.post-42912558814089918642013-09-04T21:24:13.630-04:002013-09-04T21:24:13.630-04:00As a counterpoint on the Barbary issue, it could b...As a counterpoint on the Barbary issue, it could be legitimately argued that it wasn't so much a war as a law enforcement action. Even at that time, piracy on the high seas was recognized as a crime by virtually all nations (a peremptory norm, or <i>jus cogens</i>). Such a violation of accepted international law is generally held to be enforceable by <i>any</i> nation. If it's law enforcement, it's easier for the President to act: the Constitution (Article I, Section 8, Clause 10) authorizes the Congress<br /><i>To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;</i><br />Without looking up the legislative history, I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that the first Congress passed an act defining piracy (it was obviously in everyone's mind, being specifically mentioned in the Constitution) and authorizing the President to crack down on it, that alone would probably be sufficient to authorize <i>any</i> president to use <i>any</i> pirate as a yardarm ornament, anywhere and forever.<br /><br />My problem with that argument is that the "Law of Nations" is subject to change over time. Genocide only really became contrary to peremptory norms after that nasty little incident in Germany with the Jews; following that, everybody agreed that genocide is A Very Bad Thing, so if the law just says that "violating the Law of Nations means go, man, go!," then the President gained new authority with no action from Congress.<br /><br />Similarly, the use of Weapons of Mass Destruction is now held to be a violation of the Law of Nations. If the "punishment" is applied to a sufficiently broad definition, the president suddenly has very broad authorization.<br /><br />(Yes, I'm taking International Law and National Security Law right now in law school. I feel dirty for defending the creep, but there is an argument for the Constitutionality of at least some of this.)davehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13579043129470256468noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15907727.post-16393054048551563982013-09-04T20:34:42.884-04:002013-09-04T20:34:42.884-04:00@johninMd.(help?!?): Crow. Johns(t)on's beef...@johninMd.(help?!?): Crow. Johns(t)on's beef was with then Crow. That's part of what made it so notable, as most Mountain Men got on just fine with the Crow; as you note, it was usually the Blackfoot who gave them problems. (Possibly thanks to the Hudson Bay Company, but that was never proven...)Dranghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08082177597135236652noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15907727.post-59513964822930372272013-09-04T20:05:15.352-04:002013-09-04T20:05:15.352-04:00I love that I Democrat president actually got up i...I love that I Democrat president actually got up in front of the cameras and said that the U.S. has to bomb people to be taken seriously. Bonus points for the Nobel Peace Prize.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15907727.post-79764989459691287522013-09-04T19:43:57.016-04:002013-09-04T19:43:57.016-04:00Soldiers in a Limited Military Action can be recom...Soldiers in a Limited Military Action can be recommended for a Mauve Heart, an Orchid Heart, or an Eminence Heart, depending on the severity of their wounds. Or a Phlox Heart if they had only the psychological damages.1911Mannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15907727.post-89540818761963796772013-09-04T18:37:25.962-04:002013-09-04T18:37:25.962-04:00Michael,
"Not to get int the way of your sna...Michael,<br /><br />"<i>Not to get int the way of your snark or anything, but I'm pretty sure Jefferson woulda considered the Barbary Wars a "limited military engagement", considering his notable lack of Congressional authorization and all. </i>"<br /><br />You mean like where I said "the ink was barely dry on the Constitution before the founders were launching limited military actions against Injuns and Arabs"?Tamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07285540310465422476noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15907727.post-18691151817602372542013-09-04T18:16:17.151-04:002013-09-04T18:16:17.151-04:00Hey, I'm all good with saying we aren't go...Hey, I'm all good with saying we aren't going to hit Syria hard enough.<br /><br />It's true. We're going to bomb them enough to <i>make things worse</i>, but not employ enough force to actually <i>get the job done</i>.<br /><br />Since <i>getting the job done</i> would require invasion, occupation, pacification, and rebuilding <i>a la</i> the Axis powers in 1945, I say, "Screw it, let them kill each other." If they attack us or an ally with NBC ordnance, we use the Bush 41 Doctrine -- WMD use begets WMD retaliation. . . and there's only one flavor of WMD in the US arsenal. (Of course, deterrance only works if the other guy <i>believes</i> you can and will respond.)Geodkythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09328915597574377444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15907727.post-18188655788141910552013-09-04T17:47:01.363-04:002013-09-04T17:47:01.363-04:00Yeah. Ask Jeremiah "liver-eatin'" Jo...Yeah. Ask Jeremiah "liver-eatin'" Johnson about that little misunderstanding w/the Blackfeet; at least they only came at him one at a time.....johninMd.(help?!?)noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15907727.post-66163574305806584142013-09-04T17:40:46.991-04:002013-09-04T17:40:46.991-04:00Not to get int the way of your snark or anything, ...Not to get int the way of your snark or anything, but I'm pretty sure Jefferson woulda considered the Barbary Wars a "limited military engagement", considering his notable lack of Congressional authorization and all. Michaelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15907727.post-56166564863411874052013-09-04T16:19:37.980-04:002013-09-04T16:19:37.980-04:00According to Clausewitz War is an act of force to ...According to Clausewitz War is an act of force to compel the enemy to do your will. I guess by that definition it's not a war since we don't even know what we want them to do!Tom B.https://www.blogger.com/profile/07479341910530927764noreply@blogger.com