[Nesster]

Please you make it sound like the Democratic party has never benefited from its relations with business. This has been a corporate run state since the creation of modern business back in the mid 1800's. Both parties benefit from this so you can't sit there and say its only one party that is in bed with business.

While this is true as far as it goes - the analysis needs to go further. The relationship between government, the parties, and business isn't automatically a bad thing. The political and economic aims of this partnership make a huge difference, and one that has been shown to make a big difference in the health and spirit of the country.

Neither party has a monopoly on the 'correct' definition of the aims... but in recent years the Republican motorway has led us to a cliff (actually so in economic terms, but I'm speaking of rhetoric and philosophy here): by improving business conditions (aka giving business as much as possible of what they are lobbying for) we improve the lot of every American. The way I see it, there's no bridge there, we're to take this on faith.

Not all Dems are much better, but the only way we seem to be able to elect one is for him/her to be articulate about how to meld business and social interests. This invariably arouses the reactionaries in business, despite the demonstrated benefits of this approach.

[skyredoubt]

I would respectfully state that your post about a treaty being an "excuse" is way too dismissive. An actual treaty is approved by the senate under procedures set out in the Constitution, and it is the law of the land in many cases superior to statutes and other acts of congress. This is a very serious constitutional question which cannot be just labeled an excuse.

I agree that we have a long history of presidents being too quick to commit troops. However the constitutionality is not a black and white proposition, and the Supreme Court has seldom gotten involved. War and Treaty Powers of the U. S. Constitution

Gene, you're right, but this is all a very slippery slope to me. The whole Korea war, as far as I know, was also never a declared war and a NATO operation to boot.
The Lybian operation quickly turned from "protection of citizens" to us actually fighting a side in a civil war! Now, we can debate whether it is a good decision, given the limited risk to US troops and the obvious odiousness of Ghaddafi etc, but we need to debate it, not to have the President unilaterally decide to just start a military operation whenever he pleases. At least have a modicum of Congressional approval so that this sets a positive precedent for the future.
As it is right now, Obama simply affirms the worst precedents set by Bush. And I don't think that is it for any good reason, simply based on his other records on civil liberties and rule of law. I think it is fair to say that the candidate Obama would have criticized the President Obama for the handling of this.

[ihasa]

I believe that the military action in Libya, in support of the opposition forces there, was and is justified, and make a big distinction between the operation there and in Afghanistan and Iraq. But I cannot believe the action was not voted on by congress!

However at least there was a proper UN resolution in place, which makes this military action a lot more legitimate than many other recent exploits.

[Parallax]

would it be ok for the President to level a country with conventional bombs for 59 days then stop?

Depends on the circumstances.

[wildman]

9 November 1989
The fall of the Berlin Wall. Usually considered the end of the Cold war with Soviet Union.

2 August 1990
beginning of the Gulf War.

Didn't take long for the military, industrial and corporate interests to find another boogeyman that they could milk for the next two decades did it?

[Nesster]

You forgot the 'necessary' minor wars fought by Reagan - more like military excercises - that were 'necessary' in the sense that we had to forget Viet Nam and its lessons, and puff ourselves up properly, in order to find ourselves in the endless wars.

Didn't Orwell write about this?

[newarts]

GeneV said....A lot more people have to get a realistic view of how serious war is. For this to stop, war needs to stop working as a political move.

Does "how serious war is" refer to direct costs in money and blood or in what I think are greater indirect costs of how we perceive the natural state of life? I fear the reverse Golden Rule; as ye do to others it shall be done to thee - in spades.

Could the continuance of our occupations of Iraq & Afghanistan be to purposefully put our troops in harm's way thereby justifying continued imposition of war powers?

The war footing provides cover for politicians to avoid their responsibility to legislate. It has lead to a climate of fear in our homes and a cadre of domestic spies. The increasing use of secrecy in government removes the possibility of government by an informed citizenry.

Victory must be declared so we can move on & work to disassemble our recently built garden of fear.

[GeneV]

As it is right now, Obama simply affirms the worst precedents set by Bush. And I don't think that is it for any good reason, simply based on his other records on civil liberties and rule of law. I think it is fair to say that the candidate Obama would have criticized the President Obama for the handling of this.

I don't think that is the most appropriate precedent. Clinton and Kosovo is closer--an action under NATO treaty which did not involve fighting by our troops on the ground.

I'm not saying this is or is not going to turn out well. However, I think it is a lot closer to the kind of military action by the President that would be something less than a total war, as opposed to an outright invasion and takeover of the foreign government as was the case with President Bush.

I think that a lot of the arguments being made here really go to issues (such as the international legitimacy or wisdom of involvement) which would exist even if congress had specifically approved this action.

[GeneV]

Does "how serious war is" refer to direct costs in money and blood or in what I think are greater indirect costs of how we perceive the natural state of life? I fear the reverse Golden Rule; as ye do to others it shall be done to thee - in spades.

I was more thinking of the Lancet estimates of the lives lost by all parties in Iraq. People don't just die because of bullets and bombs. They die because the infrastructure has been destroyed.

I thought that running up a war with Iraq was a brilliant political move by President Bush. He not only got his party elected, but Saddam agreed to much more extensive inspections. We could have declared victory and been heroes without killing hundreds of thousands.

[Nesster]

I thought that running up a war with Iraq was a brilliant political move by President Bush. He not only got his party elected, but Saddam agreed to much more extensive inspections. We could have declared victory and been heroes without killing hundreds of thousands.

Which is why I remember feeling extremely betrayed and lied to, with such a complete diplomatic victory on hand, that our leaders could not stop themselves from invading.

[GeneV]

Which is why I remember feeling extremely betrayed and lied to, with such a complete diplomatic victory on hand, that our leaders could not stop themselves from invading.

Exactly. It was the action that got me involved more in politics.

[Wheatfield]

A lot more people have to get a realistic view of how serious war is. For this to stop, war needs to stop working as a political move.

Your country's worldview also has to change significantly.

I play a game called Evony (not well, I might add), and I get the feeling that you guys view fatalities as the same sort of numbers game, where no lives are actually attached.
It comes, I suspect, from being able to wage war with little loss of your own sides lives, and training your soldiers to not give a damn about who they kill.
Right now, I suspect in Iraq that the body count is pretty close to 30:1 Iraqis killed in combat/ Americans killed in combat, with a large % of the Iraqi dead being innocent non combatant lives.

You need to start looking at the people your army is killing for what it is, which in the case or Iraq anyway is murder, plain and simple, and you need to start charging people with war crimes, and this should be anyone from a GROPO who pulled the trigger and killed a civilian right up to the people who ordered the invasion in the first place.

A realistic view of war includes holding people accountable for their actions, and this is not the way the USA rolls, and until it does, you will continue down the same path you are on simply because war has become, to the average American, nothing more than a video game where no one gets hurt.

[shooz]

Actually, it would be much more effective to prosecute war profiteers.
We used to do that with high tax rates.
As I said the occupations will continue until the ROI falls below acceptable levels.

[Ratmagiclady]

The relationship between government, the parties, and business isn't automatically a bad thing.

I, for one, didn't say it was *automatic,* but.... Where's the diff at this point?

[GeneV]

Your country's worldview also has to change significantly.

I play a game called Evony (not well, I might add), and I get the feeling that you guys view fatalities as the same sort of numbers game, where no lives are actually attached.
It comes, I suspect, from being able to wage war with little loss of your own sides lives, and training your soldiers to not give a damn about who they kill.
Right now, I suspect in Iraq that the body count is pretty close to 30:1 Iraqis killed in combat/ Americans killed in combat, with a large % of the Iraqi dead being innocent non combatant lives.

You need to start looking at the people your army is killing for what it is, which in the case or Iraq anyway is murder, plain and simple, and you need to start charging people with war crimes, and this should be anyone from a GROPO who pulled the trigger and killed a civilian right up to the people who ordered the invasion in the first place.

A realistic view of war includes holding people accountable for their actions, and this is not the way the USA rolls, and until it does, you will continue down the same path you are on simply because war has become, to the average American, nothing more than a video game where no one gets hurt.

Bill, a lot of that is the nasty hyperbole that gets you listened to less and less (which is unfortunate), but there is a kernel of truth that our leaders don't pay enough attention to the true human impact of war, or even its true economic cost.