The Libertarian Party of Pennsylvania - Forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
News: Welcome to the LPPa forum. 
Feel free to join the discussions.
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
The Libertarian Party of Pennsylvania - Forum > Discussions > Political Discussions > What to do with Iran?
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5   Go Down
« previous next »
  Print  
Author Topic: What to do with Iran?  (Read 3784 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Ken Crippen
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 122



WWW
« Reply #15 on: August 29, 2005, 05:16:31 pm »
Quote from: "jimbabb"
No elaboration on my part is necessary for you to answer 2 simple yes/no questions?

Can we agree that Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution should be enforced?

Can we agree that we oppose the initiation of force for political or social gain?

Ron, what about you?

Jim


Currently, I see no violations of either so I do not understand why this is even an issue.

If you are not willing to have an open discussion about these issues, then you cannot expect open answers.
Logged
b]Former U.S. Presidential Candidate - 2004

Chair - Legislative Action Committee[/b]
jimbabb
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 93



WWW
« Reply #16 on: August 29, 2005, 05:43:01 pm »
Quote from: "Ken Crippen"
If you are not willing to have an open discussion about these issues, then you cannot expect open answers.


Let's discuss your answers to my questions.
Logged
Transpower
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 97



WWW Email
« Reply #17 on: August 29, 2005, 06:49:00 pm »
Well, obviously, all of us oppose the initiation of force, theft, or fraud.  This includes the threat of force, as well.

Non-intervention is proper when a country is non-threatening to us, even if it has a different social system.  Take Sweden, for example (please).  Although it is thorougly socialist, it is not a threat to us in any way, and so non-intervention is the right course of action.  We can trade with Sweden, etc.

However, Iran is a threat to us--it's leaders call us "The Great Satan" and want to defeat us and our social system.  They wish to impose a totalitarian version of Islam on us and the rest of the world.  So, here we may intervene--if it's in our long-term national and rational self-interest.  Of course, war is a last resort, but it is sometimes the answer (as witness World War II).  Negotiations can continue with the Iranians, but the military option should not be taken off the table.  That's the whole point of the ARI piece.
Logged
jimbabb
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 93



WWW
« Reply #18 on: August 29, 2005, 08:34:10 pm »
Quote
So, here we may intervene--if it's in our long-term national and rational self-interest.


So you do advocate the use of force against civilians, after sufficient name calling from their dictator?

What about my first question about Article 1, Section 8?

Jim

PS: Could the 1953 CIA backed coup that toppled Iran's democratically elected government and the subsequent 25 years of support for their dictator, have anything to do with Iranian's feeling about the US?
Logged
Ken Crippen
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 122



WWW
« Reply #19 on: August 30, 2005, 07:09:24 am »
Quote from: "jimbabb"
Quote from: "Ken Crippen"
If you are not willing to have an open discussion about these issues, then you cannot expect open answers.


Let's discuss your answers to my questions.


I showed the same courtesy to your questions that you showed to mine.
Logged
b]Former U.S. Presidential Candidate - 2004

Chair - Legislative Action Committee[/b]
Ken Crippen
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 122



WWW
« Reply #20 on: August 30, 2005, 07:32:22 am »
I am not a "square peg in a round hole" type of person. Different problems require different solutions. To try and impose the same philosophy on every issue is ridiculous and highly irresponsible.
Logged
b]Former U.S. Presidential Candidate - 2004

Chair - Legislative Action Committee[/b]
jimbabb
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 93



WWW
« Reply #21 on: August 30, 2005, 11:47:44 am »
Quote from: "Ken Crippen"
Quote from: "jimbabb"
Quote from: "Ken Crippen"
If you are not willing to have an open discussion about these issues, then you cannot expect open answers.


Let's discuss your answers to my questions.


I showed the same courtesy to your questions that you showed to mine.


Ken, You are a smart guy. I'm trying to find out what we agree on before, I can continue this conversation.

If you don't believe that the constitution should be obeyed or if you advocate the innitiation of force, that will tell me where you are coming from.
Logged
Transpower
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 97



WWW Email
« Reply #22 on: August 30, 2005, 12:16:32 pm »
Of course civilian casualties should be minimized.  Our beef is with the Iranian government (and their supporters), not with the typical "man in the street."  Modern weapons have pinpoint accuracy and thus can spare the civilian carnage that used to occur.  Compare that policy with the policy of the terrorists, which is:  kill the civilians!

It is irresponsible and unjust to call for the immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq.  We must finish the job to ensure that a democratic republic in Iraq can succeed.  In this endeavor, Turkey supports us:  please see the Op-Ed page of today's WSJ.
Logged
Ken Crippen
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 122



WWW
« Reply #23 on: August 30, 2005, 12:58:22 pm »
Quote from: "jimbabb"
Quote from: "Ken Crippen"
Quote from: "jimbabb"
Quote from: "Ken Crippen"
If you are not willing to have an open discussion about these issues, then you cannot expect open answers.


Let's discuss your answers to my questions.


I showed the same courtesy to your questions that you showed to mine.


Ken, You are a smart guy. I'm trying to find out what we agree on before, I can continue this conversation.

If you don't believe that the constitution should be obeyed or if you advocate the innitiation of force, that will tell me where you are coming from.

Under my interpretation of both the Oath and the Article 2 Section 8, the U.S. is in compliance. This begs the question of why these questions are even being addressed? You can support going to war (and even pre-emptive strikes) and still be in compliance with both items mentioned.

My problem is that these questions seem like an irrelevant tangent that is taking away from the discussion at hand, which is Iran and to some extent my tangent to North Korea. NK is not as much of a tangent as you might think, since both issues are related (even to the extent that both countries are working together and there are theories that these announcements to the world have been coordinated).

Under my interpretation of both items you mentioned, I agree. I fully expect that these questions are a setup for additional lines of questioning which I feel will be out of bounds. We shall see.
Logged
b]Former U.S. Presidential Candidate - 2004

Chair - Legislative Action Committee[/b]
jimbabb
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 93



WWW
« Reply #24 on: August 30, 2005, 01:02:44 pm »
Ken, I'm really starting to wonder why you won't answer 2 yes/no questions. At least Ron sort of answered one.
Logged
Ken Crippen
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 122



WWW
« Reply #25 on: August 30, 2005, 01:20:58 pm »
Quote from: "jimbabb"
Ken, I'm really starting to wonder why you won't answer 2 yes/no questions. At least Ron sort of answered one.


I thought that "Under my interpretation of both items you mentioned, I agree" answered both of your questions. "Agree" means "yes." I smell a setup, which is why the qualifiers are there.
Logged
b]Former U.S. Presidential Candidate - 2004

Chair - Legislative Action Committee[/b]
jimbabb
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 93



WWW
« Reply #26 on: August 30, 2005, 01:53:48 pm »
I'll take that as YES and YES to my questions.

Quote
The Congress shall have Power…To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;


So we agree that Congress alone is authorized to declare war?
Logged
Ken Crippen
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 122



WWW
« Reply #27 on: August 30, 2005, 01:59:06 pm »
Quote from: "jimbabb"
I'll take that as YES and YES to my questions.

Quote
The Congress shall have Power…To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;


So we agree that Congress alone is authorized to declare war?


What does this have to do with Iran or North Korea (the topic of this thread)? We have not attacked either.
Logged
b]Former U.S. Presidential Candidate - 2004

Chair - Legislative Action Committee[/b]
Ken Crippen
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 122



WWW
« Reply #28 on: August 30, 2005, 02:35:48 pm »
Quote from: "jimbabb"
I'll take that as YES and YES to my questions.

Quote
The Congress shall have Power…To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;


So we agree that Congress alone is authorized to declare war?


I am guessing that you are trying to make a thinly veiled comparison to Iraq. The President was authorized by Congress to use force in both Iraq and Afghanistan. According to the War Powers Resolution of 1973, that is the President’s prerogative. He requests the use of force and it is up to Congress whether or not they grant it. In the case of Gulf War II, it was granted. Even if you do not like the most recent authorization, the President still had authorization under the original authorization in 1991. Iraq repeatedly violated the cease-fire agreement, thereby nullifying the cease-fire agreement, which re-opens the conflict. (See Below)

In the Grenada Conflict, the Panamanian Conflict, the Somalia Conflict, Gulf War I and Gulf War II, the President invoked his authority to commit troops without the necessity of Congressional approval, but in each case the President received Congressional authorization that satisfied the provisions of the War Powers Act.

Now, answer my questions: Do you feel that we should be going after terrorist organizations (using military force)? If not, how do you plan on handling terrorism and preventing further attacks? If you feel that we should use military force against terrorism, who do you "declare war" against, since terrorist organizations are not states, they are non-state actors?


NOTE:
Iraq violations of UN Resolutions (courtesy of the Ken Crippen For President website)
·  Resolution 687 (1991) of 3 April 1991 (Cease Fire Agreement). Deplores Iraq’s statements of threatening “the use of terrorism against targets outside Iraq and the taking of hostages by Iraq.”
·  Resolution 707 (1991) of 15 August 1991 states that Iraq is in violation of Resolution 687, the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons of 1 July 1968, and the agreement Iraq had with the International Atomic Energy Agency (as established by the board of Governors on 18 July 1991).
·  Resolution 778 of 2 October 1992 states that Iraq is in violation of Resolutions 687, 706, and 712. Resolutions 706 and 712 were passed to provide a mechanism for humanitarian relief for Iraqi civilians.
·  Resolution 806 of 5 February 1993 states that Iraq is in violation of Resolutions 687, 689, and 773.
·  Resolution 949 of 15 October 1994 warns Iraq that they must abide by Resolutions 678, 686, 687, 689, and 833.
·  Resolution 1060 of 12 June 1996 states that Iraq is in violation of Resolutions 687, 707, and 715.
·  Resolution 1115 of 21 June 1997 states that Iraq is in violation of Resolutions 687, 707, 715, and 1060.
·  Resolution 1134 of 23 October 1997 states that Iraq is in violation of Resolutions 687, 707, 715, and 1060 but did not decide if Iraq was in violation of Resolution 1115.
·  Resolution 1137 of 12 November 1997 states that Iraq is in violation of Resolution 1115, along with violation of Resolutions 687, 707, 715, and 1060.
·  Resolution 1153 of 20 February 1998 states that Iraq is in violation of Resolutions 687 and 1143.
·  Resolution 1154 of 2 March 1998 states that Iraq is in violation of Resolution 687 and all other relevant Resolutions.  
·  Resolution 1175 of 19 June 1998 states that Iraq still has not complied with Resolution 687.
·  Resolution 1194 of 9 September 1998 states that Iraq is in violation of Resolutions 687, 707, 715, 1060, 1115 and 1154.
·  Resolution 1205 of 5 November 1998 states that Iraq is in violation of Resolution 687, and all other relevant resolutions including 1154.
·  Resolution 1281 of 12 December 1999 states that Iraq has not complied with Resolution 687.
·  Resolution 1360 of 3 July 2001 states that Iraq is not in compliance with Resolution 687.
·  Resolution 1382 of 29 November 2001 states that Iraq is not in compliance with Resolutions 687 and 1284.
·  Resolution 1409 of 14 May 2002 states that Iraq is not in compliance with Resolutions 687 and 1284.
·  Resolution 1441 of 8 November 2002 states that Iraq is not in compliance with Resolutions 686, 687 (including provisions relating to terrorism), 688, and 1284.
·  Resolution 1443 of 22 November 2002 states that Iraq is not in compliance with Resolutions 687 and 1284.
·  Resolution 1447 of 4 December 2002 states that Iraq is not in compliance with Resolutions 687 and 1284.
·  Resolution 1454 of 30 December 2002 states that Iraq is not in compliance with Resolutions 687 and 1284.
Logged
b]Former U.S. Presidential Candidate - 2004

Chair - Legislative Action Committee[/b]
jimbabb
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 93



WWW
« Reply #29 on: August 30, 2005, 03:30:05 pm »
"Thinly veiled" ? I'm trying to as obvious as I can.

Perhaps you didn't hear. Congress was offered a Declaration of War on Iraq, but declined do to cowardice.
http://www.house.gov/paul/press/press2002/pr100402.htm

How many off those acts or UN resolutions supersede the US Constitution? I don't remember any of those being ratified by 2/3 of the states.

Are you now back-peddling on the enforcement of Article 1, Section 8 in favor of the War Powers Resolution of 1973? (Even that only claims to authorize 60 days of military action without a declaration.)

Jim
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5   Go Up
  Print  
« previous next »
 
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.4 | SMF © 2006-2007, Simple Machines LLC
Joomla Bridge by JoomlaHacks.com