ForumGarden

Would anyone like to comment on Activist Post: New Obama Executive Order Seizes U.S. Infrastructure and Citizens for Military Preparedness as regards its applicability during peacetime? Not that the US bothers to declare war any longer, it just lands, fans out and takes over, but even so. Were I, God forbid, a US citizen I'd be at least interested enough to try to work out what the words mean. It is, after all, now law.

Obama executive order nothing to storm the castle over - Yahoo! News

I find it better to include the actual text, rather than only an analysis.

Executive Order -- National Defense Resources Preparedness | The White House

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



WASHINGTON, March 7—Under question from Sen. Sessions at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing today, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey indicated that "international permission," rather than Congressional approval, provided a 'legal basis' for military action by the United States.




This administration is out of control. It holds our Constitution, therefore the rule of law, in contempt. Even still, I don't anticipate anyone will be impeached.

I wonder how long before we reach "critical mass" for revolt.

This one of those threads that the answer can only be "damned if you do, damned if you don't."

One cannot simply look at/analize a single executive order made by the President of the most powerful nation in the world. One has to consider what has gone before. It is easy to blandly state that the US go in fan out and wage war against all and sundry in order to achieve a goal that is favorable to America.

Victorian Britain pursued this policy for decades and would still have been doing so today if they had had the guts and fortitude of the USA.

Lon;1387973 wrote: Obama executive order nothing to storm the castle over - Yahoo! News


As your quoted article says, it's no problem so long as you "trust the president — any president — to look at what’s going on and make his cabinet secretaries play nice". Perhaps you do. I see no historical basis for such trust.

Acc, you "find it better to include the actual text, rather than only an analysis"? The first link in the first paragraph of the article I posted was to the page you prefer. The analysis only makes sense if you read the order itself. Why on earth such powers are set in place I can't imagine, and they're most certainly not aimed at a military crisis - check the words. It's aimed more than anything at an economic collapse, and even that view assumes goodwill on the part of the executive.

jones jones;1388001 wrote: This one of those threads that the answer can only be "damned if you do, damned if you don't."

One cannot simply look at/analize a single executive order made by the President of the most powerful nation in the world. One has to consider what has gone before. It is easy to blandly state that the US go in fan out and wage war against all and sundry in order to achieve a goal that is favorable to America.

Victorian Britain pursued this policy for decades and would still have been doing so today if they had had the guts and fortitude of the USA.
Surely you're not advocating that "the US go in fan out and wage war against all and sundry in order to achieve a goal that is favorable to America" is the good and right way to be??

Why is the US part of NATO and the UN if they won't listen the UN or NATO. and the way I see it the US doesn't need anything to pull other into their wars of profit that we have to pay for.

What I am getting out of this is...'We only go to War if there is a profit to be made ...not to help, until congress can figure out what profit margin they will get out of it.'

Who the hell does this man think he is telling the world that international law is no concern of theirs?

fuzzywuzzy;1388065 wrote: Why is the US part of NATO and the UN if they won't listen the UN or NATO. and the way I see it the US doesn't need anything to pull other into their wars of profit that we have to pay for.

What I am getting out of this is...'We only go to War if there is a profit to be made ...not to help, until congress can figure out what profit margin they will get out of it.'

Who the hell does this man think he is telling the world that international law is no concern of theirs?
USA is a sovereign nation, just like your country is. No country will go to war unless there is some kind of national interest. Disagree? Name one.

As for NATO, yes, if we are in a treaty with NATO then we must abide by that treaty. The UN, however, is a diplomatic organization. It's usurped enough power. I'd be happy if we got out of it.

How is this different than rationing during wartime?

Accountable;1388085 wrote: USA is a sovereign nation, just like your country is. No country will go to war unless there is some kind of national interest. Disagree? Name one.

As for NATO, yes, if we are in a treaty with NATO then we must abide by that treaty. The UN, however, is a diplomatic organization. It's usurped enough power. I'd be happy if we got out of it.Both NATO and UN membership are by treaty. Either can be unilaterally withdrawn from, as with any treaty.

The UN could run perfectly well with new headquarters in, say, let's pick a location practically at random, Manilla or Bombay or Jakarta or Shanghai. By all means turn isolationist, Acc. I won't even begin to give my view of the consequence but I'd quite like you to tie it in with banning all US governmental aid at the same time, regardless of how it's labelled.

The UK had absolutely no national interest in invading either Afghanistan or Iraq. We were dragged there, screaming with outrage, by a suborned Prime Minister waving bogus lying "evidence" much like the drivel your embarrassed General Powell was forced to spout at the UN.

That's an awful lot of power you give a single person.

I'd guess that British national interest wasn't necessarily in Afghanistan per se, but in maintaining US relations.

spot;1388093 wrote: By all means turn isolationist, Acc.
Is that the New Oxford definition of isolationist now, not having membership in the UN?

Because that's the only treaty I'd like to see broken, other than reeling in the military empire.

You and I agree on so many surface issues. It's just the motivation that's different. Yours is out of seething hatred for all that has the smell of USA on it. Mine is out of love for my country that I see straying far from her original principles.

Accountable;1388098 wrote: Is that the New Oxford definition of isolationist now, not having membership in the UN?

Because that's the only treaty I'd like to see broken, other than reeling in the military empire.

You and I agree on so many surface issues. It's just the motivation that's different. Yours is out of seething hatred for all that has the smell of USA on it. Mine is out of love for my country that I see straying far from her original principles.


Surely it is the reeling in of the military empire that is the sign of turning isolationist, withdrawing from the UN is the final proof.

What did I see earlier today about the UN and Madeleine Albright, I've no idea where... her saying that The Annual UN Budget is "roughly what the Pentagon spends every thirty two hours". I don't see why the UN needs the imbalance of US membership. As a discussion forum for the rest of the world it's useful. As a venue for the likes of General Powell to give lectures complete with slides, no thank you. Isolationism rings all my bells, go for it.

Bryn Mawr;1388834 wrote: Surely it is the reeling in of the military empire that is the sign of turning isolationist, withdrawing from the UN is the final proof.You may have something. The two actions would be redundant, in a way. Maybe if the rest of the UN would be forced to spend their citizens' blood in the hundreds and thousands (instead of tens and dozens) because they can't depend on the omnipresence of the American military behemoth, then maybejustmaybe the UN can go back to being a diplomatic body rather than an enforcement agency. Reducing our military presence to an actual defense force might be enough.

Accountable;1388848 wrote: You may have something. The two actions would be redundant, in a way. Maybe if the rest of the UN would be forced to spend their citizens' blood in the hundreds and thousands (instead of tens and dozens) because they can't depend on the omnipresence of the American military behemoth, then maybejustmaybe the UN can go back to being a diplomatic body rather than an enforcement agency. Reducing our military presence to an actual defense force might be enough.


Maybejustmaybe if we didn't go round starting so many wars then peace might break out.

Personally, I'm convinced that reducing our military presence to an actual defence force would be enough.

Bryn Mawr;1388858 wrote: Maybejustmaybe if we didn't go round starting so many wars then peace might break out.

Personally, I'm convinced that reducing our military presence to an actual defence force would be enough.


Exactly my point. If we didn't have such a damn big hammer we wouldn't view every situation as a nail.