Tuesday, October 4, 2011

A Good Defense is Sometimes Simply a Cogent Point

Ron Paul made one of the greatest debating points in the history of modern Presidential debating. I believe it was in the last debate (or maybe it was the one before that) and it was when he made that critical distinction between "defense spending" and "military spending", the former being that which we legitimately need to defend ourselves and the latter being only that which the Military Industrial Complex has foisted upon us (this, strictly in an effort to enhance their own power). I mean, I know that Mr. Paul is frequently considered a major flake and all but damn, huh?

5 comments:

Jerry Critter said...

A large part of the problem is defining the difference.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

Maybe it's kind of like pornography, Jerry.............I also want to point out that this is a perfect example of where liberals, moderates, and even some of the more libertarian conservatives (like our friend, RN) can get together and maybe get something done. You know, as opposed to the constant bickering that seems so endless.

w-dervish said...

Ron Paul on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq: 8000 Americans Have Died In These Wars That Are Illegal!

Watch the video at this link (he says the words at 6:49).

dmarks said...

WD: The wars are not illegal. The claims have been rejected by actual authorities.

You should stop following Boyle. I did some reading on him, and he is a rabid anti-semite who has even detailed about how Jewish Israelis must be dispersed (ethnic cleansing) to other countries.

And Francis Boyle has called outspoken Jewish intellectual Alan M. Dershowitz a "war criminal" for writing and speaking in defense of the rights of Jewish people to live. He is clearly unhinged.

I won't even go into his bogus legal briefs to try to help Iran wage nuclear war.

w-dervish said...

dmarks, the post of mine that you are responding to does not mention Francis Boyle. My post points out that RON PAUL says the wars are illegal.

In any case, the veracity of the charges against bush are not contingent on Mr. Boyle's stance on Israel. You suggesting that they are is an obvious ad hominem.

An article on the British National Party website lays out how the bush administration broke international law... the article says, "the UN Charter, which has been ratified by the American [government], says that all UN member states must settle their international disputes by peaceful means, and no member nation can use military force except in self-defense.

The invasion of Afghanistan, Operation Enduring Freedom, was never authorized by the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) and is therefore illegal in terms of the UN Charter. As such, it is a de facto breach of international law.

The American and British governments have argued that UN authorization was not needed because the invasion was an act of collective self-defense (as defined by Article 51 of the UN Charter) after the attacks of [9/11].

This argument is clearly fallacious, as the state of Afghanistan was not involved in the events of 9-11. Individual terrorists, most of whom were Egyptian and Saudi Arabian in origin, carried out the attacks, and not the Afghan state".

Specifically bush violated Articles 33 and 39 of the UN charter. This is indisputable.

Article 33 says, "The parties to any dispute, the continuance of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, shall, first of all, seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice".

bush rejected the Taliban's offer to turn over bin Laden. He issued an ultimatum and refused to negotiate. This was in clear violation of Article 33.

Article 39 says, "The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security".

bush acted in violation of Article 39 when he said the US didn't "need permission" to defend itself. The UN never decided "what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42" because bush refused to negotiate and launched an attack. The UN charter clearly says unauthorized action is not permitted. The UN did not authorize the invasion of Afghanistan.

The source of above explanation of the charges is the British National Party website. This group is unaffiliated with Francis Boyle... so I suppose dmarks now needs to dig up some dirt on this group? dmarks believes finding (what he believes is unflattering) information on anyone objecting to bush's invasions... SOMEHOW changes what the UN charter says??

It is an utterly ludicrous defense. btw, "The British National Party (BNP) is a far-right political party.