Above the law.

[Aurielius]

You can bet this had the green light from Truman and let's not forget the Korean War, totally unnecessary...and on and on...

Nice try...you said the Koren War was totally unnecessary....stick to what you assert. I said I didn't think that the free peoples of Seoul would agree with that. Bringing in post war military / civilian tensions is just an attempt to bypass the primary assertion that you made. Please stick to justifying the original statement.

 

Sure. It was not necessary. Tell me what American interests were involved? (Containment of communism should not count). Why was there not a constitutional declaration of war as there was for WW2? The war could have raged on there and the US would have been fine, we were not threatened or attacked; it was an act of pure militarism, not defence.

Containment worked, the spread of communistic states has been reversed, there is no more Soviet Union, Eastern Europe is free, The Korean War is where that line was drawn.. The people of South Korea are free, I don't see anyone lining up to go north and starve with their northern brethren. If you are such an advocate for isolationism then you are living in the wrong centuries. That the war was inconclusive in terms of final outcome is beyond refute..but that is not what you said. You would like to dismiss what you find inconvenient in terms of historical perspective. You seem to want to debate Foreign Policy in unrelated threads, if that is such a cause d'etre to you then start a thread on the topic.

Edited September 9, 2011 by Aurielius

[SpellAndShield]

You can bet this had the green light from Truman and let's not forget the Korean War, totally unnecessary...and on and on...

Nice try...you said the Koren War was totally unnecessary....stick to what you assert. I said I didn't think that the free peoples of Seoul would agree with that. Bringing in post war military / civilian tensions is just an attempt to bypass the primary assertion that you made. Please stick to justifying the original statement.

 

Sure. It was not necessary. Tell me what American interests were involved? (Containment of communism should not count). Why was there not a constitutional declaration of war as there was for WW2? The war could have raged on there and the US would have been fine, we were not threatened or attacked; it was an act of pure militarism, not defence.

Containment worked, the spread of communistic states has been reversed, there is no more Soviet Union, Eastern Europe is free, The Korean War is where that line was drawn.. The people of South Korea are free, I don't see anyone lining up to go north and starve with their northern brethren. If you are such an advocate for isolationism then you are living in the wrong centuries. That the war was inconclusive in terms of final outcome is beyond refute..but that is not what you said. You would like to dismiss what you find inconvenient in terms of historical perspective. You seem to want to debate Foreign Policy in unrelated threads, if that is such a cause d'etre to you then start a thread on the topic.

 

We don't know how Korea would have turned out if we had not been involved, most likely unified rather than North and South. Communism would died on its own; did the war in Vietnam change their direction? No. At least you are not disputing the unconstitutionality of the war. I am not an isolationist but a non-interventionist.It is not we non-interventionists who are isolationsists. The real isolationists are those who impose sanctions and embargoes on countries and peoples across the globe because they disagree with the internal and foreign policies of their leaders. The real isolationists are those who choose to use force overseas to promote democracy, rather than seek change through diplomacy, engagement, and by setting a positive example.

[HeyYou]

You can bet this had the green light from Truman and let's not forget the Korean War, totally unnecessary...and on and on...

Nice try...you said the Koren War was totally unnecessary....stick to what you assert. I said I didn't think that the free peoples of Seoul would agree with that. Bringing in post war military / civilian tensions is just an attempt to bypass the primary assertion that you made. Please stick to justifying the original statement.

 

Sure. It was not necessary. Tell me what American interests were involved? (Containment of communism should not count). Why was there not a constitutional declaration of war as there was for WW2? The war could have raged on there and the US would have been fine, we were not threatened or attacked; it was an act of pure militarism, not defence.

Containment worked, the spread of communistic states has been reversed, there is no more Soviet Union, Eastern Europe is free, The Korean War is where that line was drawn.. The people of South Korea are free, I don't see anyone lining up to go north and starve with their northern brethren. If you are such an advocate for isolationism then you are living in the wrong centuries. That the war was inconclusive in terms of final outcome is beyond refute..but that is not what you said. You would like to dismiss what you find inconvenient in terms of historical perspective. You seem to want to debate Foreign Policy in unrelated threads, if that is such a cause d'etre to you then start a thread on the topic.

 

We don't know how Korea would have turned out if we had not been involved, most likely unified rather than North and South. Communism would died on its own; did the war in Vietnam change their direction? No. At least you are not disputing the unconstitutionality of the war. I am not an isolationist but a non-interventionist.It is not we non-interventionists who are isolationsists. The real isolationists are those who impose sanctions and embargoes on countries and peoples across the globe because they disagree with the internal and foreign policies of their leaders. The real isolationists are those who choose to use force overseas to promote democracy, rather than seek change through diplomacy, engagement, and by setting a positive example.

 

Yes we do. All of Korea would still be communist. Communism is still going in the North, a unified Korea would just give him more people to exploit. The people that enjoy various freedoms in the south, would be suffering the same depredations as their northern kin currently are. Given the current tensions in the Koreas', how long do you think it would be before buddy Kim pulled the trigger on his million man army, and invaded the south, if we pulled our troops out?

 

We lost Vietnam, because politicians, not generals, determined how the war was to be fought. Ignoring major targets, supply dumps, and other such, was a tactical error, that cost us the war.

[Nintii]

Hmmm well if the truth be told, nearly every political system - my angle on "replying to above the law" - has and does lift "certain" individuals to believe that they are above the law ... and in many cases they do in actual fact attain to that status of being "untouchable".

That's correct, nearly every political system, including Democracy - creates this state of "untouchable sainthood".

 

It is clear that communism and all the other "isms" give birth to an elite and this promotes dictatorships etc., but this also includes that wonderful word so many loves so muc, called Democracy ... which is nothing more than mobocracy, majority rule ... and what the majority says goes, even if it's bad ... and this in turn raises certain individuals to political power who can have their own way because the "people have said so".

 

Rather, I'd like to see the world promoting the ideal of the "Republic" instead of Democracy ... and I quote

 

"Democracy and Republic are often taken as one of the same thing, but there is a fundamental difference. Whilst in both cases the government is elected by the people, in Democracy the majority rules according to their whims, whilst in the Republic the Government rule according to law. This law is framed in the Constitution to limit the power of Government and ensuring some rights and protection to Minorities and individuals".

 

End quote.

 

So, as you can see, in a Republic a person in political office has to answer to the Law of the land and is therefore, not above it ... yet in a democracy it isn't that way, because the majority rule can change the rules to suit themselves and thus allow individuals to live above the Law.

A Republic certainly won't stop people from trying to be above the Law but it surely will have the power to remove or effectively judge such an individual.

[Aurielius]

Hmmm well if the truth be told, nearly every political system - my angle on "replying to above the law" - has and does lift "certain" individuals to believe that they are above the law ... and in many cases they do in actual fact attain to that status of being "untouchable".

That's correct, nearly every political system, including Democracy - creates this state of "untouchable sainthood".

 

It is clear that communism and all the other "isms" give birth to an elite and this promotes dictatorships etc., but this also includes that wonderful word so many loves so muc, called Democracy ... which is nothing more than mobocracy, majority rule ... and what the majority says goes, even if it's bad ... and this in turn raises certain individuals to political power who can have their own way because the "people have said so".

 

Rather, I'd like to see the world promoting the ideal of the "Republic" instead of Democracy ... and I quote

 

"Democracy and Republic are often taken as one of the same thing, but there is a fundamental difference. Whilst in both cases the government is elected by the people, in Democracy the majority rules according to their whims, whilst in the Republic the Government rule according to law. This law is framed in the Constitution to limit the power of Government and ensuring some rights and protection to Minorities and individuals".

 

End quote.

 

So, as you can see, in a Republic a person in political office has to answer to the Law of the land and is therefore, not above it ... yet in a democracy it isn't that way, because the majority rule can change the rules to suit themselves and thus allow individuals to live above the Law.

A Republic certainly won't stop people from trying to be above the Law but it surely will have the power to remove or effectively judge such an individual.

When I wipe the grin off my face I would like to compliment our esteemed South African constitutional scholar who has adroitly pinned the difference between republics and democracies which is why the founding fathers drew from Spartan experience rather than Athenian. Ninitti if you ever decide to emigrate you certainly will be at home here.

[grannywils]

Grin? Aurielius, that is an understatement....

 

Nintii, you have done it again, my friend. My smile is as broad as a new risen sunshine. You just seem to get it right so often. Thanks, girlfriend!!! :wink: :thumbsup:

[SpellAndShield]

Hmmm well if the truth be told, nearly every political system - my angle on "replying to above the law" - has and does lift "certain" individuals to believe that they are above the law ... and in many cases they do in actual fact attain to that status of being "untouchable".

That's correct, nearly every political system, including Democracy - creates this state of "untouchable sainthood".

 

It is clear that communism and all the other "isms" give birth to an elite and this promotes dictatorships etc., but this also includes that wonderful word so many loves so muc, called Democracy ... which is nothing more than mobocracy, majority rule ... and what the majority says goes, even if it's bad ... and this in turn raises certain individuals to political power who can have their own way because the "people have said so".

 

Rather, I'd like to see the world promoting the ideal of the "Republic" instead of Democracy ... and I quote

 

"Democracy and Republic are often taken as one of the same thing, but there is a fundamental difference. Whilst in both cases the government is elected by the people, in Democracy the majority rules according to their whims, whilst in the Republic the Government rule according to law. This law is framed in the Constitution to limit the power of Government and ensuring some rights and protection to Minorities and individuals".

 

End quote.

 

So, as you can see, in a Republic a person in political office has to answer to the Law of the land and is therefore, not above it ... yet in a democracy it isn't that way, because the majority rule can change the rules to suit themselves and thus allow individuals to live above the Law.

A Republic certainly won't stop people from trying to be above the Law but it surely will have the power to remove or effectively judge such an individual.

 

I am not advocating anything other than small 'r' republicanism, which is incompatible with our foreign policy and which is why we no longer have an American republic.

[marharth]

Would all of Korea being communist be a threat to the USA?

 

I honestly don't know, that is a genuine question.

Edited September 9, 2011 by marharth

[HeyYou]

I am cornfused. (as opposed to cornflaked....)

 

So, as you can see, in a Republic a person in political office has to answer to the Law of the land and is therefore, not above it ... yet in a democracy it isn't that way, because the majority rule can change the rules to suit themselves and thus allow individuals to live above the Law.

 

In both cases, those that are in government, are the ones making the laws. In both cases, those in government (also known as "in power") are generally wealthy, socially powerful, with a rather large following. (for the most part). So, these folks run into the same advantages you would find in any other form of government. In either case, I don't really see all that much of a difference.

[SpellAndShield]

Would all of Korea being communist be a threat to the USA?

 

I honestly don't know, so that is a genuine question.

 

No more than 'still' communist Vietnam is. Even if S.Korea were overrun by the North (very unlikely as the South is much wealthier and has a much better military), would that gravely affect the US? No. The consequences of our 'containment policies' have resulted in genocide and atrocities that most Americans would be shocked about if they knew about them. Indonesia, South America, Vietnam, the Congo, the list is endless.