News Related To The Ukraine / Russian War

[sear]

“The difference between the almost right word and the right word is really a large matter. ’tis the difference between the lightning bug and the lightning.” Mark Twain, The Wit and Wisdom of Mark Twain: A Book of Quotations

"Precision& clarity in the use of language leads to precision & clarity of thought." G. Gordon Liddy

"The Founders felt their rebellion against England was legal." R5 #380

We're almost in accord here R5. I doubt they would have had any more remorse about it either way.

"The Founders felt their rebellion against England was legal." R5 #380

The U.S. Founders, Benjamin Franklin for famous example, knew their rebellion against KG3 was illegal, according to KG3. BUT !
The Founders also believed their rebellion was justified. "No taxation without representation", etc.
The Revolution was not their first choice, it was their last.

"It was based on abstractions about inherent individual rights, not on legislation." R5 #380

It was based on principles from Bentham and others. Not that rights come from government, but from God,
and the purpose of government was not to provide those rights, but to protect them.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that
they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that
among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.— That to
secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their
just powers from the consent of the governed ... TJ / DOI

"We put nukes in Turkey in 1951, aimed at Russia." R5 #380

We did. It took the Cuban Missile Crisis to remove them. BUT !
They were not there to expedite conquest of Russia's sovereign territory.

 

[Rigby5]

We're almost in accord here R5. I doubt they would have had any more remorse about it either way.

The U.S. Founders, Benjamin Franklin for famous example, knew their rebellion against KG3 was illegal, according to KG3. BUT !
The Founders also believed their rebellion was justified. "No taxation without representation", etc.
The Revolution was not their first choice, it was their last.


It was based on principles from Bentham and others. Not that rights come from government, but from God,
and the purpose of government was not to provide those rights, but to protect them.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that
they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that
among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.— That to
secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their
just powers from the consent of the governed ... TJ / DOI


We did. It took the Cuban Missile Crisis to remove them. BUT !
They were not there to expedite conquest of Russia's sovereign territory.

I agree the US nukes were not put in Turkey to invade Russia, but to intimidate Russia into not stopping us from invading China, Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, Nicaragua, Chile, Honduras, El Salvadore, Egypt, Iran, Palestine, etc.

 

[sear]

"The U.S. Founders, Benjamin Franklin for famous example, knew their rebellion against KG3 was illegal, according to KG3." s #381

oops
I forgot the Franklin quotation: "We must indeed all hang together, or, most assuredly, we shall all hang separately." Benjamin Franklin (1706-90), U.S. statesman, writer. Comment at the signing of the Declaration of Independence, 4 July 1776, in reply to John Hancock's remark that the revolutionaries should be unanimous in their action.

" the US nukes were not put in Turkey to invade Russia, but to intimidate Russia into not stopping us from invading China, Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, Nicaragua, Chile, Honduras, El Salvadore, Egypt, Iran, Palestine, etc." R5 #382

I don't recall ever having read such assertion before. That doesn't mean it isn't true.
But it's not clear to me how whether the U.S. nukes are at Incirlik, Türkiye, or South Dakota would / could make a significant difference regarding U.S. ability to:

"intimidate Russia into not stopping us from invading China, Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, Nicaragua, Chile, Honduras, El Salvadore, Egypt, Iran, Palestine, etc." R5 #382

?

 

[Rigby5]

oops
I forgot the Franklin quotation: "We must indeed all hang together, or, most assuredly, we shall all hang separately." Benjamin Franklin (1706-90), U.S. statesman, writer. Comment at the signing of the Declaration of Independence, 4 July 1776, in reply to John Hancock's remark that the revolutionaries should be unanimous in their action.


I don't recall ever having read such assertion before. That doesn't mean it isn't true.
But it's not clear to me how whether the U.S. nukes are at Incirlik, Türkiye, or South Dakota would / could make a significant difference regarding U.S. ability to:

?

The difference is King George III was a dictator, so could make anything technically illegal arbitrarily.
However, the belief of the Founders was that dictatorships were inherently illegal and that only the inherent laws of a republic were legal because they were based on the defense of inherent rights of individuals.

That means legislators in a republic don't really get to decide what is legal or not, and what is legal or not is not really based on legislation.
Instead, legality can only really be based on what is necessary in order to defend inherent individual rights.
So these abstract values always exist, and Congress is just supposed to select the appropriate wording and punishments for violations.
They are not supposed to just make things up.
Like Prohibition and the War on Drugs are both inherently wrong because they do not defend inherent rights of individuals.
Those instead are medical problems police are totally inappropriate to handle.

The difference between nukes on Russia's border and nukes in South Dakota is that the ones on the border can hit their targets before they can launch.
That allows the US to avoid MAD, and makes a successful first strike possible, without significant retaliation.
Which is why the US can never be allowed to put nukes on Russia's border.
MAD is the only thing stopping the US from taking over the entire world.
If that seems far fetched that the US would be that offensive, then why did we put those nukes in Turkey, give the Mujahideen all those Redeyes, give the Ukraine all those drones, etc.?
None of that was remotely "defensive".

 

[sear]

"The difference is King George III was a dictator, so could make anything technically illegal arbitrarily." R5 #384

Even if true, irrelevant.
What nation, including the most democratic of republics applies / enforces a policy of any section of its sovereign territory, or any segment of its population
has full permission to secede without interference from the host nation?

The U.S. was FOUNDED on such secession, and yet, and yet, and yet
within its own secessionist law is the enumerated prohibition against such action.

---

United States Constitution
ARTICLE1. SECTION 8.
1 The Congress shall have Power To ...
ARTICLE1. SECTION 8. 15
... suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

---

"MAD is the only thing stopping the US from taking over the entire world." R5 #384

If that's what it is, that's what it is.
It is not the only possible explanation.
It is not the most plausible explanation.

I'm not trying to wriggle out from Trump's expansionist delusions. But
Trump is mentally ill.
The herd of GOP elephants is stampeding through the living-room,
and the Republican party sits passively by doing more to contribute to the destruction than to restrain it.

That's not to deny Trump's countless excesses.
Instead it's to acknowledge they are a fluke, an exception tied to one man, NOT
a generations long institutional commitment to obtain political dominion over the planet verified by centuries of history.

"Over the years, the United States has sent many of its fine young men and women into great peril to fight for freedom beyond our borders. The only amount of land we have ever asked for in return is enough to bury those that did not return." U.S. Secretary Colin Powell

That's not an endorsement. It's not a validation. It's a quotation.

 

[Rigby5]

Even if true, irrelevant.
What nation, including the most democratic of republics applies / enforces a policy of any section of its sovereign territory, or any segment of its population
has full permission to secede without interference from the host nation?

The U.S. was FOUNDED on such secession, and yet, and yet, and yet
within its own secessionist law is the enumerated prohibition against such action.

---

United States Constitution
ARTICLE1. SECTION 8.
1 The Congress shall have Power To ...
ARTICLE1. SECTION 8. 15
... suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

---

If that's what it is, that's what it is.
It is not the only possible explanation.
It is not the most plausible explanation.

I'm not trying to wriggle out from Trump's expansionist delusions. But
Trump is mentally ill.
The herd of GOP elephants is stampeding through the living-room,
and the Republican party sits passively by doing more to contribute to the destruction than to restrain it.

That's not to deny Trump's countless excesses.
Instead it's to acknowledge they are a fluke, an exception tied to one man, NOT
a generations long institutional commitment to obtain political dominion over the planet verified by centuries of history.

"Over the years, the United States has sent many of its fine young men and women into great peril to fight for freedom beyond our borders. The only amount of land we have ever asked for in return is enough to bury those that did not return." U.S. Secretary Colin Powell

That's not an endorsement. It's not a validation. It's a quotation.

When the government violates rights, like taxation without representation, then the government is a criminal and you have the authority to utterly destroy the offending government.
The fact you can only secede and remove the local offenders is just a side effect from the need to end the violation of rights by any means possible.
It is only inherent individual rights that determine what is legal or not, and not legislation.

The US has been the offender even before Trump's insane attacks on Iran and Venezuela.
The Highway of Death was horrendous.
Colin Powell never did repudiate his awful speeches lying about Iraq and al QAeda, so it would seem to me he was not just mistaken, but deliberately lied.

Can secession ever be illegal?
Not really.
And in fact it can be a duty and responsibility when crimes are being committed.

The only we have to accept some of these imperfections is that the alternative is even worse.

 

[sear]

"When the government violates rights, like taxation without representation, then the government is a criminal and you have the authority to utterly destroy the offending government." R5 #386

My substantially lay opinion is you have over-stated.
Individual sovereignty empowers a citizen to sidestep authoritarian government infringements & usurpations. BUT !!
Such citizen is not necessarily representative of the broader national population.
For the remainder of the population, the governance provided even if not perfect may be acceptable.
One citizen with a grievance does not have legitimate authority to "utterly destroy" the offending government.

democratic principles apply, sort of.
The Confederate States of America was not merely a few grumpy old men dizzy from a little too much mint julep.

1. South Carolina (December 20, 1860)[56]
2. Mississippi (January 9, 1861)[57]
3. Florida (January 10)[58]
4. Alabama (January 11)[59]
5. Georgia (January 19)[60]
6. Louisiana (January 26)[61]
7. Texas (February 1; referendum February 23)[62]
8. Virginia (April 17; referendum May 23, 1861)[64]
9. Arkansas (May 6)[65]
10. Tennessee (May 7; referendum June 8)[66]
11. North Carolina (May 20)[67] *

Rough goin'.

"The US has been the offender even before Trump's insane attacks on Iran and Venezuela.
The Highway of Death was horrendous." R5 #386

"Horrendous." - fine - BUT !
GHWB didn't do that because he wanted more sand.
It was mortal combat, not U.S. territorial conquest.

"Can secession ever be illegal?
Not really." R5 #386

According to the United States Constitution, really.

* source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_States_of_America