Tuesday, April 14, 2009

Is The President Tough Enough For You Now, Kingfish?

Kingfish, the host of local blog Jackson Jambalaya, posted a rather incendiary suggestion on Sunday, titled, "Dear POTUS, Here's How a REAL Leader Dealt With Pirates." The whole post is here: http://kingfish1935.blogspot.com/

His general notion is that the President should follow the example of Julius Caesar, who according to Plutarch, had pirates executed by cruxifiction. Kingfish finishes:

"Perhaps the pussy-in-chief should take some lessons from Caesar instead of finding this 'annoying' as Reuters reported. Several crosses with pirates hanging from them on the Somali coast will get their attention more quickly than will a nuanced discussion about habeas corpus or other fancy Latin lingo."

I don't think the words "Navy SEAL Snipers" can be considered "fancy Latin lingo." But I'm sure the operation (personally approved by the President) won't be enough to convince our friends on the Right. They'd rather have a Caesar: a military dictator who ruled by force. Great plan.


Kingfish said...

You are a friggin idiot if you think I was advocating a dictator. Nice try as I don't think any serious person would read that into my post.

and considering I was in SF, I think I can say whatever I want to about it or the SEALS. I don't expect you to know it because unlike Crisler, I don't go around town making sure everyone knows about my military record.

Since you are being extremely intellectually dishonest, here is my response to your jibe on my blog:

First of all, I think you know by now when I'm having some fun.

Second, props go to Obama. This wasn't the big deal to me it was to conservatives or others. Main thing I took away from it was Obama is smart enough not to micromanage something like this and screw it up. I wasn't bothered that much by taking so many days as it is a hostage situation. One thing the feds learned from Waco and Ruby Ridge was to take their time in such cases, which usually works out to their advantage as it did this time. Obama is smarter than Carter and I don't think would micromanage a military operation as Carter did the rescue attempt (or have an idiot like Christopher ask Beckwith if they could just shoot them in the leg). So yeah, I give him some credit here.

Do I think he is a pussy when it comes to this stuff? Yes. N Korea launches missile without any penalty. In fact, the next day Obama says he will cut back on missile defense. He is not going to stand up to Iran. He wants to close Gitmo, fine, but then he wants to bring them here? Um no.

Here is what will bea huge test to me: When Israel attacks Iran. If Obama refuses to allow Isreal to replenish their supplies and ammo, that right there will do it for me. There are a few times in an administration where it defines itself and that will be a crucial test because its clear Obama is not going to stop Iran from getting a nuke. If he tries to stop Israel that will say enough about his intentions and character.

So the kid did well on his quiz, but no exam or tests yet.
Get your facts straight and quit lying about me or what I say. and for the record, I never voted for Bush, I voted Libertarian each time.

Kingfish said...

and by the way, if you knew anything about Roman history , which you don't, it wasn't Caesar who destroyed the Republic, it was the Senators who insisted on bringing him up on charges once his imperium expired, much like the Democrats who seek to go after Bush and his people after they leave office. Actuslly Caesar kept the Senate and the Republic intact. It was Augustus who destroyed the Republic, not Julius as he was still attempting to work within the framework of the Republic. The office of Dictator was a constitutional office and had been used by Sulla and Cincinattus as well as a few others in time of emergency. All dictators were approved by the Senate and they all stepped down from that office at some point. Usually it was for six months, Sulla was two years, Caesar, who knows as he was murdered.

Jim Craig said...

You are a friggin idiot if you think I was advocating a dictator. Nice try as I don't think any serious person would read that into my post.I beg to differ. The reason Julius Caesar could get his own squad of boats, chase down the pirates, and crucify them without any process was exactly because he was a dictator. That's all part of the dictator gig.

Get your facts straight and quit lying about me or what I say.A bit thin-skinned, aren't we? You can call the President of the United States the "pussy-in-chief" but anyone who challenges you is calling you a liar? Spare me.

and by the way, if you knew anything about Roman history , which you don't, it wasn't Caesar who destroyed the Republic, it was the Senators who insisted on bringing him up on charges once his imperium expired, much like the Democrats who seek to go after Bush and his people after they leave office. Actually Caesar kept the Senate and the Republic intact.I'm no expert, but I have read about the era, and that certainly wasn't Cicero's view of the situation. Where did you get the idea for the comparison to current events -- the ACLU? They probably agree with the Bush-Caesar analogy. I think of him more in terms of Herbert Hoover or George III.

Kingfish said...

You really don't know you're history.

Caesar was barely an adult when he crucified those pirates. He had the authority as a SENATOR to raise a navy. He wasn't a dictator for another 30 years or so. Once again you don't know your history before you go shooting your mouth off. And under Roman law a dictator was a constitutional office that still had certain restrictions. Just because you have some degrees doesn't mean you are actually educated as your mouthing off about Caesar actually shows.

I can certainly call you a liar when you say I favor putting a dictator in charge. Once again equating me calling Obama a pussy with wanting a dictator is something that might work on jurors with IQ's of 80 or dumbass reporters but not on anyone who has some brains or can think critically.

Cicero was a bit player in the war between Cato and his crew and Caesar. cicero had no base, no real power, just his wits and rhetoric. When Caesar was consul and then proconsul, the political situation had deteriorated to the point each side began criminalizing the other side when in power. What started with Marius and Sull ended with the ascension of Augustus. Caesar was in gaul when his foes decided they would prosecute him for a multitude of crimes when his imperium expired and thus he could no longer protect himself legally. Caesar offered to disband his army if Pompey disbanded his, but Pompey refused. That deal of Caesar becoming dictator was caused as much or more by the Optimate's actions than Caesars. There were other sources besides Cicero. try reading Plutarch and Suetonius. They are better writers than anything on the shelves today anyway.

Jim Craig said...

I'm amazed you think any of that detail matters to the point at hand. The President of the United States cannot act like a Senator, Dictator, Emperor, or any other kind of potentate of Ancient Rome.
The sheer use of power to solve problems is totally unworkable in this day and age. We know this, because the last Administration tried it. Despite a massive advantage in forces and material, we have barely pacified Iraq, have not subdued Afghanistan, and could not send an invasion/occupation force anywhere else in the world. You can't bomb everyone, and in the end one country with a small percentage of global population can't control the whole world.

And we shouldn't want to, anyway. As Americans, we have spent the last 250+ years advocating the notion of government with the consent of the governed. In international affairs, that means collaboration with other nations and peoples.

Call it being a pussy if you want; advocate Caesarism under any complex justification that you want. It's just neo-conservatism, and it has been an abject, costly failure.

When they take our people, by all means we can take action, and I expect the President to do so, nilaterally if necessary. But we cannot establish our own version of international martial law. It's not practical, and it's not American.

Kingfish said...

The problem is, you don't know what the hell Caesarism is. Keep shooting your mouth off as you keep proving your ignorance. You are the one that lied about me wanting a dictator, and make no mistake, that is exactly what it was- a lie, then when I call you out on not having your facts right and making up things about me, you start shifting to something else like a good little defense lawyer to some expansive speech about invading other countries that had nothing to do with the issue at hand, which was Obama's toughness. I'm not even worried about it as time will prove me right, sooner rather than later and I think it will be when Israel attacks Iran.

By the way, its also possible to think Obama is a wimp of sorts and still dislike neocons.

Advocating crucifying the pirates when you catch them in the act is not advocating Caesarism, which is the act of destroying a republic and ascending to absolute rule. What you don't understand is in some parts of the world all they understand is brute force.

As for going over to Aghanistan, we should've just gone in, demolished the Taliban, killed AQ, then left the country. We are trying to force democracy down a Muslim nations throat and now we are starting to find THEIR version of democracy we don't like. Surprise as Islam is not conducive to Democracy for the most part and the few Muslim ones that exist have fought very hard to establish what level of democracy they do have. then Afghanistan is a country more provincial in nature but we are trying to establish a centralized government there when it runs counter to their culture.

As for Iraq, I always thought Iran was the real threat and we could've dealth with Iraq by using SF to train indigenious forces in Khurdistan that could've toppled Saddam on their own and by the time it would've happened, they would probably have worked out a government among themselves as well. one thing bush did I didn't like was his crowd's favoring completely top-down management. They ran Iraq that way with predictable results.