This topic contains 81 replies, has 0 voices, and was last updated by  Rommel 7 years, 2 months ago.

  • Author
    Posts
  • #45223

    richie
    Participant

    One step closer towards ppls utter contempt and disbelief in politicians ability to steer the world (or even their own country for that matter) towards being a better place? A soap opera where the shallow surface is everything and ability and intentions mean nothing?

    Yeah may be… but I think people would laugh more… The world would be just that little bit silliyer…

    I think somethimes all the issues addressed here, they need to be looked at a little light hartedly. But I do think it’s pretty cool people like bush get to play scorched earth for real! =)

    #45224

    Deathbal
    Participant

    @KTM Rider wrote:

    I disagree, DB, that our past actions “do not have anything to do with current decisions.” We made this mess, and it is our responsibility to clean it up. That is why most of the “I’ll bring all of our troops home!” campaigns disgust me. The candidates make those statements without studying the tactical situation, promising the American people something they might not be able to deliver (without dire consequences).

    I did not mean it in that regard. I was responding to a specific situation. The whole thing about WMD. The fact we gave weapons to Iraq in the past or that we suported Osama against Russia, is usually brought up because they are now our enemies. But those examples are always brought up as an excuse as to why we shouldn’t be doing what we are doing.

    To Viking. I’m sure you already know this. The Bush hate all started after 9/11. Not after we went into Iraq. It started prior to going into Afghanistan.

    He is a President that won the election without getting the popular vote. He was not a big threat to win re-election. After 9/11 the people seemed to support him a lot more. His approval ratings skyrocketed. Now he instantly became a huge threat. It is in the nature of our political system to smear the sitting President for whatever reason. This is the way you regain the Whitehouse. You can’t do it any other way. You have to disagree, lay blame, and or voice a better solution whether or not it is right. This gives the illusion of choice when wrong, and an actual alternative when right. It’s up to the people to figure it out. But the choice has to be there no matter what. You cannot regain Whitehouse by agreeing with the party in power.

    Now that Bush has won his last term, you will see the Democrats try and associate Republican candidates with Bush. That is the logical course of action.

    #45225

    PeanutsRevenge
    Participant

    With regards to arming one side and them becoming enemies….
    It is not always those people that become the enemy, it might be that they use those weapons against other people, creating instability, or re-selling to others that create that instability.

    I have heard people (here and in other discussions) say we should mind our own business, but then support the idea of arming the country we see as friendly… that is not minding ones owns business, it is getting involved in a different way.

    Israel is a case in point, countries continue to supply them with arms, then wonder why their is continued instability in that region… come on, think about it people.

    Also, who are we to go to war with a country becuase we feel their leader / the people live their lives wrong, it is a whole different world there, let them live how they like. So there is infighting, corruption, mass murder. How many of the most powerful countries today started out peaceful. Look at America, that was born from a civil war to gain independance!

    #45226

    Deathbal
    Participant

    @peanutsrevenge wrote:

    I have heard people (here and in other discussions) say we should mind our own business, but then support the idea of arming the country we see as friendly… that is not minding ones owns business, it is getting involved in a different way.

    Israel is a case in point, countries continue to supply them with arms, then wonder why their is continued instability in that region… come on, think about it people.

    Also, who are we to go to war with a country becuase we feel their leader / the people live their lives wrong, it is a whole different world there, let them live how they like. So there is infighting, corruption, mass murder. How many of the most powerful countries today started out peaceful. Look at America, that was born from a civil war to gain independance!

    I don’t think anyone goes to war simply because they don’t like a lifestyle of another people. They will go to war if and when they feel that liefestyle becomes a threat. Now it may be a result of foreign policy, but either way, if it is a threat, it has to be dealt with.

    As far as Israel is concerned……..I’m not sure what you mean? They can take care of themselves. I think the 6 day war proved that. In my opinion the instability is due to the fact Israel is simply there. Weapons or not, there are those that feel Israel should not be there. And if they had no weapons, there would be no Israel. But that’s not for me to decide.

    #45227

    BigBear
    Participant

    @deathbal wrote:

    It is in the nature of our political system to smear the sitting President for whatever reason. This is the way you regain the Whitehouse. You can’t do it any other way. You have to disagree, lay blame, and or voice a better solution whether or not it is right. This gives the illusion of choice when wrong, and an actual alternative when right. It’s up to the people to figure it out. But the choice has to be there no matter what. You cannot regain Whitehouse by agreeing with the party in power.

    I’d say this line of reasoning holds true for all the existing variants of democracies in the world. It’s always like that here as well, especially come election year. The opposiotion takes every chance they get to discredit the ruling party/coalition and will often blame them even for trends they cannot possibly affect or that can even be traced back to a term in power served by the current opposiotion. This is one of the reasons I question whether our polititians really do work for their ideals or if they are just looking for cheap political points to secure another term in office (they get paid well not to mention their outrageous pension plans).

    @deathbal wrote:

    I don’t think anyone goes to war simply because they don’t like a lifestyle of another people. They will go to war if and when they feel that liefestyle becomes a threat. Now it may be a result of foreign policy, but either way, if it is a threat, it has to be dealt with.

    I can see why you feel that way, but personally I find that hard to justify on a moral level. That would suggest the idea of one selfs supremacy or rightiousness over others. What really bothers me is when ppl call preemptive measures a defensive action. By definition that is simply not true.

    #45228

    PeanutsRevenge
    Participant

    @bigbear wrote:

    What really bothers me is when ppl call preemptive measures a defensive action. By definition that is simply not true.

    “Offense is the best defense”.

    Unfortunately this is true in most cases.

    #45229

    BigBear
    Participant

    @peanutsrevenge wrote:

    “Offense is the best defense”.

    Unfortunately this is true in most cases.

    I think I may have been somewhat unclear. By preemptive measures I meant force. I am all for taking action on a diplomatic/civil level. As for the effectivness of using force that can offcourse be debated, but my thoughts were more geared towards the moral implications.

    #45230

    Rommel
    Participant

    How quickly they forget.@deathbal wrote:

    … To Viking. I’m sure you already know this. The Bush hate all started after 9/11. Not after we went into Iraq. It started prior to going into Afghanistan.

    He is a President that won the election without getting the popular vote. …

    I believe that if anyone is inclined to investigate, they will find that george was appointed to the office of president. That’s right, he was appointed, by the supreme court. This was a very historic, albeit illegal, action. Along with this ruling you can add two recent decisions that allowed:

    1. Private developers to use eminent domain laws to confiscate private property.
    2. Prisons to deem if you are reformed and if not, to hold you indefinitly regardless of your sentence.

    Both of these rulings make dealing with political reformers much easier than it has been in the past. Especially now that we live under a system that allows the holding of suspects indefinatly without the right to council or formal charges being placed against them and considers torture to be an acceptable practice.

    The worst infraction to date may be that the court failed to issue an injunction or declare unconstitutional the law passed by congress that gave King george the power to wage war without the consent of congress.

    The Constitution of the United States of America – Article II – Section 8:

    The Congress shall have the Power To declare War, grant letters of Marque and Reprisal, and to make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water.

    NO WHERE in the Constitution is the congress allowed to tranfer this power to the president. As the sworn representitives of WE THE PEOPLE, it is their task and theirs alone. Everyone that voted to transfer this power violated their oath and spit in your face. Democrat or Republican, they spat in your face.

    So what do we do now? Hmmm, I know, we’ll vote one of them into the office of the President. Not me of course, but I’m sure that this isn’t an issue that concerns the majority of voters. Illegal and unconstitutional actions by our representitives is pretty boring stuff comparred to Brittany and her lack of panties or David Hasselhoff getting drunk and smearing a hambuger on his face.

    Now the court is preparing to make it’s first ruling on the second ammendment since our country was founded. The second ammendment? Ok, no problem:

    Ammendment II – A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

    Are we about to receive another historic ruling? It sure looks like it to me and I’m afraid that it couldn’t come at a worse time.

    Time will tell,

    Rommel

    #45231

    PeanutsRevenge
    Participant

    I am not very familiar with American law, or current affairs, but as usual Rommel, a good and interesting post, but I would like to say something with regards to torture:

    @rommel wrote:

    Both of these rulings make dealing with political reformers much easier than it has been in the past. Especially now that we live under a system that allows the holding of suspects indefinatly without the right to council or formal charges being placed against them and considers torture to be an acceptable practice.

    Rommel

    This is a tricky issue for me, as I believe that at times tortue can be necessary and more than acceptable, however, as with all things, a clear and unflexing rule should be in place for such matters.

    If you consider an ’emeny of the state’ is captured planning to bomb a heavily populated area resulting in the death of hundreds, maybe even thousands of people, but that person will not give up their partners location / details of the plan like times, exact locations etc, I believe that this information should be extracted anyway possible.
    The problem comes with, how many people must be at threat, how sure the authorities are that this person has enough information to warrant such actions… and many more details.
    This is why I am reasonably happy not to be in the position to have to make these desisions.

    Just my two extra cents (again).

    #45232

    Rommel
    Participant

    Dude! Are you daft? How dare you !!! 😉
    @peanutsrevenge wrote:

    … Israel is a case in point, countries continue to supply them with arms, then wonder why their is continued instability in that region… come on, think about it people.

    When are the U.N. atomic weapons inspectors going to be allowed to inspect Israel? Isn’t it long past time to force Israel to come clean and allow unrestricted inspections or risk being bombed too?

    Also, before we go bombing any other countries for recently violating U.N. resolutions, shouldn’t the world take a look at past violations that have yet to be enforced and either bomb those countries first or stop being hypocritical?

    Finally, before the racist rants begin AGAIN, I was married to a Jewish woman for 23 years and I still love her dearly. Rasisim, HA! Why do those that scream the loudest often seem to have the most to hide? 😯

    Rommel

    #45233

    Deathbal
    Participant

    @rommel wrote:

    I believe that if anyone is inclined to investigate, they will find that george was appointed to the office of president. That’s right, he was appointed, by the supreme court. This was a very historic, albeit illegal, action. Along with this ruling you can add two recent decisions that allowed:

    Ok Rommel, this is somewhat of a sore point with me. I don’t mind people not liking Bush. He has made too many mistakes. That is obvious.

    Do you live in the US, Rommel? I am assuming you do not since you wrote that paragraph. At least I hope you don’t. Because if you do, then it would indicate your ignorance to the way we do things here. If you live in a different country, then I can see how you come come to that conclusion.

    The Supreme court decision was not to appoint Bush. No one appointed Bush. They simply upheld the current count which had Bush in the lead. Had Gore been in the lead, he would have won. There are laws and deadlines that the Florida Supreme court found prudent to deny. The United States Supreme court chose to uphold them. That is why Bush won.

    There was a machine count. A machine recount. Then a hand recount that went beyond legal limits. Bush was still ahead, and that is why he won.

    #45234

    Deathbal
    Participant

    @bigbear wrote:

    I can see why you feel that way, but personally I find that hard to justify on a moral level. That would suggest the idea of one selfs supremacy or rightiousness over others. What really bothers me is when ppl call preemptive measures a defensive action. By definition that is simply not true.

    Negative. I don’t want to attack anyone. But I do not feel that allowing a known enemy to build power to rival yours is wise. In fact it is idiotic. It has nothing to do with supremacy, rightiousness, or lifestyle. It is all in the name of self preservation. Whether or not our administration was acting under those circumstances is another story altogether. But that is how I feel.

    #45235

    Deathbal
    Participant

    @rommel wrote:

    When are the U.N. atomic weapons inspectors going to be allowed to inspect Israel? Isn’t it long past time to force Israel to come clean and allow unrestricted inspections or risk being bombed too?
    Rommel

    Come clean on what? Do we not all already know Israel has atomic weapons? Hell, I am pretty sure the USA sold them nuclear bunker buster bombs recently. This is not news.

    Who is going to bomb Israel? The USA are their allies. I’ll also have you know that the U.N. is not very popular with Americans.

    Speaking as a Christian……..I will tell you with the upmost confidence that the U.N has no place in Israel. If Israel did everything the U.N proposed there would be no Israel. I’m pretty sure another on this board is more knowledgable on this subject. But you can be sure they are not going to lay down and die. Especially with the USA’s support. Weapons inspectors don’t come into the USA, they won’t be allowed in Israel. I’m speaking as a United States citizen. Israel is not a threat to me. I don’t care if they are inspected or not.

    #45236

    BOY
    Participant

    This whole coversation about arms inspectors is rediculous. The whole thing is superfluous to the issue of the actual land and who lives on it. Where there is war there will be weapons, there is no changing that. The two sides are locked in war.

    The question is whether or not Isreal has the right to exist or not. The people of Isreal WANT to live in peace, and have given up a lot to try to get it, but many of thier neighbors don’t feel the same, they WANT to fight.

    #45237

    Rommel
    Participant

    @deathbal wrote:


    Do you live in the US, Rommel? I am assuming you do not since you wrote that paragraph. At least I hope you don’t. Because if you do, then it would indicate your ignorance to the way we do things here. If you live in a different country, then I can see how you come come to that conclusion.

    The Supreme court decision was not to appoint Bush. No one appointed Bush. They simply upheld the current count which had Bush in the lead. Had Gore been in the lead, he would have won. There are laws and deadlines that the Florida Supreme court found prudent to deny. The United States Supreme court chose to uphold them. That is why Bush won.

    There was a machine count. A machine recount. Then a hand recount that went beyond legal limits. Bush was still ahead, and that is why he won.

    The answer to your question is yes. I’ve grown accustomed to being called ignorant and worse for presenting a dissenting point of view but considering the plight of poor Galileo, I’ve suffered nothing. I wasn’t offended. 😉

    Warm Regards,

    Rommel

Viewing 15 posts - 46 through 60 (of 83 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.