USA Politics Thread - *No gun debate*

[j w 0]

Does anyone here think that Israel is terrorizing Gaza (and areas around it)?

I do.

[Garcia 0]

Does anyone here think that Israel is terrorizing Gaza (and areas around it)?

I do.

Shouldn't this go into the middle east thread?

Anyway, yes, Israel is terrorizing the civilian population in Gaza. I've read, both in newspapers and on the internet etc, and watched on telly reports of the different ways Israel have been doing it. One example that I remember reading about was that Israeli planes broke the soundbarrier over Gaza each night, which resultet in lack of sleep for a large part of the population in Gaza.

[j w 0]

Does anyone here think that Israel is terrorizing Gaza (and areas around it)?

I do.

Shouldn't this go into the middle east thread?

Anyway, yes, Israel is terrorizing the civilian population in Gaza. I've read, both in newspapers and on the internet etc, and watched on telly reports of the different ways Israel have been doing it. One example that I remember reading about was that Israeli planes broke the soundbarrier over Gaza each night, which resultet in lack of sleep for a large part of the population in Gaza.

Ok.

Doesn't the US fight the war on terror?

Now, is it just me or doesn't that 'equation' solve?

[Akira 0]

Quote[/b] ]My bad, your right on the uprising part... sorry 'bout that.

BUT: if you remember correctly (or look back in time) you would see that Clinton only slapped Saddam's wrist for not disarming (missile strikes). he should have dome more than sign papers is my point.

Hmmm. When in doubt...blame Clinton.

Did George Sr. not set the stage for relations with Iraq by "not finishing what they started" (to paraphrase you). By your logic, Clinton was merely following executive policy set by George Sr. and the result of Desert Storm. Bush ceased all help to anti-Saddam forces and set the groundwork for the UN to take over the mess. Bush left a head of state in charge known to use chemical weapons and to kill his own people, some of the very reasons Bush jr. now uses to justify the current war (now that that whole WMD thing didn't pan out).

In any case, at the rate we're going we won't last much longer anyway and we will cease tormenting ourselves. India-Pakistan, Middle East, Iran, Iraq, North Korea. Take your pick. Maybe samsara does have an ending eh?

[Sophion-Black 0]

Quote[/b] ]Valerie Wilson (nee Plame) has brought a writ seeking to bankrupt Vice President Dick Cheney, his former top aide Scooter Libby, top presidential adviser Karl Rove and other White House officials for their part in the Traitorgate conspiracy.

What about the Bolton nomination and Kerry? did you forget about that?

Quote[/b] ]I see no reason why soldiers and families of those killed, wounded and maimed in the Iraq war should not take legal action against members of TBA and TBA2 for damages caused by lying to bring us to a needless war.

because of this:

Quote[/b] ]"I, (state your name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

Look familiar... its called the oath of enlistment. Every enlisted man in the United States Armed Forces has done it.

Quote[/b] ]We all now know there was after all:

No WMD

No link with 9/11

No link with Al Qaeda

first point:

Quote[/b] ]USC - Iraq res 2002

"Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much close to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

second and third point:

Quote[/b] ]Search: President Bush Addresses the Nation

The Oval Office (War with Iraq)

Keyword: Terrorists

Results: 0

Keyword: Al Qaeda

Results: 0

#Major Point:

"We have no ambition in Iraq, except to remove a threat and restore control of that country to its own people.

(self explanatory)

Quote[/b] ]It is now obvious to even the least sensible human being and NeoConMan denyer that TBA and TBA2 Lied and Lied and Lied again in order to drag the coalition into war.

I look forward to seeing each of these faithless commy NeoConMen destitute on the street.

The nail that sticks up will certainly be hammered down

Quote[/b] ]By your logic, Clinton was merely following executive policy set by George Sr. and the result of Desert Storm.

...or totally ignored Public Law 105-235 (Aug. 14, 1998)

But there was a major glitch in the Sr.BA on the part of failing to continue with the uprisings.

Quote[/b] ]In any case, at the rate we're going we won't last much longer anyway and we will cease tormenting ourselves. India-Pakistan, Middle East, Iran, Iraq, North Korea. Take your pick. Maybe samsara does have an ending eh?

...what exactly are you saying here? ([+] don't even think about pulling in religion into this topic again... it always ends up bad)

[Akira 0]

Quote[/b] ]...or totally ignored Public Law 105-235 (Aug. 14, 1998)

A resolution is not a "law." In any case, military action was not requested only that Clinton was "...urged to take appropriate action, in

accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States,

to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations." Clinton chose to due it through the UN and not outright military force.

Quote[/b] ]...what exactly are you saying here? ([+] don't even think about pulling in religion into this topic again... it always ends up bad)

No religion. Just an observation that the world is in much turmoil.

[Sophion-Black 0]

Quote[/b] ]In any case, military action was not requested only that Clinton was "urged to take appropriate action"

Lets see here, are you aware of the meaning "urge?" It looks like they were fed up by Saddam. With good reason too! Doesn't look like he did the "appropriate action" since we were still dealing with him in 2003.

Quote[/b] ]Just an observation that the world is in much turmoil.

It has always been that way... your how old and haven't noticed this?

[booradley60 0]

Who needs a veto?

Quote[/b] ]For example, in signing a bill last year banning the use of torture by American personnel, the president wrote that the executive branch would "construe" the legislation "in a manner consistent" with the president's powers and "the constitutional limitations on the judicial power". In other words the president would not enforce the law if it conflicted with his authority as commander-in-chief to pursue his "war on terror" as he saw fit.

"This report raises serious concerns crucial to the survival of our democracy," the ABA's president, Michael Greco, said. "If left unchecked, the president's practice does grave harm to the separation of powers doctrine, and the system of checks and balances that have sustained our democracy for more than two centuries."

[EiZei 0]

And yet some "pundits" don't seem to have a clue why king george decided to break his veto virginity this late..

Separations of powers is so pre-9/11.

[booradley60 0]

Separation of powers FTW!

edit: Spelling

[TrevorOfCrete 0]

i would just like to say i think ameria needs to completly re-write its constitution. It was written for 200 years ago and its out of date. It cannot be updated with any number of ammendmants. dose anyone else agree/disagree ?

[Student Pilot 0]

Perhaps if you state what exactly is wrong/out of date with the constitution we can debate as to whether or not it should be changed/rewritten.

-Pilot

[TrevorOfCrete 0]

well, the biggest example is the right to bear arms, now i know its talked about alot. but when the constitution was written there was a genuine need for that. what with indians, highwaymen and just to put dinner on the table. But now thats not needed, so that would be example of part of the constitution made redundant byt yet clinged onto by the USA , for better or , more than likely, worse.

[EiZei 0]

well, the biggest example is the right to bear arms, now i know its talked about alot.  but when the constitution was written there was a genuine need for that.  what with indians, highwaymen and just to put dinner on the table.  But now thats not needed, so that would be example of part of the constitution made redundant byt yet clinged onto by the USA , for better or , more than likely, worse.

Cling on? Id say in some places in the US the gun laws are much more stricter than here and we have no such thing as the second amendment.

Personally I think it's a great document, something simple and powerful as that wouldnt be written these days unfortunately.

[xawery 0]

I agree; I don't think today anyone would get away with writing something as undemocratic.

Let's not forget that the Founding Fathers weren't 'men of the people': they were patricians. Mob rule (or what we would call democracy nowadays) certainly wasn't one of their objectives. Safeguarding their own interests was. Hence, for example, the undemocratic concept of electoral colleges. Isn't it mindboggling that a country so hell-bent on exporting democracy to other countries elects its president indirectly?

Besides, I don't know what all the fuss is about amending the constitution. The constitution has been changed countless times over the centuries, and with good reason. If the US would have stuck to the original copy, blacks and women still wouldn't have suffrage...

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

If you would change the 2nd amendment you would a) loose 90% of your voters or B) provoke a civil war. In the US thats not just a law, it is business, ideology and culture.

So the only way to change things is to take the silent path by adding modifications!

[EiZei 0]

Let's not forget that the Founding Fathers weren't 'men of the people': they were patricians. Mob rule (or what we would call democracy nowadays) certainly wasn't one of their objectives. Safeguarding their own interests was. Hence, for example, the undemocratic concept of electoral colleges. Isn't it mindboggling that a country so hell-bent on exporting democracy to other countries elects its president indirectly

Maybe because the US is made of separate states? Of course these days the reason to keep electoral college seems a little unclear to me.. (we ditched it over ten years ago)

Quote[/b] ]

The constitution has been changed countless times over the centuries, and with good reason. If the US would have stuck to the original copy, blacks and women still wouldn't have suffrage...

It's not like that would be forbidden.

[TrevorOfCrete 0]

If you would change the 2nd amendment you would a) loose 90% of your voters or B) provoke a civil war. In the US thats not just a law, it is business, ideology and culture.

So the only way to change things is to take the silent path by adding modifications!

you wouldnt loose 90%.  you would loose the south.  People living in the north and wast coast have seen the effect of guns on culture, what with the rise in gangster crime, spurred on with gun culture, and shocking massicres, like the springfield school shootings.  If anything you would gain some voters in the north and loose voters in the south.

The constitution has been changed countless times over the centuries, and with good reason. If the US would have stuck to the original copy, blacks and women still wouldn't have suffrage...

and still there is no total equality. Look at new orleans, still not rebuilt. would that happen if the city was predominatly white and sub urban? i highly doubt it. America , more apropriatly the south, is still naturally racist (de facto segregation).

[booradley60 0]

Nothing irks me quite like uninformed criticism of the south. If people in the north and west have seen what gun culture does, then wouldn't they be the first to stop violent gun crime? Wouldn't all the school shootings occur in the south? As far as I'm concerned, the second amendment is in place to keep the government from fucking with the first one. Hunting and anti-federalism are the reasons guns are still so popular around here.

As far as race goes, when's the last time a large race-oriented riot occured in the south? The Civil Rights movement was one of the greatest achievements of non-violence in the 20th century and it occured mere blocks away from where I'm typing this message. Violent race-fuelled riots have occured since then, but it's happened in places like Detriot and Los Angeles. But wait, the south has the largest population of blacks in the nation, so should it not be a flashpoint? Usually, we leave people outside the region to their own uninformed speech, but it still grows tiresome.

[TrevorOfCrete 0]

all i know is several years ago i visited Alabama and in a cafe one black gentlemen moved seats when we came in.  We told him to sit back down and he refused.  He was genuinly afraid of what might happen to him if he did.  to me that shows that there stil racism and a fear made towards the black population.  Its no official "jim crow" law, but still de facto segregation.  You cant just change laws and expect it to work, people opinion needs to be changed.

[booradley60 0]

Fear?  Genuine fear of retribution? That's difficult for me to believe.

I agree with you stating there is de facto segregation. I noted that myself a lot in the cafeteria when I was in high school. My point was that to single out the south is unfair.

[TrevorOfCrete 0]

its hard for me not to when i have visited all over the USA.  Out of everwhere i have been Alabama stood out as particularly poor (for equal rights not in wealth).  Whereas a place like New York or San Diego has much more equality.

[booradley60 0]

Well, I can't convince you otherwise. You're basis seems anecdotal. All I know is I didn't feel any different in Montgomery than I did in New York or Washington D.C. Blacks were more often at the bottom of the social ladder in all cases. Institutional racism is not exclusive to the south.

[TrevorOfCrete 0]

true, but a faster arising problem is the espanic (if thats spelt right) population, whom are even lower on the social ladder than blacks. And in this case it isnt the south, but the west.

[booradley60 0]

The worst part about that is that many Hispanics that are here illegally can't go to the law for protection from persecution because they are afraid of being deported.

edit: Now that you mention it, I wonder why the immigration issue hasn't popped up in this thread yet.