USA Politics Thread - *No gun debate*

[Sophion-Black 0]

You know, I don't think people realize that the US isn't the only nation in Iraq.

[TrevorOfCrete 0]

You know, I don't think people realize that the US isn't the only nation in Iraq.

no, but its the country that effectivly makes all the decisions , and is the main target for iraqi's. Other countries to them are just supporters of the USA.

[Espectro (DayZ) 0]

The Americans have gone too far now

What America is doing is simply outragious - the Bush-doctrine is one sick, ultra-rightwing religious extremist way to handle things. Just look at the last 5 years - America is slowly drowning itself, all what it have ever stood for: Freedom.

You remember what Benjamin Franklin wrote? 'They who limit his own freedom for the sake safety, derserves neither.'

By signing 'Military Commissions Act of 2006' - Bush have officially destroyed all Americans and foreigners on American soil right to live in a democracy. It is now legal to use 'extreme methods' to get subjects criminilize themselves. The funny thing is, that as the law states that using torture is not allowed - the defination of torture is now completely up to the government, and the Geneva convention is, as well all know it, optional in america.

In other words, it is now allowed for the government to arrest you - use torture to get you plead guilty, and you don't even have the right to have your attorney with you. I wonder is the American public really that stupid, or don't you care? Wake up - your freedom is on the line here, don't just stand there looking dumb!

I wonder how long it's gonna take to start using 'sieg heil' as you greeting to everyone - just check out this document, which you might think was the doctrine of the third reich (I guess it's for the fourth, though)

http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.pdf

While this is very frightening, some things like the American arrogance just keep on surpricing me, and sometimes I find it rather amusing (well, the Americans are always good for a laugh, no? ).

Just check out this link

http://www.ostp.gov/html/US%20National%20Space%20Policy.pdf

This document was made public without any words or anything, it was simply put available for the public to read. Now - what is it? It is simply a document claiming the rights to all space. The US apperently is the ruler of space, and claims all rights to it including the ability to stop others in it. (LOL).

I guess i'm gonna write myself a paper claiming all rights to this universe, and if they are there - all other dimensions. The Bush administrations reminds me, in this case, of Hitchhikers guide to the galaxy - damn beucrates.

Wake up America!

Oh, and check out:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-IKof_965M

[TrevorOfCrete 0]

its simple, bush is corrupt, mosit of the things he does revolve around wither oil or weapons. both wich he 'just happens' to have shares in.

[Nemesis6 0]

You know Democrats AND republicans both voted for this, right?

[Sophion-Black 0]

You know, I don't think people realize that the US isn't the only nation in Iraq.

no, but its the country that effectivly makes all the decisions , and is the main target for iraqi's.  Other countries to them are just supporters of the USA.

So is that why the British have come under fire in the city of Amarah? It's within the British zone. But lets not stop there, the Polish control a sector too! In fact the Polish control more land than the British!

The Bush Doctrine is something that should have been made into policy a long time ago. Preemptive strike would have definitely altered WWII and later.

Quote[/b] ]In other words, it is now allowed for the government to arrest you - use torture to get you plead guilty, and you don't even have the right to have your attorney with you. I wonder is the American public really that stupid, or don't you care? Wake up - your freedom is on the line here, don't just stand there looking dumb!

You fail to understand that the 'Military Commissions Act of 2006' pertains ONLY to "alien unlawful enemy combatants engaged in hostilities against the United States for violations of the law of war and other offenses triable by military commission" This means that ONLY the US Military can make these arrest. Since the Posse Comitatus Act (1878) prohibits the US Military operating in the US without consent/approval of the Congress; you can see US citizens are not addressed under this law. Besides, if you are a US citizen in combat where the belligerent party IS the US you can be killed on the spot OR be tried for treason (which is punishable by death). This eliminates the need for the Military Commissions Act entirely for US Citizens.

Quote[/b] ] the Geneva convention is, as well all know it, optional in america.

As is for:

Poland

United Kingdom

France

Australia

New Zealand

South Africa

Canada

Norway

Belgium

Luxembourg

Netherlands

Greece

Panama

Costa Rica

Dominican Republic

El Salvador

Russia

Haiti

Honduras

Nicaragua

Republic of China

Peoples Republic of China

Guatemala

Cuba

North Korea

South Korea

Czech Republic

Slovakia

Mexico

Brazil

Ethiopia

Iraq

Bolivia

Iran

Italy

Colombia

Liberia

Germany

Japan

Italy

Hungary

Bulgaria

Romania

Finland

Croatia

Slovakia

Thailand

Romania

Bulgaria

San Marino

Albania

Hungary

Ecuador

Paraguay

Peru

Uruguay

Venezuela

Turkey

Lebanon

Saudi Arabia

Argentina

Chile

Mongolia

...and many more as the list continues to grow and strengthen by the passing of time (NOTE: the countries listed above are in NO order)

Quote[/b] ]the Americans are always good for a laugh, no

I think you're fit for better use as a joker after the comment of calling the Americans Nazis*. But that's not all, also for the ignorance of American Law practiced today! HAH!

*Let it be known for this comment:

Quote[/b] ]I wonder how long it's gonna take to start using 'sieg heil' as you greeting to everyone

Quote[/b] ]This document was made public without any words or anything, it was simply put available for the public to read. Now - what is it? It is simply a document claiming the rights to all space. The US apperently is the ruler of space, and claims all rights to it including the ability to stop others in it. (LOL).

The US "rejects any claims to sovereignty by any nation over outer space or celestial bodies, or any portion thereof, and rejects any limitations on the fundamental right of the United States to operate in and acquire data from space"

and "deny, if necessary, adversaries the use of space

capabilities hostile to U.S. national interests;"

Simply explained: The US is abiding by the "Outer Space Treaty of 1967". Something that is signed by more than just 5 countries (try 100+).

...And a comment on the news video:

Believe nothing that you hear and half of what you see when it is coming from the press. Just look at the Spanish American War and "Yellow Journalism."

[EiZei 0]

The Bush Doctrine is something that should have been made into policy a long time ago. Preemptive strike would have definitely altered WWII and later.

Yeah, who could possible argue with the spectacular results we have seen so far?

[Donnervogel 0]

Quote[/b] ]You fail to understand that the 'Military Commissions Act of 2006' pertains ONLY to "alien unlawful enemy combatants engaged in hostilities against the United States for violations of the law of war and other offenses triable by military commission" This means that ONLY the US Military can make these arrest.

And you fail to see that once you get accused of being an "alien unlawful enemy combatants engaged in hostilities against the United States..." you lose the right to be told why you are held, what evidence they have against you and to appeal to a court because of an illegal arrest and possibly also the rights granted to POWs under the geneva convention wich - even though I am impressed by your country name listing skills - is not "optional" by law for most of the countries you listed. Actually only the US comes to mind that has signed the convention and at the same time passed a law to abandon it under certain circumstances - wich as stated in the convention is a violation of the convention aswell.

So basicly. Once they point the finger at you and call you illegal combatant you lose all your rights no matter what citizens you are or not because you are unable to appeal to a court and demand to be told why you are held or bring forward legal complains about your arrest/treatment and you even lose the right to get a fair defense because they can simply introduce "classified evidence" against you wich neither you nor your lawyer will ever see or know about. Also they may torture you to some extend as long as you don't suffer from "serious physical or mental dammage" because of it - yay!

This law simply offers a way to bypass the constitution of the USA because it puts you in a position that once you are accused you cannot invoke any legal procedures in your defense that would be bound to the constitution.

[TrevorOfCrete 0]

You know, I don't think people realize that the US isn't the only nation in Iraq.

no, but its the country that effectivly makes all the decisions , and is the main target for iraqi's.  Other countries to them are just supporters of the USA.

So is that why the British have come under fire in the city of Amarah? It's within the British zone. But lets not stop there, the Polish control a sector too! In fact the Polish control more land than the British!

The Bush Doctrine is something that should have been made into policy a long time ago. Preemptive strike would have definitely altered WWII and later.

OMG, do you actually know anything about middle eastern history? a pre-emtive strike? when ? after the war? when the USA and Britian were still friends with most of the middle eastern countries, yes, that would have been very sencible.  Before the war that suggestion is even more stupid, seeing as most of the middle east was under either British of French control.

also, yes many other countries are in iraq, but what im trying to say is that the USA is given the label as the head of the western countries, which os obvious, yes the British and Polish are under attack, but insignificantly when compared with the situation of Bagdad and Fallujah.

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]The Bush Doctrine is something that should have been made into policy a long time ago. Preemptive strike would have definitely altered WWII and later.

Yeah it´s a very sucessfull model isn´t it.

Let´s go to war ! We will find the reasons for it later...

Preemptive strikes miss one relevant thing. The justified reason.

Premptive strike is nothing more than an Attack.

Preemptive strike is just a coverup and ranks almost the same like "unlawful combatants" on my hitlist of shitdefinitions introduced by the Bush administration.

[walker 0]

Hi all

I think the views of Kevin Tillman: Ranger and veteran of Afghanistan and Iraq and Brother of Pat Tillman who fell in battle in Afghanistan; are worthy of considering when deciding your views on the current state of afairs in US politics.

Quote[/b] ]After Pat’s Birthday

Posted on Oct 19, 2006

By Kevin Tillman

Editor’s note: Kevin Tillman joined the Army with his brother Pat in 2002, and they served together in Iraq and Afghanistan. Pat was killed in Afghanistan on April 22, 2004. Kevin, who was discharged in 2005, has written a powerful, must-read document.

It is Pat’s birthday on November 6, and elections are the day after. It gets me thinking about a conversation I had with Pat before we joined the military. He spoke about the risks with signing the papers. How once we committed, we were at the mercy of the American leadership and the American people. How we could be thrown in a direction not of our volition. How fighting as a soldier would leave us without a voice… until we got out.

Much has happened since we handed over our voice:

Somehow we were sent to invade a nation because it was a direct threat to the American people, or to the world, or harbored terrorists, or was involved in the September 11 attacks, or received weapons-grade uranium from Niger, or had mobile weapons labs, or WMD, or had a need to be liberated, or we needed to establish a democracy, or stop an insurgency, or stop a civil war we created that can’t be called a civil war even though it is. Something like that.

Somehow our elected leaders were subverting international law and humanity by setting up secret prisons around the world, secretly kidnapping people, secretly holding them indefinitely, secretly not charging them with anything, secretly torturing them. Somehow that overt policy of torture became the fault of a few “bad apples†in the military.

Somehow back at home, support for the soldiers meant having a five-year-old kindergartener scribble a picture with crayons and send it overseas, or slapping stickers on cars, or lobbying Congress for an extra pad in a helmet. It’s interesting that a soldier on his third or fourth tour should care about a drawing from a five-year-old; or a faded sticker on a car as his friends die around him; or an extra pad in a helmet, as if it will protect him when an IED throws his vehicle 50 feet into the air as his body comes apart and his skin melts to the seat.

Somehow the more soldiers that die, the more legitimate the illegal invasion becomes.

Somehow American leadership, whose only credit is lying to its people and illegally invading a nation, has been allowed to steal the courage, virtue and honor of its soldiers on the ground.

Somehow those afraid to fight an illegal invasion decades ago are allowed to send soldiers to die for an illegal invasion they started.

Somehow faking character, virtue and strength is tolerated.

Somehow profiting from tragedy and horror is tolerated.

Somehow the death of tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of people is tolerated.

Somehow subversion of the Bill of Rights and The Constitution is tolerated.

Somehow suspension of Habeas Corpus is supposed to keep this country safe.

Somehow torture is tolerated.

Somehow lying is tolerated.

Somehow reason is being discarded for faith, dogma, and nonsense.

Somehow American leadership managed to create a more dangerous world...

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/200601019_after_pats_birthday/

Please follow the link to read full artcle

Why are the NeoConMen in power?

Regards Walker

[Sophion-Black 0]

Quote[/b] ]And you fail to see that once you get accused of being an "alien unlawful enemy combatants engaged in hostilities against the United States..." you lose the right to be told why you are held, what evidence they have against you

For you to be accused of being an enemy combatant you first have to be in combat. Second, the US or other allies of the US has to be the belligerent party. Third, you have to be caught (alive) and be arrested by the US military. How many people do you think fit this outline? Rhetorical question; you know it only fits terrorists.

Quote[/b] ]is not "optional" by law for most of the countries you listed

Its De Facto, not De Jure. Besides, do you think one nation is different because they are named differently? All nations are controlled by Humans, don't you think they all do the same thing?

Quote[/b] ]Yeah it´s a very sucessfull model isn´t it.

Let´s go to war ! We will find the reasons for it later...

You want to know what it think should be a model of preemptive strike? Here, let me enlighten you all:

1) A nation becomes hostile to us

2) We notice the hostile nation is plotting against us

3) We start analyzing the actions of the hostile nation

4) Surprise, a physical threat has been concluded imminent

5) We strike their ability to attack us (preemptive)

6) We ask them not to do it again

7) If the nation declines, we move into a state of war

Now, with this. Let me also note that I think that this power is too great for one branch of government. It has to be justified (by the Judicial Branch), or Approved by the people (Congress being the peoples representative has to approve).

[Donnervogel 0]

For you to be accused of being an enemy combatant you first have to be in combat. Second, the US or other allies of the US has to be the belligerent party. Third, you have to be caught (alive) and be arrested by the US military.

Yeah that's pretty naive. As I just explained they can simply accuse you and even though it is illegal you can't defend yourself because you lost the right to get a fair defense simply because of the accusation (not conviction). So if they come to you and declare you "unlawful combatant" because it's the joke of the day you cannot say, hey, wait, I want to see a judge so he can decide wether this is legal or not.

It is an exploit in your law. That's the sad fact. Even though it might not have been intended to be exploited to accuse others than "unlawful combatants" it offers the possibility and to simply trust people they would not absue it is pretty damn naive.

Quote[/b] ]Its De Facto, not De Jure. Besides, do you think one nation is different because they are named differently? All nations are controlled by Humans, don't you think they all do the same thing?

Oh there is a pretty damn huge difference and it points exactly into the heart of this debate. If a country violates the geneva convention (wich they often do) although it signed it it means the country acted illegally. And in a democratic state with the right to a fair trial for everyone this makes a huge difference. Because you can in your trial claim that there has been a violation or human rights or the geneva convention and use this to your defense. And if they don't give you those rights, others can still appeal to a different court in your defense. A lot of people have already been saved from being illegally convicted based on this in many countries you listed, especially in modern constitutional democracies.

While when the country simply has a law that says "no geneva convention for you" you are royaly fucked. Because you simply get no legal protection is these matters in that country. And this is corrupting the entire system. It also encourages other nations to simply say "ok when they don't honor our agreements we won't do it aswell" and then we go straight back to the 1860's.

[Sophion-Black 0]

Quote[/b] ]Yeah that's pretty naive. As I just explained they can simply accuse you and even though it is illegal you can't defend yourself because you lost the right to get a fair defense simply because of the accusation (not conviction)

So you think that when a US convoy gets attacked and they raid a house where there is incoming fire from. And they see a guy in the house wearing a mask and holding a gun. They can't say on the spot that that guy is an enemy combatant?

Lets go in more detail: Your base is under an RPG attack. quickly, get to your position and notice a guy 150m out with an RPG on his shoulder. do you think it will hold up in court that that guy just "happened" to be in the area? NO! that would be wasting time!.

Next Scenario: Your walking down the street and hear gunfire two blocks away. you dash to the corner to see what's going on and see Allied troops shooting at your position. Confused, a man runs by you in the opposite direction with web gear on. You warn the man to halt but he fails to obey the order. Thinking fast you trip the runner and hold him down. After your allies notice your presence they stop firing and approach you about the situation. You are then told that they saw that man plant a bomb and run. Should he be arrested for as an enemy combatant?

Your not getting the point: The person has to be captured during combat. Your thinking to hard, they can't walk up to someone and yell "He fired at me! your under arrest!" Your CO and the CO above him will ask: "where's your proof?" Then you suddenly realize what it is like to be an E-1 again. Because they are NOT going to come under fire from the Red Cross because of you.

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]1) A nation becomes hostile to us

2) We notice the hostile nation is plotting against us

3) We start analyzing the actions of the hostile nation

4) Surprise, a physical threat has been concluded imminent

5) We strike their ability to attack us (preemptive)

6) We ask them not to do it again

7) If the nation declines, we move into a state of war

Oh nice, and where is Iraq in this ?

Or do you still run the UN powerpoint nonsense on your DVD player ?

You just led yourself ad absurdum.

Quote[/b] ]For you to be accused of being an enemy combatant you first have to be in combat.

Wishful thinking. You may check the Guantanamo list one time. You will see that a lot of people were being sent there after being arrested at home, or kidnapped on the streets without being involved in combat situations. People were imprisoned because they were accused by their neighbours and money has been paid by the Us for the delivery of such "suspects".

Those people eventually happened to live in a combat zone, but it doesn´t mean that they were imprisoned because they were caught on the battlefield.

Again, update your facts.

[Myst9999 0]

You are only have freedom if you believe you do.

It would be interesting to ask and compare members of different countries for their view as to whether they are free or not. Would a North Korean declare that he is free? Would an American citizen feel they are free?

[scary 0]

The US flag stands for the American way of life. it stands for Freedom, Liberty, Justice, Tranquility, And Equality the of all man.

Fine values they are. However, they are only shown by actions, not a piece of bunting.

Quote[/b] ]It is a standard for the greatest nation known to man; the world's ONLY superpower.

Greatest nation known to which man? Does he only have one page in his atlas? Oddly enough, that arrogant and patronising statement is rather insulting to the 6bn people in the 200 other countries in the world, most of whom don't find the USA at all superior. It also has no basis in reality: Norway tops the HDI, Hong Kong is ranked highest for economic freedom and the happiest place in the world is Vanuatu. Despite some clear misconceptions, the USA doesn't have a monopoly on those values listed, other nations had them before the USA even existed, even more have them currently and many countries have them now to a greater extent than the USA. Besides, the idea that there is a greatest nation is quite absurd.

And contrary to that commonly peddled statement there are quite a few superpowers.

Quote[/b] ]It stood before great wars; both fought on and off its soil.

The USA doesn't make it into the top 10 of warfaring nations and probably never will.

Quote[/b] ]How dare you say it will never wrap the coffin of a man who stood at the head of the United States!

Most people save such reverence for leaders that deserve it. The USA has had some truly great leaders, but he isn't one, he is an imbecile and a coward, installed in power by a flawed electoral and judicial system.

Quote[/b] ]A man who the United States Military takes an oath to "obey the orders of" with no other option. You, sir, truly have no regaurds for our men and women overseas!

Do you think Bush has regard for them? And the United States Military is duty bound not to obey any illegal order, regardless who makes it.

Quote[/b] ]China is a force to be reckoned with, BUT they would not have enough money to be engaged in a full-scale war for more than 2 years. They can only tax their people so much. The only reason they are a Global Power is because of their military.

Saying something doesn't make it true, despite any wishful thinking you may have. China is a superpower because of its economic stranglehold on the world, its military is irrelevant. And you may wish to do some research on how the economy of a communist country works before waffling about tax and China running out of money.

Quote[/b] ]Russia... its no more than a make believe government run by the mafia and crooks. If you have looked at the news lately you would see that they are still using the ways of the old Soviet Union.

If they were still using the old ways of the Soviet Union there would be no news for you to see.

Quote[/b] ]India... is a nation with a good economy... kinda. If you consider a superpower to have mass people digging through trash to get food then OK.

12.5% of the US population live in poverty, it's still a superpower though.

Quote[/b] ]So is that why the British have come under fire in the city of Amarah? It's within the British zone.

Seeing as the British handed over control of Amara to the Iraqis in August, it would be rather difficult for the British to come under fire there, don't you think?

Quote[/b] ]But lets not stop there, the Polish control a sector too! In fact the Polish control more land than the British!

No they don't. MND(SE) is a larger area than MND(CS) and Poland's remaining 900 troops are in the process of changing role from sector command to training Iraqi forces. The US has already taken over in some areas.

Quote[/b] ]The Bush Doctrine is something that should have been made into policy a long time ago. Preemptive strike would have definitely altered WWII and later.

Yes. If only some countries had decided to act in, say 1939, perhaps it would have all been different.

And your list of countries for which the Geneva Conventions are optional is made up.

Quote[/b] ]So you think that when a US convoy gets attacked and they raid a house where there is incoming fire from. And they see a guy in the house wearing a mask and holding a gun. They can't say on the spot that that guy is an enemy combatant?

Lets go in more detail: Your base is under an RPG attack. quickly, get to your position and notice a guy 150m out with an RPG on his shoulder. do you think it will hold up in court that that guy just "happened" to be in the area? NO! that would be wasting time!.

Next Scenario: Your walking down the street and hear gunfire two blocks away. you dash to the corner to see what's going on and see Allied troops shooting at your position. Confused, a man runs by you in the opposite direction with web gear on. You warn the man to halt but he fails to obey the order. Thinking fast you trip the runner and hold him down. After your allies notice your presence they stop firing and approach you about the situation. You are then told that they saw that man plant a bomb and run. Should he be arrested for as an enemy combatant?

Your not getting the point: The person has to be captured during combat. Your thinking to hard, they can't walk up to someone and yell "He fired at me! your under arrest!" Your CO and the CO above him will ask: "where's your proof?" Then you suddenly realize what it is like to be an E-1 again. Because they are NOT going to come under fire from the Red Cross because of you.

Most other countries would just call them 'the enemy' and treat them as such, in accordance with the Geneva Conventions, rather than pulling a new category of people out of their bovril locker in order to bypass the rules of war. One would think if what these people were doing was so obviously illegal there would be no difficulty giving them due process, surely they'd be found guilty. Other apparently inferior nations have managed to go to war without feeling the need to abandon the Geneva Conventions, yet 'the greatest nation known to man'(sic) can't manage a bitch fight in the desert without changing the rules mid-way.

Personally I would be ashamed at such a blatant display of cowardice that puts every member of the world's militaries at increased risk.

[EiZei 0]

It would be interesting to ask and compare members of different countries for their view as to whether they are free or not. Would a North Korean declare that he is free? Would an American citizen feel they are free?

There's a difference between thinking youre free and just saying it.

[Espectro (DayZ) 0]

Most other countries would just call them 'the enemy' and treat them as such, in accordance with the Geneva Conventions, rather than pulling a new category of people out of their bovril locker in order to bypass the rules of war. One would think if what these people were doing was so obviously illegal there would be no difficulty giving them due process, surely they'd be found guilty. Other apparently inferior nations have managed to go to war without feeling the need to abandon the Geneva Conventions, yet 'the greatest nation known to man'(sic) can't manage a bitch fight in the desert without changing the rules mid-way.

Personally I would be ashamed at such a blatant display of cowardice that puts every member of the world's militaries at increased risk.

Couldn't have said it better!

[Donnervogel 0]

Quote[/b] ]Yeah that's pretty naive. As I just explained they can simply accuse you and even though it is illegal you can't defend yourself because you lost the right to get a fair defense simply because of the accusation (not conviction)

So you think that when a US convoy gets attacked and they raid a house where there is incoming fire from. And they see a guy in the house wearing a mask and holding a gun. They can't say on the spot that that guy is an enemy combatant?

Lets go in more detail: Your base is under an RPG attack. quickly, get to your position and notice a guy 150m out with an RPG on his shoulder. do you think it will hold up in court that that guy just "happened" to be in the area? NO! that would be wasting time!.

Next Scenario: Your walking down the street and hear gunfire two blocks away. you dash to the corner to see what's going on and see Allied troops shooting at your position. Confused, a man runs by you in the opposite direction with web gear on. You warn the man to halt but he fails to obey the order. Thinking fast you trip the runner and hold him down. After your allies notice your presence they stop firing and approach you about the situation. You are then told that they saw that man plant a bomb and run. Should he be arrested for as an enemy combatant?

Your not getting the point: The person has to be captured during combat. Your thinking to hard, they can't walk up to someone and yell "He fired at me! your under arrest!" Your CO and the CO above him will ask: "where's your proof?" Then you suddenly realize what it is like to be an E-1 again. Because they are NOT going to come under fire from the Red Cross because of you.

You didn't get what I wrote. I didn't talk about Iraq. I talked about how this law (despite being equally illegal when applied to foreigners) can easily backfire on anyone in the US. This law offers a way to suspend most of the legal protection the US constitution offers of anyone being accused of being an "alien unlwaful combatant". No matter if he actually is one or not. Because once they say you are you cannot go and complain about them doing illegal things with you. You are welcome to read what I said again.

Besides I don't think anybody on this planet can say what an "alien unlawful combatant" actually is and how it differs from a "lawful combatant" that atatcks a country preemptively based on false evidence.

[Alaskan_Viking 0]

I don't get this, we elected him as a conservative, but he ignores the constitution, and makes the government bigger!

I got your Habeus corpes, right here!

Second amendment freedom, effective against radar dishes, light armored vehicles, and tyrantical governments...

[Sophion-Black 0]

Besides I don't think anybody on this planet can say what an "alien unlawful combatant" actually is and how it differs from a "lawful combatant" that atatcks a country preemptively based on false evidence.

An "alien unlawful combatant" is someone who is not a citizen of the US (in this case) and engages the US by way of extreme unconventional warfare (such as be-headings). You can now see how the two differ.

Quote[/b] ]but he ignores the constitution

State your case, be specific here. Because I have a feeling you aren't getting the full story about it.

Oh...

@scary:

Quote[/b] ]China is a superpower because of its economic stranglehold on the world, its military is irrelevant. And you may wish to do some research on how the economy of a communist country works before waffling about tax and China running out of money.

You do realize that a trade embargo on China will result in China going bankrupt? Besides, most of the resources used for the trade are in developed areas like Hong Kong and Taiwan, or unoccasionally from Tibet. All these areas could easily prosper on their own. But china is just reaping all the benefits.

Its a fact, Dictatorships make less money than Democracies. Communism is well known because of its social welfare programs. For the nation to pay for all of this it has to raise taxes. And with China having a lot of people, it becomes a double edged sword. Yes they do get more tax money, but they still have to pay for them as well. You see taxes in China usually run at nearly half. If it came down to it, those areas listed above will secede. This will destabilize the country's economy indefinitely.

And about the comment on their military, its what enforces their influence. The whole definition of a superpower.

[CsonkaPityu 0]

Quote[/b] ]An "alien unlawful combatant" is someone who is not a citizen of the US (in this case) and engages the US by way of extreme unconventional warfare (such as be-headings). You can now see how the two differ.

Uhhuh tellme about the numerous cases where completely innocent people get dragged off to gitmo, like that canadian dude i saw on cnn the other day.

Quote[/b] ]State your case, be specific here.

Wiretapping (oh yea, this little baby is going to come back and haunt rightwingers in america for decades to come), ignoring the rights of imprisoned people for a fair trial, torture.

[billybob2002 0]

Greatest nation known to which man? Does he only have one page in his atlas? Oddly enough, that arrogant and patronising statement is rather insulting to the 6bn people in the 200 other countries in the world, most of whom don't find the USA at all superior. It also has no basis in reality: Norway tops the HDI, Hong Kong is ranked highest for economic freedom and the happiest place in the world is Vanuatu. Despite some clear misconceptions, the USA doesn't have a monopoly on those values listed, other nations had them before the USA even existed, even more have them currently and many countries have them now to a greater extent than the USA. Besides, the idea that there is a greatest nation is quite absurd.

And contrary to that commonly peddled statement there are quite a few superpowers.

Please follow this link and read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superpower

It hits the subject right on the head.

[-Snafu- 78]

Quote[/b] ]And you may wish to do some research on how the economy of a communist country works before waffling about tax and China running out of money.

China does not even have a "traditional" communist economy, huge changes have taken place with the Chinese economy- it's industries are being brought under private control. As a result the Communist Party are finding it extremely difficult run the country with a capitalist economy and a Communist government. The two are incompatible.

Quote[/b] ]You do realize that a trade embargo on China will result in China going bankrupt? Besides, most of the resources used for the trade are in developed areas like Hong Kong and Taiwan, or unoccasionally from Tibet.

You do realize that a trade embargo on China would also hurt the US economy significantly? The US has a heck of a lot of money tied up in China as lots of American companies operate in China and the US would not do anything to upset China in significant way. The boldest move the US has made on China is stating that they would defend Taiwan if invaded by China - but that's just words which China don't take seriously.

The US is the world's superpower and does have a "monopoly" over the world to an extent. However this grip on the world is fading and China is slowly taking over and in roughly 20 years should be the worlds new superpower.

Quote[/b] ]Its a fact, Dictatorships make less money than Democracies.

With the privitisation of the Chinese economy it is inevitable that the Communist system will fall in China and be replaced by a Democracy.