USA Politics Thread - *No gun debate*

[cozza 24]

A china/US war would bring destruction. They are both eqully matched. The US has technolgcal advantege but China has man power.

And North Korea will probley allie with China, Australia will Allie with the US becuase of the Anzus Treaty. Not sure about Britain.

[XCess 0]

With the current Iranian situation, a war between China and America is seemingly more and more likely. In a BBC news report on the debate of the Iranian Nuclear power issue, Russia and China seemed to back Iran. They simply stated that they will not support any kind of sanctions placed by the United Nations. They didn't air their views like this before the Iraq war, atleast not to my knowledge.

European support for America is also dwindling. After the catastrophe of Iraq, America has made a lot of enemies. The population of europe simply will not start another war, atleast not willingly. The Chinese and Russians would have morale on their side aswell as number.

Another factor in Europe's support in such a war is gas supply. Russia is the main supplier for gas fuels in europe, they showed this by cutting the supply to Ukraine for a few days, in my opinion, asserting their authority and showing just one of the many consequences that would come with siding with America.

Iran will not back down from nuclear power. America will not back down in stopping anybody other than them having nuclear weapons. And many other people want to take advantage of this situation.

Just my view on the situation, others will doubtless disagree.

[EiZei 0]

The Chinese and Russians would have morale on their side aswell as number.

Another factor in Europe's support in such a war is gas supply. Russia is the main supplier for gas fuels in europe, they showed this by cutting the supply to Ukraine for a few days, in my opinion, asserting their authority and showing just one of the many consequences that would come with siding with America.

Last time I checked Russia would'nt mind keeping China a little weak, having that somewhat disputed border and all.

[XCess 0]

Right now China is probably the second most powerful military force on the planet, due to their population and growing economy. And they seem to be on the same side in the Iranian issue.

But a war weth America could open up a few oppurtunities for a little Russian occupation of China. Meh, my mind's too sleepy and I'm working to hard on a whole promotion project by myself so maybe I'm not thinking straight right now

[walker 0]

Hi all

Another factor in Europe's support in such a war is gas supply. Russia is the main supplier for gas fuels in europe, they showed this by cutting the supply to Ukraine for a few days, in my opinion, asserting their authority and showing just one of the many consequences that would come with siding with America.

This is the biggest problem of the Wolf Cying that TBA did with Iraq. TBA's war with Iraq has left America and the west much weaker and more in Danger.

Quote[/b] ]Iran will not back down from nuclear power. America will not back down in stopping anybody other than them having nuclear weapons. And many other people want to take advantage of this situation.

This is a direct result of the wolf crying that TBA did. There was after all:

No WMD in Iraq

No link with Al Qaeda in Iraq (Until we in the coalition invited them in through a porous border because we removed all the police and Army and did not put enough troops in)

No Link with 9/11 and Iraq

No threat to America and the west

Quote[/b] ]European support for America is also dwindling. After the catastrophe of Iraq, America has made a lot of enemies. The population of Europe simply will not start another war, at least not willingly. The Chinese and Russians would have morale on their side as well as number.

However a decade or so of the democrats in power will mend a lot of the bridges between the US and the west.

The NewConMen are in decline, thank god, and even their erstwhile guru, Francis Fukuyama, now realises that TBA and the NeoConMen were nothing but a bunch of commies from the start, in his new book "America at the Crossroads", reviewed in Sunday's New York Times Magazine says:

Quote[/b] ]"America at the Crossroads" serves up a powerful indictment of the Bush administration's war in Iraq and the role that neoconservative ideas — concerning preventive war, benevolent hegemony and unilateral action — played in shaping the decision to go to war, its implementation and its aftermath. These arguments are made all the more devastating by the fact that the author, Francis Fukuyama, was once a star neoconservative theorist himself, who studied with or was associated with leading neoconservative luminaries like Paul D. Wolfowitz, William Kristol, Albert Wohlstetter and Allan Bloom, and whose best-selling 1992 book, "The End of History and the Last Man," was celebrated (and denounced) as a classic neoconservative text on the end of the cold war and the global march of liberal democracy.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006....ei=5070

I said during the 2004 elections that the NeoConMen particlarly under Wolfowitz were an entriest group who have taken over the US Republican party. My worry is that the Republican party seems to have no resistance to such a group taking them over. The Republican's hierarchical structure and philosophy makes it as prone to such groups just the same as the Russian Revolution and German post WWI was. Entriest groups such as Maoists, Bolshevics and the National Socialist Party find such political groups a pushover.

Quote[/b] ]A February 2004 dinner at the American Enterprise Institute made Mr. Fukuyama even more aware of the gulf between himself and neoconservative supporters of the war. Listening to the columnist Charles Krauthammer's speech — which embraced the doctrine of pre-emption and asserted that the toppling of Saddam Hussein had made America safer — he says he "could not understand why everyone around me was applauding the speech enthusiastically, given that the United States had found no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, was bogged down in a vicious insurgency, and had almost totally isolated itself from the rest of the world by following the kind of unipolar strategy advocated by Krauthammer."

Ibid

So you can see its just like Stalin with his minimum applause time.

It is encapsulated in the TBA's favourite Roveist phrase "Your either with us or against us." In other words follow us or you are Un-American. It is constant recuring theme in TBA's speeches. Dodgy Dick Cheney is always going on about we have to have more wire tapping without a judge checking of US citizens so we can find the bad people and and if you dont agree to the wiretapping you are a terrorist or a terrorists friend.

I thought the US had learned the dangers of McArthyism shown in Gorge Clooney's history of those times"Good Night, and Good Luck" http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0433383/ but this shows the US Republicans are prone to this kind of disease.

The GOP will have to solve this character flaw or as this years mid terms are showing it will remain like the UK's conservative party unelectable.

Kind Regards Walker

[XCess 0]

I hate the way communism is perceived because of Stalinist Communism. True communism is, well.. like these forums (when Placebo isn't hitting people with his dictator stick )

I'm an idealist I'd love true communism, but with nationalism, racism, ageism and a thousand other isms it won't happen unless there's a nuclear war or something

Totally off topic I know.

[walker 0]

Hi all

It apears the biggest leakers of clasified inteligence are George Bush Junior and TBA.

Various news sources

http://news.google.com/news?q=....t=title

are reporting that I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby has grassed up his bosses: George Bush junior and Dodgy Dick Cheyney as the source of classified defense data that was released to press in order to protect TBA and the Republican Party from the the public's growing realisation that the Iraq war was based on groundless and even faked intel.

I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby's defense team are pressing for additional White House communications It apears that they wish to show there was a concerted effort by TBA to use classified intel for party political purposes and that in this atmosphere they leaked identity of the NOC agent in charge of the Counterproliferation Division (Someone we could have done with now with Iran)

Indications apear to show that Dodgy Dick Cheney was involved in the leaking of Valerie Wilson nee Plame's identity. Earlier this month the White House let out 250 communications pointing in Dodgy Dick Cheney 's direction. It is believed this was an effort by Karl Rove to take the heat off himself by implicating Dodgy Dick Cheney.

In seens reminiscent of the Impeachment of Richard Nixon; the GOP have begun to turn on each other in an attempt to protect them selves from the special prosecutor.

It looks like the set of sorry lies and deciet of this tale have started to unravel.

Regards Walker

[Jinef 2]

Its also hard to draw the line between POW's and CEC's (captured enemy combatants).

This sounds like the American military/politicians hiding behind acronyms.

A captured enemy combatant is different from a prisoner of war how?

Am I supposed to believe there can be any distinction at all?

It is a bit like America not using such horrible weapons as Napalm, instead they use the far more humane FAE (Fuel Air Explosion) which is basically a big bomb full of gasoline triggered above the ground instead of on the ground, differing it from Napalm greatly .....

[walker 0]

Hi all

George Bush Junior has been found to be a leak-er of classified intel.

This despite on numerous occasions George Bush Junior saying leak-ers of intel should be dealt with harshly.

Yet there he was orchestrating a systematic leaking of confidential US national security data for personal party political advantage.

This goes to the fundamental question of trust that any administration must have.

The consequences are obvious:

At a national level US voters stand a good chance of their phone being illegally tapped (no judge or warrant needed) because they mention Osama, Iraq, or George Bush Junior in a telephone conversation; the kind of thing they have to mention when discussing who they will vote for in the coming elections

With George Bush Junior's history of using classified US national Intel for party political purposes can any US citizen feel safe with their phone being tapped who is say whether the NeoConMen are listing people who vote against them from illegal telephone tapping. It goes to the fundamental question of trust; can you really trust a NeoConMan republican?

On the international stage the USA's reputation has been dragged not through mud but through a field of oozing NeoConMan excrement and Uncle Sam sits festering and stinking at the Security Council table.

TBA cannot even summon enough international political clout to deal with Iran's nuclear ambitions because any intel the US releases is tainted by George Bush Junior's actions in fiddling with the intel. It goes to the fundamental question of trust; can you really trust a NeoConMan republican?

TBA promised a more secure world yet it now seems it was all lies, TBA just have not delivered. Iraq is a quagmire. Iran thumbs it nose at all and sundry. Terrorist cells multiply like maggots on a carcass. North Korea is ignored despite being a far worse danger than Iran or Iraq put together. America has lost her way and stumbles around blindly lashing out and covered in NeoConMan excrement. It goes to the fundamental question of trust; can you really trust a NeoConMan republican?

Sadly Walker

[theavonlady 2]

George Bush Junior has been found to be a leak-er of classified intel.

Wishful thinking, as usual. A snippet from The Left's Libby Lie:

Quote[/b] ]But what Bush and Cheney authorized had nothing to do with Valerie Plame. Joshua Gerstein, who broke the story of Fitzgerald’s document in Thursday’s New York Sun, told Crier the information Bush approved for dissemination was unrelated to “the most sensitive information…[the identity of] Valerie Plame or her husband, Joseph Wilson.†Other media outlets also announce this fact.

<ul>- Reuters: “The court documents did not say that Bush or Cheney authorized Libby to disclose Plame's identity.â€

- The Associated Press: “There was no indication in the filing that either Bush or Cheney authorized Libby to disclose Valerie Plame's CIA identity.â€

- Even the breathless New York Times noted Fitzgerald “stopped short†of accusing Bush or Cheney or any wrongdoing.

Nor have Bush and Cheney been accused of breaking any law. In his Sun article, Gerstein wrote:

<ul>The court papers from the prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, do not suggest that Mr. Bush violated any law or rule…Mr. Bush's alleged instruction to release the conclusions of the intelligence estimate appears to have been squarely within his authority and Mr. Fitzgerald makes no argument that it was illegal.

The Washington Post ran a sidebar indicating, “Legal experts say that President Bush had the unquestionable authority to approve the disclosure of secret CIA information to reporters.â€

Move on dot calm.

[Student Pilot 0]

*peeks back in*

Indeed, how many times have I heard this on this forum?

Quote[/b] ]At a national level US voters stand a good chance of their phone being illegally tapped (no judge or warrant needed)

There is oversight.  There is a panel of 4 congressmen, 2 congressmen from each party, who have to view the information first before the wiretaps are made.  This isn't a case of some yahoo acting like a tyrant.  This method is quicker than obtaining a warrant and therefore allows the government to more easily catch terrorists or terrorist supporters. This process is necessary with the overwhelming number of throw-away cell phones available to anyone who wants them. These cell phones allows a person to make one call, then they throw away the phone and use another one. The traditional method of getting a warrant isn't fast enough for this kind of environment.

*leaves again*

-Pilot

[EiZei 0]

Quote[/b] ]At a national level US voters stand a good chance of their phone being illegally tapped (no judge or warrant needed)

There is oversight.  There is a panel of 4 congressmen, 2 congressmen from each party, who have to view the information first before the wiretaps are made.  This isn't a case of some yahoo acting like a tyrant.  This method is quicker than obtaining a warrant and therefore allows the government to more easily catch terrorists or terrorist supporters.  This process is necessary with the overwhelming number of throw-away cell phones available to anyone who wants them.  These cell phones allows a person to make one call, then they throw away the phone and use another one.  The traditional method of getting a warrant isn't fast enough for this kind of environment.

Last time I checked the democratic way to get around problems like that when you have more than enough time is to introduce legislation.

[Student Pilot 0]

You are absolutely right, and legislation was passed, the Patriot Act.  Wording within the Patriot Act allows the use of wiretapping in the manner I have described above.

-Pilot

EDIT:

Let me clarify. The Patriot act did not put wiretapping into use, but it gave the President authorization to wiretap as long as certain rules were followed, the most important being oversight by 4 congressmen, two from each party, as decribed above.

[EiZei 0]

EDIT:

Let me clarify.  The Patriot act did not put wiretapping into use, but it gave the President authorization to wiretap as long as certain rules were followed, the most important being oversight by 4 congressmen, two from each party, as decribed above.

Where excatly in the PATRIOT act? I tried looking under title II that seems to cover most of the surveillance stuff but I do'nt seem to find anything pointing to congressional oversight. Not saying that you are wrong but..

[walker 0]

Hi Student Pilot

I can find no evidense that such a panel of 4 congressmen for pre-approval of wiretapping exists.

So as far as I can tell. The wiretapping of US citizens is unfettered by any pre-approval requirement of your mithical panel of 4 congressmen.

If your mithical panel of 4 congressmen required to pre aprove wiretaps existed; obviously it takes less time to see one judge than it takes to present the same evidence to four congressmen.

So the argument apears specious at best.

US citizens are having their phones tapped because they mention key words in normal perfectly legal conversations.

George Bush Junior and TBA now has a proven record of using clasified Intel for personal party political gain.

With the removal of independent judges from oversight there is nothing to prevent wiretaps being used in the same way.

It comes to very simple and fundamental question of trust; "How can you really trust a NeoConMan republican?"

Kind Regards Walker

[GoOB 0]

US citizens are having their phones tapped because they mention key words in normal perfectly legal conversations.

This feels like it fits in well with the term "Land of the free"

[Student Pilot 0]

Yes, it appears I was slightly incorrect.  I have been reading the Patriot Act (f***ing government literature is so hard to read), and it doesn't appear that the Patriot Act allows any kind of domestic wiretapping without prior court approval.  Now, while I didn't find any evidence of a four-congressmen panel, there is congressional oversight as outlined in Title II, Section 215, Sub-section 501:

Quote[/b] ]`(a) On a semiannual basis, the Attorney General shall fully inform the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives and the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate concerning all requests for the production of tangible things under section 402.

`(b) On a semiannual basis, the Attorney General shall provide to the Committees on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives and the Senate a report setting forth with respect to the preceding 6-month period--

`(1) the total number of applications made for orders approving requests for the production of tangible things under section 402; and

`(2) the total number of such orders either granted, modified, or denied.'.

Now, all this does not mean that TBA has broken any laws, because while a warrant is required for wiretapping American citizens, it does not prohibit wiretapping of foreign nationals.  All wiretapping to date has been of foreign nationals.  Whether or not a US citizen was involved in irrelavent, because the target was the foreign national.

-Pilot

[walker 0]

Hi all

With The Bush Administration's (TBA) reputation in tatters.

On every matter that TBA has influence on from the economy to national security their actions are tainted by this.

One must inevitably ask the very simple and fundamental question; "How can you really trust a NeoConMan republican?"

Regards Walker

[theavonlady 2]

On every matter that TBA has influence on from the economy to national security their actions are tainted by this.

How so?

(Yearly disclaimer: I am not particulalry a fan of George Bush.)

[walker 0]

Hi all

In reply to Avon:

It is simple really:

* If NeoConMen will lie and misuse classified national security intelligence data for personal party political gain

* If NeoConMen will out a the NOC agent in charge of the Counter proliferation Division (Thus leaving America crippled on counter proliferation at a time when Iran are most dangerous) just to hide the lies and misuse.

* If NeoConMen will start a war for:

** No WMD in Iraq

** No link with Al Qaeda in Iraq (Until we in the coalition invited them in through a porous border because we removed all the police and Army and did not put enough troops in)

** No Link with 9/11 and Iraq

* If NeoConMen will tap the phones and emails of Americans on the saying of keywords they use in normal conversations without first running it past a judge.

Then there is no higher moral or ethical barrier to lies and misuse they have to cross.

What is to stop them lieing on everything?

You inevitably come to the very simple and fundamental question; "How can you really trust a NeoConMan republican?"

I am glad to see that conservative republicans are starting at last to see that the NeoConMen of TBA and their supporters in the republican party are nothing more than an entriest group.

Quote[/b] ]GOP Sees Disturbing Reflection in The Mirror

Democrats Fell in '94 After Abuses of Power

By Jim VandeHei and Juliet Eilperin

Washington Post Staff Writers

Sunday, April 9, 2006; Page A03

The Tom DeLay era is ending much as it began. An entrenched majority, battered by ethical scandals involving its top leaders, is running what many see as a politically polarized and profligate House of Representatives.

What is most remarkable, according to more than a dozen GOP lawmakers and aides, is that it took a little more than a decade for DeLay and House Republicans to succumb to many practices they railed against in the 1990s. From stifling congressional dissent to the raw use of power, they say, Republicans have become like the Democratic barons they ousted in 1994

Former House majority leader Richard K. Armey (R-Tex.) said that former majority leader DeLay (R-Tex.) was largely to blame for leading Republicans away from their core values. "DeLay, as much as anybody, was responsible for putting the party on the wrong track," Armey said last week. "He always wanted his place in the sun."

Yet many others said the problem was much bigger -- and more complicated -- than the excesses of DeLay. They said it was a general sense of hubris and self-preservation that prompted GOP leaders to gradually abandon the tenets of the 1994 revolution: smaller government, accountability, and a new and cleaner way of doing business in Washington.

"It is a little like a reformed alcoholic taking little drinks -- pretty soon, you have a real problem on your hands," said John S. Czwartacki, who served as a key communications strategist for House Republicans in the 1990s. Czwartacki was talking about the Republicans' embrace of big government spending in particular, but others said the idea applies to the undoing of the entire revolution.

DeLay's career tracks the rise and fall of the Republican Revolution. He was a little-known conservative backbencher in the early 1990s agitating for change. And he was part of a broader movement led by then-Rep. Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.), who sought to take down not only the Democratic Party but also the more moderate and compromise-minded leadership led by Minority Leader Robert H. Michel (R-Ill.).

The parallels between the Democrats that DeLay and Gingrich abhorred 12 years ago and the Republicans of today are striking. In 1994, Democrats who had been the majority for more than four decades were heavily favored to remain so. But the public was discontent with their performance. Polls then showed that about one in three Americans approved of the Democratic-controlled Congress; polls today show that about one in three respondents approve of the Republican-control Congress...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn....31.html

Follow link to read more

I think the republicans need to clean their house of the NeoConMen.

Until then one must ask the very simple and fundamental question; "How can you really trust a NeoConMan republican?"

Kind Regards Walker

[theavonlady 2]

In reply to Avon:

It is simple really:

It seems concocted, really.

Quote[/b] ]* If NeoConMen will lie and misuse classified national security intelligence data for personal party political gain

I have pointed out that even the major press agencies and papers state that nothing illegal was done.

Quote[/b] ]* If NeoConMen will out a the NOC agent in charge of the Counter proliferation Division (Thus leaving America crippled on counter proliferation at a time when Iran are most dangerous) just to hide the lies and misuse.

* If NeoConMen will start a war for:

** No WMD in Iraq

This is assuming that they knew in advance that none would be found. Still waiting for the impeachment trial, after all these years.

Quote[/b] ] ** No link with Al Qaeda in Iraq (Until we in the coalition invited them in through a porous border because we removed all the police and Army and did not put enough troops in)

I'd be happy if you'll expplain how we can dismiss this. The source transcripts can be found at the FMSO site.

Quote[/b] ]** No Link with 9/11 and Iraq

See above.

Quote[/b] ]* If NeoConMen will tap the phones and emails of Americans on the saying of keywords they use in normal conversations without first running it past a judge.

Then there is no higher moral or ethical barrier to lies and misuse they have to cross.

What is to stop them lieing on everything?

Or someone else making things up and having them repeated on a public forum, for that matter?

Quote[/b] ]You inevitably come to the very simple and fundamental question; "How can you really trust a NeoConMan republican?"

That's funny. My question still broadly remains can you really trust a politician?

The answer is you can't.

Both the question and the answer are older than the term of this present administration.

[walker 0]

Hi all

In reply to Avon

You are relying on a fox news commentator who's source is documents that have not been verified and that the US army does not trust and which TBA have forced the the US army to release despite their miss-givings.

Just like the Niger Yellow Cake Lies that started this whole affair off in the first place and that caused the NeoConMen to out the NOC agent in charge of Counter Proliferation for nothing more than petty personal party political purposes.

These would be the same documents to which the US Army Foreign Military Studies Office has said:

Quote[/b] ]"The US Government has made no determination regarding the authenticity of the documents, validity or factual accuracy of the information contained therein, or the quality of any translations, when available."

http://70.169.163.24/

And which while they link to them they will not actually put directly on their site; note it is an IP address in the URL not a site address.

So it appears your source seems to be relying on documents the US army does not trust. That they are wary and worried about releasing; as they are would you believe it classified, but that they have been forced to release by TBA Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte who (and being an Israeli you might be interested in this one) released documents being used by the Israeli's as part of a counter terrorist sting operation

Quote[/b] ]US leak of Zarqawi letter riles Israelis

ISRAELI military intelligence officials have accused President George W Bush’s administration of undermining their attempts to infiltrate Al-Qaeda’s operations in Iraq by revealing the contents of a secret letter written by Osama Bin Laden’s second-in-command, writes Uzi Mahnaimi.

Israel passed the letter — in which Ayman al-Zawahiri outlined his Middle East strategy to Abu Musab al- Zarqawi, the Al-Qaeda leader in Iraq — to Washington last October on condition of strict anonymity.

Israeli officials were dismayed, however, when John Negroponte, the US director of national intelligence, made it available in both English and its original Arabic on his office web site...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2125730,00.html

Follow link for more

Yes TBA up to the same trick of screwing up intelligence ops and releasing classified intel in this case passed to them by a supposed allie and TBA's NeoConMen are doing it for petty personal party political purposes.

Not even a blind man could miss the pattern here of a complete lack of a moral or ethical compass in TBA. Like any entriest group the TBA NeoConMen of the republican party will do anything to stay in power.

Consequently one must ask the very simple and fundamental question; "How can you really trust a NeoConMan republican?"

Kind Regards Walker

[XCess 0]

Quote[/b] ]All wiretapping to date has been of foreign nationals. Whether or not a US citizen was involved in irrelavent, because the target was the foreign national.

And what gives the american government the right to tap the phonecalls of the french? the british? the germans? the swedes? Terrorism and american politics is one of the bigest and most important subjects today. Most people hate Bush, most people disagree with the war in Iraq. Many people hate America, and some can see the point of view of these so called terrorists.

If I was living in Iraq, then one day my capital city was destroyed in a blitz, then my country occupied for years by foreign soldiers, I'd take up arms against the occupiers.

Would this make me a terrorist? Was Victor Troska a terrorist? Are people that talk about these issues terrorists?

What happened to freedom of speech?

[walker 0]

Hi all

Check it out and particularly to any Israelis.

According to the Times article I linked above the Israelis are having to run a desperate cover blown operation just like the Americans had to do when TBA released the identity of the NOC agent in charge of the CIA's Counter Proliferation Division.

Like that occasion when the CIA's Counter Proliferation work on Iranian nuclear ambitions were castrated by TBA's petty personal party political machinations; it will cause agents and their families lives to be put in jeopardy and put back important national security issues of intelligence operations for years possibly decades.

Angrily walker

[theavonlady 2]

Quote[/b] ]All wiretapping to date has been of foreign nationals.  Whether or not a US citizen was involved in irrelavent, because the target was the foreign national.

And what gives the american government the right to tap the phonecalls of the french? the british? the germans?

When in Rome...................