Politics/Elections/World News

The Man wrote:I had:

3 strips bacon
3 Jimmy Dean sausages
2 eggs
white rice
Guava juice
toast
hashbrowns this morning.

Can you give it up for me, for having a decent breakfast this time? :applaud:

dude, if you woulda added pineapples in there, i was gonna say you had a luau (sp?) of a breakfast, LOL! You forgot to add gravy as beverage... :rofl:

but i'll leave it at that b/c im sure some one will say "shouldn't this belong in the food thread?"...

The Man wrote:
I had:

3 strips bacon
3 Jimmy Dean sausages
2 eggs
white rice
Guava juice
toast
hashbrowns

this morning.

Niko:

Shouldn't this be in the food thread???? :hehe: :rofl: :hehe: :rofl: :hehe:

xavio may like this article:
Norwegians Place Anti-Bush Ad in Washington Post

OSLO (Reuters) - Norwegians including artists and politicians made a rare foray into U.S. politics Tuesday with an advertisement in a U.S. newspaper saying that President Bush's war on terror was backfiring.

The Norwegian group "www.tellhim.no" said it used about $50,000 in donations from 4,000 people to fund the advertisement in the Washington Post to tell Bush that 80 percent of people in NATO-member Norway opposed the U.S.-led war in Iraq.

"Mr. President, your country can once again be a leading example of democracy and freedom, inspiring a world where terrorism can no longer breed," it said. "Your present policy only fosters resistance, more than ever, everywhere."

It urged a shift in U.S. foreign policy to allow greater U.N. involvement in Iraq, an apology to the Iraqi people for the war and compensation for victims.

It said Norway's government had given a wrong impression that Norwegians backed the war by sending 180 troops to Iraq to help stabilize the nation after the overthrow of Saddam Hussein.

The campaign says it has backing from people including musicians, actors, artists, some members of parliament, union members and ordinary citizens.

"Our main goal has been to create a debate in Norway," said campaign spokesman Torgeir Knag Fylkesnes, asked if U.S. citizens might resent foreign interference in U.S. politics.

"We don't think this will have an effect on the election. That's not our goal," he said when asked if the group hoped that voters would oust Bush next month and elect Democratic challenger John Kerry.

i figure i'd cut n paste it here before it's off yahoo's (the source) servers.

PNAC

The "Project For A New American Century" is must reading for anyone who is interested in, or wondering about, the Bush Administration's Foreign Policy.

It's 90 pages long, so I won't put it up here, but you can find it on the web. One place that has it in full (though you need adobe to read it) is:

http://www.raytal.com

Ray is a radical left wing radio talk show host in the Bay Area.

But Ray didn't write the document. He simply put it up, in full, on his web site.

It was written in the mid 90's by the neo cons who run the White House now. It's signed by just about every member of the Administration.

If you want to know what the neo con plan for the future of America, and the world is... they wrote it out and published it for you.

All you have to do is read it, and hopefully think about it a little.

Some of my favorite parts are their stated goals to:

Militarize, and control space. (They even want to start a U.S. Space Force as a seperate branch of the U.S. military.)

Take Controll of Cyber space.

And where they get specific about increasing the military budget, and establishing large permenant military bases in the Gulf, and in East Asia... they mention the need for a Pearl Harbor like event to galvanize the American public into letting them increase military spending.

Okay, that's it for my editorializing. If you're actually interested, read it in their own words. This is who they are.

niko2x wrote:xavio may like this article:
Norwegians Place Anti-Bush Ad in Washington Post

OSLO (Reuters) - Norwegians including artists and politicians made a rare foray into U.S. politics Tuesday with an advertisement in a U.S. newspaper saying that President Bush's war on terror was backfiring.

The Norwegian group "www.tellhim.no" said it used about $50,000 in donations from 4,000 people to fund the advertisement in the Washington Post to tell Bush that 80 percent of people in NATO-member Norway opposed the U.S.-led war in Iraq.

"Mr. President, your country can once again be a leading example of democracy and freedom, inspiring a world where terrorism can no longer breed," it said. "Your present policy only fosters resistance, more than ever, everywhere."

It urged a shift in U.S. foreign policy to allow greater U.N. involvement in Iraq, an apology to the Iraqi people for the war and compensation for victims.

It said Norway's government had given a wrong impression that Norwegians backed the war by sending 180 troops to Iraq to help stabilize the nation after the overthrow of Saddam Hussein.

The campaign says it has backing from people including musicians, actors, artists, some members of parliament, union members and ordinary citizens.

"Our main goal has been to create a debate in Norway," said campaign spokesman Torgeir Knag Fylkesnes, asked if U.S. citizens might resent foreign interference in U.S. politics.

"We don't think this will have an effect on the election. That's not our goal," he said when asked if the group hoped that voters would oust Bush next month and elect Democratic challenger John Kerry.

i figure i'd cut n paste it here before it's off yahoo's (the source) servers.

I don't agree with this. You can't apologize and go back from Iraq like that.

Doramafan113 wrote:

I have to agree in part with this statement. The decision to elect a President must be based on the best interests of the American People in this case. But I also agree that how the world perceives the President/Nominee should also be taken into account. For a President to be affective in his policies he needs world support. Don't forget the U.S. economy strongly depends on the World economy. Sour relations with the world can lead to all sorts of problems. I think a balanced approach is best. Surely a President can look out for the people and be respected by the world. Clinton did it, Bush Sr. did it. It only seems to Bush Jr. who can't achieve it.

I agree with you. BUT...there is a BIG difference between overall international opinion regarding the US and international opinion regarding who the US president should be. I would venture to guess that regardless of WHO was the US president, France, and many other countries, would NOT have good opinions of the US right now.

If they had their way...we'd be standing by not doing very much about anything...I think the war on terror, in any form, is a lose/lose situation "politically" for us with regards to many countries around the world ESPECIALLY liberal European countries who would rather see no wars of any kind regardless of what's going on in the world with terrorism or anything. The liberal European approach is (no french connection intended - though it fits nicely here) "laissez faire".

I think Americans need to come to grips with the reality that Europe is, by and large, NOT on our side regardless...and it's mostly for their own selfish reasons. If they don't support us...they think the terrorists will leave them alone and then it's really just OUR problem. Regardless of the fact that they are OBLIGATED to help under the NATO treaties that were signed after WWII. It's a different world where we live in now, and one where Europe is not willing to quid-pro-quo for the losses we endured mostly in fighting "their war".

All this talk reminds me of that Saturday Night Live skit with Dan Akroyd and Jane Curtain, who were doing a spoof of the old Point-Counterpoint debate tv-show from the 1970s.

After Curtain finishes her statement, Akroyd leads off his rebuttal with "Jane, you ignorant slut..." :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:



Live from New York it's Saturday Night! :naughty:
-PCM

pcmodem wrote:All this talk reminds me of that Saturday Night Live skit with Dan Akroyd and Jane Curtain, who were doing a spoof of the old Point-Counterpoint debate tv-show from the 1970s.

After Curtain finishes her statement, Akroyd leads off his rebuttal with "Jane, you ignorant slut..." :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:



Live from New York it's Saturday Night! :naughty:

I'm not gonna ask who's Dan and who's Jane. Uh uh. :shakehead:

Geezer wrote:PNAC

The "Project For A New American Century" is must reading for anyone who is interested in, or wondering about, the Bush Administration's Foreign Policy.

It's 90 pages long, so I won't put it up here, but you can find it on the web. One place that has it in full (though you need adobe to read it) is:

http://www.raytal.com

Ray is a radical left wing radio talk show host in the Bay Area.

But Ray didn't write the document. He simply put it up, in full, on his web site.

It was written in the mid 90's by the neo cons who run the White House now. It's signed by just about every member of the Administration.

If you want to know what the neo con plan for the future of America, and the world is... they wrote it out and published it for you.

All you have to do is read it, and hopefully think about it a little.

Some of my favorite parts are their stated goals to:

Militarize, and control space. (They even want to start a U.S. Space Force as a seperate branch of the U.S. military.)

Take Controll of Cyber space.

And where they get specific about increasing the military budget, and establishing large permenant military bases in the Gulf, and in East Asia... they mention the need for a Pearl Harbor like event to galvanize the American public into letting them increase military spending.

Okay, that's it for my editorializing. If you're actually interested, read it in their own words. This is who they are.

Without reading 90 pages..what EXACTLY is the controversy regarding this?

It's all very nice to use terms like "controlling space" and make it sound like a Star Wars movie with fighter planes and troops in space...but from what I've read (granted it's not very much)...the context of space is mentioned in regards to GPS, satellite imagery, and missile defense ("Star Wars") systems. The need for controlling it mentions deterring other countries from using it for their own satellite imagery, etc...

If you could point out specific pages and or references that you find objectionable that would help further your argument. From what I've read so far I don't see any "smoking guns" that you have implied (that's what I get out of your post at least) show's this government as some sort of "conspiracy" regime.

Xavio wrote:No I agree aho, you have to care about your interest first, it's normal.
I think by saying this, you show that you don't want to debate, bad for you.

Time is against me, so keeping up (in a political debate) will be hard.

No sense start anything that I can't finish.

gregsan wrote:

Without reading 90 pages..what EXACTLY is the controversy regarding this?

There isn't any. It's your typical "think tank-guys with time and money" report with some Clinton bashing thrown in(some deserved, some not). I've read many of these, and they're all the same. They're wrong about somethings, right about some-and the stuff they're right about are usually what those of us on the ground have known for years, but didn't need thousands of dollars to reach. The Pearl Harbor quote is:

Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some
catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor. Domestic politics and industrial policy will shape the pace and
content of transformation as much as the requirements of current missions. A

All this says is that the changes they recommend would be slow unless something catastrophic, like a Pearl Harbor event, occured. Of course, if you're into conspiracy theories and new world order BS, you can twist that to make it sound like they were waiting for or planned 9/11 to kick start their Master Plan to Rule the World, but anyone with an elementary school education would be able to see that's not the case.

This isn't even a plan. It's a report, no different than you would see on one of the business channels where the talking heads talk about what's wrong, and how they would change things. If you read the report, and compare it to what's going on, you'll find a great many decisons and happening have gone opposite what the report recommends.

The Man wrote:

I was just going into the idea of "legal defense" here . . . mostly wondering if the O.J. Simpson situation and subsequent trial represented how the law worked most of the time or 100% of the time.

I had:

3 strips bacon
3 Jimmy Dean sausages
2 eggs
white rice
Guava juice
toast
hashbrowns

this morning.

Can you give it up for me, for having a decent breakfast this time? :applaud:

Good breakfast. Wish I had some.

I think a better question is if no one saw you, would you turn yourself in? I mean (in this hypothetical situation, thetenken) you're only saying you did something illegal, right? [hold on, now . . .]

If it is discovered that in the course of your breaking of the speed limit (and, I suppose that in this hypothetical situation, we haven't gone into whether, if in the course of turning yourself in, the police -- or other legal body -- might be able to help determine whether you, in fact, broke the speed limit or not, or was just a matter of you going fast but within the speed limit) you actually ended up saving somebody's life, I dunno if I can automatically assume that (if you, in fact, broke the speed limit) no one in the legal field wouldn't be able to state that your speeding wasn't illegal by only being able to preface the argument with, "his speeding was illegal, but . . ."

If I was in flagrant violation of the law, then what I did was illegal, no matter if I was ever prosecuted or not. If in your circumstance that I was driving my pregnant wife to the hospital and I was speeding, it would still be illegal. A per se statutory violation. Of course, what police officer would give a ticket in that situation, etc. Point of the matter I'm trying to make is that the law is neither good nor evil. It can be manipulated on all sides.

think a better question is if no one saw you, would you turn yourself in? I mean (in this hypothetical situation, thetenken) you're only saying you did something illegal, right? [hold on, now . . .]

If it is discovered that in the course of your breaking of the speed limit (and, I suppose that in this hypothetical situation, we haven't gone into whether, if in the course of turning yourself in, the police -- or other legal body -- might be able to help determine whether you, in fact, broke the speed limit or not, or was just a matter of you going fast but within the speed limit) you actually ended up saving somebody's life, I dunno if I can automatically assume that (if you, in fact, broke the speed limit) no one in the legal field wouldn't be able to state that your speeding wasn't illegal by only being able to preface the argument with, "his speeding was illegal, but . . ."

You misinterpreted my quote. I said maybe the Cato Institute (a public policy think tank with a conservative bent) might go with what the administration said, but in the final matter the U.N. Security Council decides. If under the 3 factors I traced in the above posts don't pass muster, then it's illegal. The Security Council denied the U.S. on all three parts.

gregsan wrote:As far as the argument of LEGALITY that's been discussed in this thread...here is an article that gives several plausible arguments to why it was NOT illegal. One of the main arguments is that Sadam consistently fired at our planes in the "no fly zone" thus violating a truce from 1991. Now...it's clearly not the reasons given for the war (so please don't tell me that - I already know) but there's no law that states one must give the legal reasons for going to war before doing so...I'll let the reader decide on his/her own whether the legal arguments have merit or not...

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,135101,00.html

The two main arguments that article cites are:

1) The U.S. interprets the phrase "serious consequences" in Resolution 1441 allows the U.S. to attack. This is incorrect. Please read my discussion above on this issue.

2) The no fly zone violation returned America to a State of War with Iraq. This is also incorrect. Primarily, the no fly zones were never approved by the U.N. Secondly, even if a violation of the no fly zone occurred, it is not within the power of the United States to enforce it by entering Iraqi territory. It is the U.N.'s right, since the U.S. is acting under the U.N., and not as itself.

Here's a link about it:
http://www.theexperiment.org/articles.php?news_id=1890

As for your last statement, actually, one must give their reasons for going to war in this day and age unless it falls under "self-defense" or the very murky humanitarian armed conflict. It is explicitly stated in the U.N. Charter.

thetenken wrote:

As for your last statement, actually, one must give their reasons for going to war in this day and age unless it falls under "self-defense" or the very murky humanitarian armed conflict. It is explicitly stated in the U.N. Charter.

How is "self defense" defined?

gregsan wrote:How is "self defense" defined?

Article 51 of the UN charter:
http://www.nato.int/docu/basictxt/bt-un51.htm

"Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations..."

I have read it is also interpreted as "if an armed attack occurs or is about to occur".

But it seems to me that the Bush administration cannot reasonably claim Iraq was about to attack.

thetenken wrote:Good breakfast. Wish I had some.

We'll go there when you come down (what? You guys think I made that all at 5am in the morning? :hehe: ; but, don't worry, thetenken, we won't go THAT early, as you're on vacation).

Lunch time. Nothing; too full from breakfast.

thetenken wrote:You misinterpreted my quote. I said maybe the Cato Institute (a public policy think tank with a conservative bent) might go with what the administration said, but in the final matter the U.N. Security Council decides.

I understand completely, thanks to you, thetenken, that the U.N. Security Council -- complete with the U.S. and its veto :hehe: -- makes the final decision. I'm just saying there's room for argument (or has "room for argument" become illegal?).

And if there's room to mention "conservative" or "liberal" labels (which I certainly have not done), I gotta ask: am I to assume that those in the U.N. Security Council (other than the U.S.) did not have similar slants in denying the U.S.? The non-U.S. members of the UN Security Council didn't vote in a vacuum.

Also from the "just popped in from memory dept.": isn't the link between Saddam and terrorism the former's cash money payments to Hezbolla and Hamas homicide bombers and/or their families?

thetenken wrote: If I was in flagrant violation of the law, then what I did was illegal, no matter if I was ever prosecuted or not. If in your circumstance that I was driving my pregnant wife to the hospital and I was speeding, it would still be illegal.

Who, then, determines "flagrant violation"? Could that include the driver's supposition that s/he "must've been driving at least 70 mph" when in fact s/he was doing exactly 55 mph, but was unable to look at the speedometer at the time because there were more pressing matters OR just plain didn't bother to look at the speedometer? I specifically intended my circumstance as not solely limited to the situation of driving a pregnant wife to the hospital.

gregsan wrote:

I agree with you. BUT...there is a BIG difference between overall international opinion regarding the US and international opinion regarding who the US president should be. I would venture to guess that regardless of WHO was the US president, France, and many other countries, would NOT have good opinions of the US right now.

If they had their way...we'd be standing by not doing very much about anything...I think the war on terror, in any form, is a lose/lose situation "politically" for us with regards to many countries around the world ESPECIALLY liberal European countries who would rather see no wars of any kind regardless of what's going on in the world with terrorism or anything. The liberal European approach is (no french connection intended - though it fits nicely here) "laissez faire".

I think Americans need to come to grips with the reality that Europe is, by and large, NOT on our side regardless...and it's mostly for their own selfish reasons. If they don't support us...they think the terrorists will leave them alone and then it's really just OUR problem. Regardless of the fact that they are OBLIGATED to help under the NATO treaties that were signed after WWII. It's a different world where we live in now, and one where Europe is not willing to quid-pro-quo for the losses we endured mostly in fighting "their war".

Right :mrgreen: Nobody like french in the world :mrgreen: , I asked people why ?
3 main reason :
- we are too arogant ( yes ok :p we are arogant and proud to be french )
- our politic ( most of the time they don't know our politic )
- what we did in the past ( yes be did so bad thing in the past, fighting the english, and me didn't manage to make them driving on the right side of the road )


Then I will explain you why there is "Laissez faire" politic. It means that we let people doing what they want in their country... killing each other etc.
First always, the main reason is money. In france we are very poor, we need money :p
Then, in france there are millions of Arabic people, so attacking arabic people is bad seen.
Then Bush said, we need to attack Irak because of bacteriologic arms, and terrorism is in this country, Al caida is in this country. Less and less americans believe that it's true because he has no proof. But most of the americans follow his ideas .... Now when i hear bush, it make me laugh...
Then in Arabic country, you can't do anything against them, what do you want to do ? Bring democraty ? It's no use, these people are not educated, they prefer dying instead of seeing people trying to help them.

And when we think that attacking a country is a good thing, like in Afganistan, we were ready to help americans and the other countries. Our army is not so small, and we can do it.
In afganistan, it was different, because Bin Laden was in Afganistan, and it was important to caught him.

Except English, in Europe nobody can do what France do, because they don't have an army. Then for them it's "laissez faire".

Xavio wrote:

Then I will explain you why there is "Laissez faire" politic. It means that we let people doing what they want in their country... killing each other etc.

Fortunately for you French...we didn't have that same opinion for YOUR country during WW2. We didn't just stand by and say the Germans are killing the French? Ahh...who cares...it's none of our concern, let them do what they want.. Maybe we should have been more "laissez faire"?!

As I say every election year... :naughty:


:yell: VOTE THE MEADOW TICKET!!! :woot:


:yell: BILL & OPUS for Pres/VP! :say_yes:



Coming to you live and direct from Milo's Meadow, :wave:
PCM :crazy2: :hehe: :rofl:

gregsan wrote:Fortunately for you French...we didn't have that same opinion for YOUR country during WW2. We didn't just stand by and say the Germans are killing the French? Ahh...who cares...it's none of our concern, let them do what they want.. Maybe we should have been more "laissez faire"?!

Maybe Americans should be more thankful for the French, without whom we might not have won independence. Thank you France for Lafayette, Rochambeau, etc.

I don't understand why France should support our war in Iraq because we supported them in WWII. In my mind, they are completely different things.

I don't think Iraq presented a big or immediate danger to us a year and a half ago, and I think that events have shown that they weren't.

all eyes are on the middle east right now, but i think sooner or later, we'll (meaning the u.s) also have to start addressing the n. korea issue as well.