jax wrote:and btw, someone here must have seen farenhight 911 :hehe: i bet there are a lot of people who hate mike moore and that movie lol
Never seen it, and will never see it.
Never seen it, and will never see it.
Politics/Elections/World News
Started by pcmodem · 6 Oct 2004 · 1,480 replies
General Discussion
Never seen it, and will never see it.
ahochaude wrote:
Never seen it, and will never see it.
You should, man. Get a healthy mix of all sources.
OK, thetenken. Good to see you back on the board (prrffft, I should talk; but, all this work!!!!). I'm . . . working on a PM to you regarding . . . well, you'll see.
And, not picking on you because, I think it'll be clear that I looked at the previous posts in my following retort, but, as this IS a forum, I'll respond specifically to some of ya'll's things here:
thetenken wrote:
1. The war in Iraq is illegal in pretty much every way according to international law (trust me, I'm not saying the war is a "good" or "bad" thing, just that it was flat-out illegal under the current system. Look at the U.N. resolutions and customary international law/previous precedents).
OK, then, name names. WHO should be accused? C'mooooon, the UN, at the very least, must be interested in pointing a finger? No word for the "World Court"? Why isn't anyone being touted as a "war criminal" yet, and why do I get the feeling that nobody will; and I should add, "credibly, nobody will."
thetenken wrote:
2. There are 3-4 Supreme Court justices that have a high chance of retiring in the next 4-8 years. Justices Rehnquist, O'Connor, and Stevens almost for sure, and possibly Ginsburg. That's two conservatives, one moderate, and one liberal that would be leaving the Court. Pretty much the balance of power would shift depending on who got into office and what justices are appointed.
Look at who Former President George H.W. Bush, Sr. appointed; what are those justices' political affiliations.
thetenken wrote:
The U.S. has always had their hands in honeypots/cookiejars where they don't really belong.
You mean, especially when it comes to preventing attacks on the U.S. as well? Would it be justified if the U.S. went to war for college students' rights (if I'm not mistaken, there's something currently going on at Harvard regarding the military being allowed or disallowed on campus; and MY opinion -- considering the fact that we've had good men die over ANY U.S. student's right to learn -- is that the military SHOULD be allowed!)?
And, quite frankly, I'm seeing TOO much of this "U.S. in MidEast," "U.S. did this," "U.S. didn't do that," whatever. Tell you something . . .
The U.S. is an experiment in democracy; and as young as this nation is relative to other places, it's funny, yeah? How our citizens can criticize our leaders, policies, et al., freely (within the bounds of legality, and dare I say, good taste)? Maybe we ain't perfect, maybe this experiment can last only another 100 years (though, I personally think the U.S.'ll be here forever :D), but, for now (during this experiment) is it just my imagination or is it a great enough thing for folks from other countries to want to come here, get educated, make their riches. God knows there's enough room, enough LIBERTY in the U.S. to do all of this than in any other country, in the last 250 or so years.
The U.S. entrepeneurial spirit has allowed the realization of the computer we use every day, space travel, medical breakthroughs, microwaves, cars, things that folks, I think, take for granted when directing hate toward the U.S. Or were other countries or nations thousands of years older than the U.S. just on the brink of attaining the previous list before the U.S.'s creation? Yeah, right.
It's only when the U.S. is helping places hit by major disasters and when the U.S. is bringing medicines, building shelters, and offering food and aid that there's, even, any small semblance of "rah! Rah! U.S.A!" But when we're defending ourselves, oh, that's ALWAYS a problem. With as many checks and balances the U.S.A. has to undergo, it's a problem when we defend ourselves.
If the U.S. DIDN'T exist . . . would that mean there'd be no variation of the type of scandals previously cited on this board and elsewhere? No "weapons of mass destruction" (wasn't Roman fire one? How 'bout the catapult? Both which existed BEFORE the U.S.)? No wars????? C'mon . . . some of the bloodiest, vile, and deceitful situations in this planet's history happened WAY before the the framers of the U.S. Constitution were even born.
I am made in the U.S.A. and there's never been a single day in my life I've regretted living here. And there are millions just like me who know that our history ain't perfect and also know that we have the freedom to know and be able to find out that no other country's history ain't perfect either. I wonder if I need one or two hands to count how many other places have the same freedom.
Well said. :D :applaud:
The Man wrote:You should, man. Get a healthy mix of all sources.This will sound selfish and shallow, but I don't want to watch trash like that. :sweat:
Trash?! It's not just liberal propaganda like some would have you believe. In fact, most liberals don't want to have anything to do with him as then they would be seen as too liberal. There's actually a lot of facts in there that Moore had checked and checked again by editors and researchers. Granted he may have stretched the truth at some points just a little to fit his view, but this is just one opinion, not a documentary, so you shouldn't watch it like one. Just be open-minded and listen to one side of the story. I mean, we've had to listen to what Bush's had to say over and over to the point where we're brainwashed into believing everything he says. It's just good to hear what's on the opposite end of the spectrum sometimes. Unless you really only want a one-sided view of things.
And so what are you trying to say? That we as free citizens of the United States SHOULDN'T speak out against what we feel is wrong? Well, that obviously ain't going to work. The whole point is that we have the freedom to and SHOULD speak out against what's wrong. When something is wrong in the country, I feel it is your duty to speak out against it and to get other people involved and in the know of what's really going on. I think in ways that's more patriotic than not saying anything and just going with the flow especially when you KNOW something is wrong but no one will say it. The fact is, you're so patriotic and caring about your country that you have the guts to stand up and speak out against the injustices or wrongdoings and to make sure it's corrected. This is exactly what Fahrenheit 9/11 is, IMO. And apparently our country is too close-minded and only cares about what party they belong to to see anything for what it is. If it goes against their party, they'll just ignore it. Which is too bad since F9/11 is actually quite a well-done film and something everyone should see if not only for the fact that it's a political film. Of course, that's completely up to them. But I'm not going to pretend that this country is perfect and better than everyone else, because it's not. This country is far ahead of most countries, but not even close to being perfect.
And so what are you trying to say? That we as free citizens of the United States SHOULDN'T speak out against what we feel is wrong? Well, that obviously ain't going to work. The whole point is that we have the freedom to and SHOULD speak out against what's wrong. When something is wrong in the country, I feel it is your duty to speak out against it and to get other people involved and in the know of what's really going on. I think in ways that's more patriotic than not saying anything and just going with the flow especially when you KNOW something is wrong but no one will say it. The fact is, you're so patriotic and caring about your country that you have the guts to stand up and speak out against the injustices or wrongdoings and to make sure it's corrected. This is exactly what Fahrenheit 9/11 is, IMO. And apparently our country is too close-minded and only cares about what party they belong to to see anything for what it is. If it goes against their party, they'll just ignore it. Which is too bad since F9/11 is actually quite a well-done film and something everyone should see if not only for the fact that it's a political film. Of course, that's completely up to them. But I'm not going to pretend that this country is perfect and better than everyone else, because it's not. This country is far ahead of most countries, but not even close to being perfect.
Wait, this is Bush Sr. right? Or is it W?
Ah well, either way, I still wouldn't change my vote. :mrgreen:
Ah well, either way, I still wouldn't change my vote. :mrgreen:
did anyone realize that only 12 yrs seperates them? cheney looks old enough to be edwards dad!
ahochaude wrote:This will sound selfish and shallow, but I don't want to watch trash like that. :sweat:
There you have it.
Sorry, Aho.
niko2x wrote:did anyone realize that only 12 yrs seperates them? cheney looks old enough to be edwards dad!
That is incredible. Maybe all those years of swindling people make Cheney look older. :shakehead:
Doramafan113 wrote:That is incredible. Maybe all those years of swindling people make Cheney look older. :shakehead:
All that worrying about get busted, neh? :hehe:
I knew "The Man" would come and try to smack me down! :beatyou:
All jokes aside, here are some of my responses...
Is the situation you are referring to about military recruitment on campus? I think the issue is that the military still has no open gay rights policy, and therefore does not abide by a lot of college and university anti-discrimination policies. How does the military get around it? Well, Congress basically blackmails the states and universities into allowing military recruitment by denying federal funds in education to any school who does not allow the military to recruit on campus. Now I don't see this as a big deal (if you don't want to be recruited, then don't go), a lot of people do see it as a violation of sorts for equal protection and anti-discrimination policies.
I understand where you're coming from. It's important to protect ourselves. Self-defense is an inherent right of any country (even embodied in the U.N. Charter). I see myself as a patriot, and I do believe in the idea of America. As you say, the freedom of speech and press and other activities that we hold so dear as Americans make America one of the greatest places on Earth.
Yet, not to point out the problems with the system means that the problems won't ever be considered problems, and will pretty much fade away. Information is important, I think, especially important in a democratic system. Dissent is also important, because no one always makes the right decision.
I don't think it's that much of a problem to defend ourselves, but we should do it in the right way. I think internationally everyone agrees with the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan. But we have to consider why people don't agree with the invasion of Iraq. The right to self-defense under customary international law (and daresay, normal domestic law) is when there is an imminent or near imminent attack that allows for no deliberation. This is close to the same standard under criminal law, for personal defense. Now imagine what happens if you create precedent and new law that states pre-emptive and preliminary attacks are considered self-defense. This then creates new international law which permits ANY country from following this standard. Japan, who has been remilitarizing, may decide to attack North Korea because they are a potential threat, and vice versa. China may decide to invade Taiwan. Basically every country that has a beef with any other country now has, under the new international law standard of pre-emptive strike to attack any country they see as a potential threat. This also puts America smack into the radar of just about any nation, because as the world's only superpower, it is a big target. In fact, if the standard for pre-emptive strike had been approved by the Security Council, this would have allowed Iraq to strike against the U.S.!
The Man, not everyone who lists problems the U.S. is going through is trying to bring down the U.S. =) If problems can't be identified and addressed in a political and social context, then the Idea of America is definitely in trouble. Sure, the U.S. isn't the only nation that has problems. But to say the U.S. has NO problems or that we should avoid the problems of the U.S. because 'hey, nobody's perfect' or 'would just be irresponsible.
That's because the U.N. is no more and no less the mainfestation of the aggregate interests of its member nations. No one is going to prosecute the United States because of its position. The most that has been said is that Kofi Annan declared the war illegal. But what can they do against the United States, one of the permanent members of the Security Council that has an absolute veto?
Well, we have Souter and Thomas. Souter is a moderate, but was originally appointed because they believed he was a strict constructionalist conservative. His stance on the abortion issue shocked just about everyone. Souter has drifted further and further away from strict construction since he got on the court.
Thomas...what can I say about this guy. He's a freak. Read any of the opinions he's written. The guy is stuck in the 1800's. He's the most radically conservative of all justices on the court (way way way more than Scalia and Rehnquist). I guess they felt they needed to compensate after Souter.
Personally, I like Scalia's interpretation of the law, with bright line rules. Even if you don't agree with his point of view, he is a difficult to argue with and you'll at least see that he is at least consistent and logical in his views.
All jokes aside, here are some of my responses...
The Man wrote:
You mean, especially when it comes to preventing attacks on the U.S. as well? Would it be justified if the U.S. went to war for college students' rights (if I'm not mistaken, there's something currently going on at Harvard regarding the military being allowed or disallowed on campus; and MY opinion -- considering the fact that we've had good men die over ANY U.S. student's right to learn -- is that the military SHOULD be allowed!)?
Is the situation you are referring to about military recruitment on campus? I think the issue is that the military still has no open gay rights policy, and therefore does not abide by a lot of college and university anti-discrimination policies. How does the military get around it? Well, Congress basically blackmails the states and universities into allowing military recruitment by denying federal funds in education to any school who does not allow the military to recruit on campus. Now I don't see this as a big deal (if you don't want to be recruited, then don't go), a lot of people do see it as a violation of sorts for equal protection and anti-discrimination policies.
And, quite frankly, I'm seeing TOO much of this "U.S. in MidEast," "U.S. did this," "U.S. didn't do that," whatever. Tell you something . . .
The U.S. is an experiment in democracy; and as young as this nation is relative to other places, it's funny, yeah? How our citizens can criticize our leaders, policies, et al., freely (within the bounds of legality, and dare I say, good taste)? Maybe we ain't perfect, maybe this experiment can last only another 100 years (though, I personally think the U.S.'ll be here forever :D), but, for now (during this experiment) is it just my imagination or is it a great enough thing for folks from other countries to want to come here, get educated, make their riches. God knows there's enough room, enough LIBERTY in the U.S. to do all of this than in any other country, in the last 250 or so years.
The U.S. entrepeneurial spirit has allowed the realization of the computer we use every day, space travel, medical breakthroughs, microwaves, cars, things that folks, I think, take for granted when directing hate toward the U.S. Or were other countries or nations thousands of years older than the U.S. just on the brink of attaining the previous list before the U.S.'s creation? Yeah, right.
It's only when the U.S. is helping places hit by major disasters and when the U.S. is bringing medicines, building shelters, and offering food and aid that there's, even, any small semblance of "rah! Rah! U.S.A!" But when we're defending ourselves, oh, that's ALWAYS a problem. With as many checks and balances the U.S.A. has to undergo, it's a problem when we defend ourselves.
If the U.S. DIDN'T exist . . . would that mean there'd be no variation of the type of scandals previously cited on this board and elsewhere? No "weapons of mass destruction" (wasn't Roman fire one? How 'bout the catapult? Both which existed BEFORE the U.S.)? No wars????? C'mon . . . some of the bloodiest, vile, and deceitful situations in this planet's history happened WAY before the the framers of the U.S. Constitution were even born.
I am made in the U.S.A. and there's never been a single day in my life I've regretted living here. And there are millions just like me who know that our history ain't perfect and also know that we have the freedom to know and be able to find out that no other country's history ain't perfect either. I wonder if I need one or two hands to count how many other places have the same freedom.
I understand where you're coming from. It's important to protect ourselves. Self-defense is an inherent right of any country (even embodied in the U.N. Charter). I see myself as a patriot, and I do believe in the idea of America. As you say, the freedom of speech and press and other activities that we hold so dear as Americans make America one of the greatest places on Earth.
Yet, not to point out the problems with the system means that the problems won't ever be considered problems, and will pretty much fade away. Information is important, I think, especially important in a democratic system. Dissent is also important, because no one always makes the right decision.
I don't think it's that much of a problem to defend ourselves, but we should do it in the right way. I think internationally everyone agrees with the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan. But we have to consider why people don't agree with the invasion of Iraq. The right to self-defense under customary international law (and daresay, normal domestic law) is when there is an imminent or near imminent attack that allows for no deliberation. This is close to the same standard under criminal law, for personal defense. Now imagine what happens if you create precedent and new law that states pre-emptive and preliminary attacks are considered self-defense. This then creates new international law which permits ANY country from following this standard. Japan, who has been remilitarizing, may decide to attack North Korea because they are a potential threat, and vice versa. China may decide to invade Taiwan. Basically every country that has a beef with any other country now has, under the new international law standard of pre-emptive strike to attack any country they see as a potential threat. This also puts America smack into the radar of just about any nation, because as the world's only superpower, it is a big target. In fact, if the standard for pre-emptive strike had been approved by the Security Council, this would have allowed Iraq to strike against the U.S.!
The Man, not everyone who lists problems the U.S. is going through is trying to bring down the U.S. =) If problems can't be identified and addressed in a political and social context, then the Idea of America is definitely in trouble. Sure, the U.S. isn't the only nation that has problems. But to say the U.S. has NO problems or that we should avoid the problems of the U.S. because 'hey, nobody's perfect' or 'would just be irresponsible.
OK, then, name names. WHO should be accused? C'mooooon, the UN, at the very least, must be interested in pointing a finger? No word for the "World Court"? Why isn't anyone being touted as a "war criminal" yet, and why do I get the feeling that nobody will; and I should add, "credibly, nobody will."
That's because the U.N. is no more and no less the mainfestation of the aggregate interests of its member nations. No one is going to prosecute the United States because of its position. The most that has been said is that Kofi Annan declared the war illegal. But what can they do against the United States, one of the permanent members of the Security Council that has an absolute veto?
Look at who Former President George H.W. Bush, Sr. appointed; what are those justices' political affiliations.
Well, we have Souter and Thomas. Souter is a moderate, but was originally appointed because they believed he was a strict constructionalist conservative. His stance on the abortion issue shocked just about everyone. Souter has drifted further and further away from strict construction since he got on the court.
Thomas...what can I say about this guy. He's a freak. Read any of the opinions he's written. The guy is stuck in the 1800's. He's the most radically conservative of all justices on the court (way way way more than Scalia and Rehnquist). I guess they felt they needed to compensate after Souter.
Personally, I like Scalia's interpretation of the law, with bright line rules. Even if you don't agree with his point of view, he is a difficult to argue with and you'll at least see that he is at least consistent and logical in his views.
hatakekakashi081 wrote:Trash?! It's not just liberal propaganda like some would have you believe. In fact, most liberals don't want to have anything to do with him as then they would be seen as too liberal. There's actually a lot of facts in there that Moore had checked and checked again by editors and researchers. Granted he may have stretched the truth at some points just a little to fit his view, but this is just one opinion, not a documentary, so you shouldn't watch it like one. Just be open-minded and listen to one side of the story. I mean, we've had to listen to what Bush's had to say over and over to the point where we're brainwashed into believing everything he says. It's just good to hear what's on the opposite end of the spectrum sometimes. Unless you really only want a one-sided view of things.
And so what are you trying to say? That we as free citizens of the United States SHOULDN'T speak out against what we feel is wrong? Well, that obviously ain't going to work. The whole point is that we have the freedom to and SHOULD speak out against what's wrong. When something is wrong in the country, I feel it is your duty to speak out against it and to get other people involved and in the know of what's really going on. I think in ways that's more patriotic than not saying anything and just going with the flow especially when you KNOW something is wrong but no one will say it. The fact is, you're so patriotic and caring about your country that you have the guts to stand up and speak out against the injustices or wrongdoings and to make sure it's corrected. This is exactly what Fahrenheit 9/11 is, IMO. And apparently our country is too close-minded and only cares about what party they belong to to see anything for what it is. If it goes against their party, they'll just ignore it. Which is too bad since F9/11 is actually quite a well-done film and something everyone should see if not only for the fact that it's a political film. Of course, that's completely up to them. But I'm not going to pretend that this country is perfect and better than everyone else, because it's not. This country is far ahead of most countries, but not even close to being perfect.
Actually much of FahrenLIE 911 is NOT facts that were checked and re-checked but in fact deliberate mis-truths and false insinuations such as a FAKE newspaper headline shown near the beginning that in fact was NEVER published. Michael Moore made it up and the newspaper "credited" with the story has sued him.
You can read all about the lies and deception here:
http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm
niko2x wrote:did anyone realize that only 12 yrs seperates them? cheney looks old enough to be edwards dad!
Well, I think people have exaggerated just a bit. Edwards still isn't that young at about 52 or so, Cheney is just REALLY old. :hehe: Or unless Cheney was a dad at age 12, probably not though. I don't really think the age difference is that large though, they're both still old to me. People make such a big deal about it though.
Well then, they are a bit equal aren't they? Question: whose lies and deception have costed more for this country? Answer: pretty obvious. You can't use lies and deception when you're the leader of a country, there's just too much at stake. Apparently, our leader doesn't care enough about the country to not lie to us.
Aside from the fact that some of F9/11 has been bent towards Moore's viewpoint, a lot of it is still irrefutable fact. All the footage shown of Bush's moments right after the attack, and all other footage does not lie. Also, some other facts, such as the Bin Laden family being flown out of the country are true.
Sigh. From when I got to the office to now, friggin' meetings, meetings, meetings. See's candy, white cookie/chocolate filling oreos, and 12 oz's of black tea for mine breakfast for those of you keeping score (oh, wait, that's another thread).
Heh, smack you down, thetenken? No. Not really my style (if that's what's interpreted as the end result, yikes). Besides, you're on of my favorite non-famous geniuses. And don't put aside the jokes, include it, man!
OK, here we go (thread getting long, the matchups starting to look like wrasslin' poster already, bwhwhwaaha ;)), respectfully, of course, I got 'bout 5 mins' before my next meeting :bonk: :
Yikes. I did not deny this (especially the above bolded words); in fact, wasn't one of the first things I said was "The U.S. is an experiment in democracy"?
Ah, yes, I did :hehe: .
And I would HOPE folks'd understand that I -- and others -- do have a love for discourse and discussion in admitting that "The U.S. is an experiment in democracy." There is nothing more American than being able to question, have views, debate, openly and not be killed or tortured for it, and to have an infrastructure where if that kinda' vile act IS done, we have an infrastructure to combat it (or did I imagine, oh, say, "Hate crimes" laws in a dream or something). Democracy's a tough thing to achieve, but, the U.S. is the star pupil in making it work.
Q: when was the problem of folks spitting (both physically and figuratively) on soldiers coming back from Vietnam ever discussed in this democratic system in the means that you're implying? I don't think it ever was. Let's not forget to confront things like that in a democracy either.
Yes, and Saddam Hussein must've used about 8 of his "will not comply with the UN resolution FREE" cards until we had to go in and get 'em. Consider that Saddam Hussein also used chemical weapons on his own people. Consider that unless the Allied force invaded Iraq, Saddam Hussein woulda' been more "President-for-Life" than Castro. And ask the folks he tortured or killed, ask non-medalling Iraqi Olympic athletes he (well, mostly his sons) allegedly dragged through razor blades and dunked in human wastes if they appreciated Saddam's regime the way most of us enjoy a fine meal. I think there was not only evidence of "imminent or near imminent attack" against the U.S., but against the rest of the world as well, especially to the Middle East (or does anyone really think that Saddam would've stopped if he had succesfully invaded Kuwait? Sounds Hitlerian to me).
Deliberation was done and Saddam knew he was getting away with murder (indeed, "figuratively" and "physically," as we may confirm soon after his trial). He kept calling the free world's bluff, and kept getting comfortable; all he had to do was respond, no Republican Guard, no guns, no missiles on either side needed. He didn't even wanna do that (respond).
Maybe it's international law itself that needs to be beefed up; and, quite frankly, I'm JUUUUUUST waiting for that to happen along with "but, the United States will be prevented from such amendments." Uh-huh, you can just smell it.
And I can hope you're not advocating a lateral comparison between criminal law and the edicts (currently in existence and those that will inevitably need to be established) regarding the war on terror. Two very different things here. They HAVE to be.
Recently, you mean? Because I think we've ALWAYS been a target and we will continue to BE a target and it's because of the freedoms, liberties, moralities, and entrepeneurship (for starters) -- ironically enough -- that MAKE us a target. We've ALWAYS been in the radar. Being the democracy that we are has created that; does it mean we should be less of a democracy and cower in fear instead? No way.
Our freedoms make tyrannical countries nervous; I mean, the way tyranny's worked there is just fine. Why would they want their citizens to have access to information? In the U.S. there are checks and balances to take steps to impeach the highest office in the land; remember that.
Realistically, look . . . the whole world is watching. The mere impression (and that's all it is) is that there are invasions led by the U.S. a-plenty; the FACT is that there are regimes that have formally been given chances to comply with what the rest of world have reasonably and "checked-and-balanced" asked them to do but didn't (Saddam and his regime). And the few Stalinist-type regimes left on the planet are learning from this example; why do you think N. Korea's so wishy-washy 'bout their news releases 'bout their nuclear program (and by the way, remember that N. Korean train explosion? Gee, a lot of damage done for materials reserved for utility use, no?). Saddam and his regime had been allowed to comply through diplomatic means, without a shot never needing to be fired on either side.
To me, this is jumping the gun, and, you must agree too, yes, thetenken? The above being a supposition?
I think it's absotively unfair to call the invasion of Iraq a pre-emptive strike; it was done for good reason (see above, the whole part of "Saddam had plenny chances li'dat" portions) and, while I understand that questioning government is a hallmark of a representative republic, I trust that same government in handling this Iraq situation. I trust they're not warmongers about it.
It's not a a "pre-emptive strike." If you're saying that the invasion of Iraq's supposed to look like an aphrodisiac to countries with steam emitting from the orifices of their head, then, wouldn't the Chinese have invaded Taiwan by now? Wouldn't we be hearing some evidence of that mounting up? And let's not forget that Russian school tragedy in Belsan. President Putin basically gave the Russian version of "you're either with the [Chechnyan] terrorists or you're against us." And, yeah, good idea Japan, g'head, attack N. Korea by yourself; what's Japan gonna' do for an encore (if they're still around after an attack on N. Korea)? Replace the Prime Minister with Mini-Moni?
Part of the war on terrorism is finding out who are terrorizing the free nations. No pre-emptive strikes; where are they? The U.S. sure as heck know there are sneak attacks by the enemy.
I think folks have become comfortable with the "pre-emptive strike" phrase. Yeah, let's face it, we may need new new euphemisms (I'm not saying "spin") to apply with this war on terror if, for no other good reason, we're still in an early stages of this formal (long overdue, I'll admit that) war on terrorism. As much as the works of WWII-era authors Ernest Hemingway, Gertrude Stein, F. Scott Fitzgerald, Nathaniel West (heh, English degree here :) ) and many others seemed, quite actually, to indicate that no words can adequately describe the horrors of war, we may need means of communication with this war on terror.
I'm not discounting diplomacy at all.
Well, there's always China to lead the pack, followed by Lt. France, and by Ministers of Defense MidEast. C'mon. This war is supposedly illegal folks say, but, despite all this global hopping, despite all the evidence gathered by news agencies and intelligence organizations, despite the war all but existing in the homes of everyone on the planet, despite this supposed majority against the U.S.'s invasion of Iraq, there's apparently no one willing to put the ultimate feather in his or her cap and accuse or try the U.S. and/or its president for war crimes? Now the UN is in cahoots? That makes you sound more like Michael Moore than the genius that I know you are, thetenken.
Yes, the U.S. retains its absolute veto; does anything "absolute" preclude that the majority can't take steps to rectify that? Of course not. If there are so many nations against this war, why isn't a majority doing something about it? Are they 'fraidy fraid?
Here's my point: if the U.S. were or became SO wrong in their actions, you just know the rest of the planet would do something about it. We ain't THAT powerful; no single nation is. Maybe it should be insisted that we are the world's only superpower (which I must refute; China's a superpower . . . and while I'm at it, lemme add the up-and-coming European Union). And you know what? We're the only nation that's not only under a constant microscope but promote the allowances -- however intended or not -- to be inspected in such means.
This is still opinion.
My point though, is that -- and I blame the media for this -- there this faux conventional wisdom that the U.S. President is the SOLE word in appointing U.S. Supreme Court Justices when, quite frankly, participation from the legal profession in appointing justices range from the ABA all the way to the U.S. Senate.
I neglected to include "who did Reagan choose?" U.S. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.
OK, respond, if anybody like, I'm two mins late!
Heh, smack you down, thetenken? No. Not really my style (if that's what's interpreted as the end result, yikes). Besides, you're on of my favorite non-famous geniuses. And don't put aside the jokes, include it, man!
OK, here we go (thread getting long, the matchups starting to look like wrasslin' poster already, bwhwhwaaha ;)), respectfully, of course, I got 'bout 5 mins' before my next meeting :bonk: :
thetenken wrote:
Yet, not to point out the problems with the system means that the problems won't ever be considered problems, and will pretty much fade away. Information is important, I think, especially important in a democratic system. Dissent is also important, because no one always makes the right decision. [Emphasis mine.]
Yikes. I did not deny this (especially the above bolded words); in fact, wasn't one of the first things I said was "The U.S. is an experiment in democracy"?
The Man wrote:
The U.S. is an experiment in democracy; and as young . . .
Ah, yes, I did :hehe: .
And I would HOPE folks'd understand that I -- and others -- do have a love for discourse and discussion in admitting that "The U.S. is an experiment in democracy." There is nothing more American than being able to question, have views, debate, openly and not be killed or tortured for it, and to have an infrastructure where if that kinda' vile act IS done, we have an infrastructure to combat it (or did I imagine, oh, say, "Hate crimes" laws in a dream or something). Democracy's a tough thing to achieve, but, the U.S. is the star pupil in making it work.
Q: when was the problem of folks spitting (both physically and figuratively) on soldiers coming back from Vietnam ever discussed in this democratic system in the means that you're implying? I don't think it ever was. Let's not forget to confront things like that in a democracy either.
thetenken wrote: The right to self-defense under customary international law (and daresay, normal domestic law) is when there is an imminent or near imminent attack that allows for no deliberation . . . This is close to the same standard under criminal law, for personal defense.
Yes, and Saddam Hussein must've used about 8 of his "will not comply with the UN resolution FREE" cards until we had to go in and get 'em. Consider that Saddam Hussein also used chemical weapons on his own people. Consider that unless the Allied force invaded Iraq, Saddam Hussein woulda' been more "President-for-Life" than Castro. And ask the folks he tortured or killed, ask non-medalling Iraqi Olympic athletes he (well, mostly his sons) allegedly dragged through razor blades and dunked in human wastes if they appreciated Saddam's regime the way most of us enjoy a fine meal. I think there was not only evidence of "imminent or near imminent attack" against the U.S., but against the rest of the world as well, especially to the Middle East (or does anyone really think that Saddam would've stopped if he had succesfully invaded Kuwait? Sounds Hitlerian to me).
Deliberation was done and Saddam knew he was getting away with murder (indeed, "figuratively" and "physically," as we may confirm soon after his trial). He kept calling the free world's bluff, and kept getting comfortable; all he had to do was respond, no Republican Guard, no guns, no missiles on either side needed. He didn't even wanna do that (respond).
Maybe it's international law itself that needs to be beefed up; and, quite frankly, I'm JUUUUUUST waiting for that to happen along with "but, the United States will be prevented from such amendments." Uh-huh, you can just smell it.
And I can hope you're not advocating a lateral comparison between criminal law and the edicts (currently in existence and those that will inevitably need to be established) regarding the war on terror. Two very different things here. They HAVE to be.
thetenken wrote: This also puts America smack into the radar of just about any nation, because as the world's only superpower, it is a big target.
Recently, you mean? Because I think we've ALWAYS been a target and we will continue to BE a target and it's because of the freedoms, liberties, moralities, and entrepeneurship (for starters) -- ironically enough -- that MAKE us a target. We've ALWAYS been in the radar. Being the democracy that we are has created that; does it mean we should be less of a democracy and cower in fear instead? No way.
Our freedoms make tyrannical countries nervous; I mean, the way tyranny's worked there is just fine. Why would they want their citizens to have access to information? In the U.S. there are checks and balances to take steps to impeach the highest office in the land; remember that.
Realistically, look . . . the whole world is watching. The mere impression (and that's all it is) is that there are invasions led by the U.S. a-plenty; the FACT is that there are regimes that have formally been given chances to comply with what the rest of world have reasonably and "checked-and-balanced" asked them to do but didn't (Saddam and his regime). And the few Stalinist-type regimes left on the planet are learning from this example; why do you think N. Korea's so wishy-washy 'bout their news releases 'bout their nuclear program (and by the way, remember that N. Korean train explosion? Gee, a lot of damage done for materials reserved for utility use, no?). Saddam and his regime had been allowed to comply through diplomatic means, without a shot never needing to be fired on either side.
thetenken wrote:Now imagine what happens if you create precedent and new law that states pre-emptive and preliminary attacks are considered self-defense. This then creates new international law which permits ANY country from following this standard. Japan, who has been remilitarizing, may decide to attack North Korea because they are a potential threat, and vice versa.
To me, this is jumping the gun, and, you must agree too, yes, thetenken? The above being a supposition?
I think it's absotively unfair to call the invasion of Iraq a pre-emptive strike; it was done for good reason (see above, the whole part of "Saddam had plenny chances li'dat" portions) and, while I understand that questioning government is a hallmark of a representative republic, I trust that same government in handling this Iraq situation. I trust they're not warmongers about it.
It's not a a "pre-emptive strike." If you're saying that the invasion of Iraq's supposed to look like an aphrodisiac to countries with steam emitting from the orifices of their head, then, wouldn't the Chinese have invaded Taiwan by now? Wouldn't we be hearing some evidence of that mounting up? And let's not forget that Russian school tragedy in Belsan. President Putin basically gave the Russian version of "you're either with the [Chechnyan] terrorists or you're against us." And, yeah, good idea Japan, g'head, attack N. Korea by yourself; what's Japan gonna' do for an encore (if they're still around after an attack on N. Korea)? Replace the Prime Minister with Mini-Moni?
Part of the war on terrorism is finding out who are terrorizing the free nations. No pre-emptive strikes; where are they? The U.S. sure as heck know there are sneak attacks by the enemy.
I think folks have become comfortable with the "pre-emptive strike" phrase. Yeah, let's face it, we may need new new euphemisms (I'm not saying "spin") to apply with this war on terror if, for no other good reason, we're still in an early stages of this formal (long overdue, I'll admit that) war on terrorism. As much as the works of WWII-era authors Ernest Hemingway, Gertrude Stein, F. Scott Fitzgerald, Nathaniel West (heh, English degree here :) ) and many others seemed, quite actually, to indicate that no words can adequately describe the horrors of war, we may need means of communication with this war on terror.
I'm not discounting diplomacy at all.
thetenken wrote: That's because the U.N. is no more and no less the mainfestation of the aggregate interests of its member nations. No one is going to prosecute the United States because of its position. The most that has been said is that Kofi Annan declared the war illegal. But what can they do against the United States, one of the permanent members of the Security Council that has an absolute veto?
Well, there's always China to lead the pack, followed by Lt. France, and by Ministers of Defense MidEast. C'mon. This war is supposedly illegal folks say, but, despite all this global hopping, despite all the evidence gathered by news agencies and intelligence organizations, despite the war all but existing in the homes of everyone on the planet, despite this supposed majority against the U.S.'s invasion of Iraq, there's apparently no one willing to put the ultimate feather in his or her cap and accuse or try the U.S. and/or its president for war crimes? Now the UN is in cahoots? That makes you sound more like Michael Moore than the genius that I know you are, thetenken.
Yes, the U.S. retains its absolute veto; does anything "absolute" preclude that the majority can't take steps to rectify that? Of course not. If there are so many nations against this war, why isn't a majority doing something about it? Are they 'fraidy fraid?
Here's my point: if the U.S. were or became SO wrong in their actions, you just know the rest of the planet would do something about it. We ain't THAT powerful; no single nation is. Maybe it should be insisted that we are the world's only superpower (which I must refute; China's a superpower . . . and while I'm at it, lemme add the up-and-coming European Union). And you know what? We're the only nation that's not only under a constant microscope but promote the allowances -- however intended or not -- to be inspected in such means.
thetenken wrote:Well, we have Souter and Thomas. Souter is a moderate, but was originally appointed because they believed he was a strict constructionalist conservative. His stance on the abortion issue shocked just about everyone. Souter has drifted further and further away from strict construction since he got on the court.
Thomas...what can I say about this guy. He's a freak. Read any of the opinions he's written. The guy is stuck in the 1800's. He's the most radically conservative of all justices on the court (way way way more than Scalia and Rehnquist). I guess they felt they needed to compensate after Souter.
Personally, I like Scalia's interpretation of the law, with bright line rules. Even if you don't agree with his point of view, he is a difficult to argue with and you'll at least see that he is at least consistent and logical in his views.
This is still opinion.
My point though, is that -- and I blame the media for this -- there this faux conventional wisdom that the U.S. President is the SOLE word in appointing U.S. Supreme Court Justices when, quite frankly, participation from the legal profession in appointing justices range from the ABA all the way to the U.S. Senate.
I neglected to include "who did Reagan choose?" U.S. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.
OK, respond, if anybody like, I'm two mins late!
vibius wrote:
That's not an accurate characterization of what I was trying to imply.
Earlier in the thread, gregsan said he believed that Clinton was to blame for the current terrorism we are facing, and I was just trying to illustrate that if you are going to blame previous administrations, you shouldn't stop at just the one prior. I think the belief that Bin Laden did get some CIA support (direct or indirect) under Reagan is pretty widespread, so it seems reasonable to me that if Clinton is to be blamed, then we ought to also examine how Reagan "contributed" to the current state of affairs.
That's cool. I just wanted to squash a myth that's become to common.
Michael Moore is a propagandist, and a poor one at that. As for him checking facts, you need only look at his claim that Bush allowed the Bin Laden family to leave the US during the no-fly time. On the same page of his book, he quotes his source which gives the date of the flight AFTER flights were resumed. Great fact checking, huh? Or his repeated claim that the US gave millions to the Taliban when it was to NGO's. After repeating it and raising the amount several times, he finally admitted it went to NGO's. Great fact checking, huh? It goes on and on. Combine that with deceitful editing and doctoring, you get his "great" films. I refuse to watch or read his trash because they are exactly that. I already know what it'll say because of who he is and what he does.
hatakekakashi081 wrote:Trash?! It's not just liberal propaganda like some would have you believe. In fact, most liberals don't want to have anything to do with him as then they would be seen as too liberal. There's actually a lot of facts in there that Moore had checked and checked again by editors and researchers. Granted he may have stretched the truth at some points just a little to fit his view, but this is just one opinion, not a documentary, so you shouldn't watch it like one. Just be open-minded and listen to one side of the story. I mean, we've had to listen to what Bush's had to say over and over to the point where we're brainwashed into believing everything he says. It's just good to hear what's on the opposite end of the spectrum sometimes. Unless you really only want a one-sided view of things.
So you're telling me to watch something I don't want to?
IMO it's trash. Plain and simple. I won't watch it.
hatakekakashi081 wrote:And so what are you trying to say? That we as free citizens of the United States SHOULDN'T speak out against what we feel is wrong? Well, that obviously ain't going to work.You got your cookies mixed up because I was only speaking on behalf of myself. I'm not trying to say anything. I just don't want to watch it. I couldn't care less if people spoke up and voiced their opinions. Only thing is that if I am not feeling it, why would I watch it?
hatakekakashi081 wrote:The whole point is that we have the freedom to and SHOULD speak out against what's wrong. When something is wrong in the country, I feel it is your duty to speak out against it and to get other people involved and in the know of what's really going on. I think in ways that's more patriotic than not saying anything and just going with the flow especially when you KNOW something is wrong but no one will say it. The fact is, you're so patriotic and caring about your country that you have the guts to stand up and speak out against the injustices or wrongdoings and to make sure it's corrected. This is exactly what Fahrenheit 9/11 is, IMO. And apparently our country is too close-minded and only cares about what party they belong to to see anything for what it is. If it goes against their party, they'll just ignore it. Which is too bad since F9/11 is actually quite a well-done film and something everyone should see if not only for the fact that it's a political film. Of course, that's completely up to them. But I'm not going to pretend that this country is perfect and better than everyone else, because it's not.
Nice post. I didn't expect to get something like this just for telling someone I didn't want to watch something. Would I have gotten something like this if I said I didn't want to watch ET?!
Jeez, and I wasn't even trying to start anything either. Just responded to The Man and I got a whole bunch of drivel. :rolleyes:
hatakekakashi081 wrote:This country is far ahead of most countries, but not even close to being perfect.Nothing is ever perfect.
aho wrote:This will sound selfish and shallow, but I don't want to watch trash like that
bmwracer wrote:There you have it.
What do you mean? I knowingly admitted it from the beginning.
So I had it all along. :nut:
bmwracer wrote:Sorry, Aho
For what? No apologies necessary. :)
woah man, you americans are pretty passionate about this..
i was wondering, does nz have that freedom of speech thing like usa? i was wondering, and remeber i know nothing about politics, and how many countries are 'free' like america?
sorry for my stupidity lol, i gotta learn sometime though
i was wondering, does nz have that freedom of speech thing like usa? i was wondering, and remeber i know nothing about politics, and how many countries are 'free' like america?
sorry for my stupidity lol, i gotta learn sometime though
jax wrote:woah man, you americans are pretty passionate about this..
Politics is a nasty topic. You lose friends and/or make enemies.
i was wondering, does nz have that freedom of speech thing like usa? i was wondering, and remeber i know nothing about politics, and how many countries are 'free' like america?
Sure we do, more or less.
Read the next post.
The Man wrote:Sigh. From when I got to the office to now, friggin' meetings, meetings, meetings. See's candy, white cookie/chocolate filling oreos, and 12 oz's of black tea for mine breakfast for those of you keeping score (oh, wait, that's another thread).
The Man, you're eating like a king!
Heh, smack you down, thetenken? No. Not really my style (if that's what's interpreted as the end result, yikes). Besides, you're on of my favorite non-famous geniuses. And don't put aside the jokes, include it, man!
Hehe, when I say "The Man" smacks me down, it was an (oblique) reference to this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Man
Thank you for your kind words. (Reminds me of Cheney at the VP debate. Let's hope this debate doesn't get as nasty, hah!)
Yikes. I did not deny this (especially the above bolded words); in fact, wasn't one of the first things I said was "The U.S. is an experiment in democracy"?
Indeed you did not. Though the intent I got from your previous post was that you love your country and we should do the same, even with all its flaws. That was the impression I got. My intent in previous post was only to say, "Look, we can love our countries by pointing out its flaws in hopes that it will improve." Not to put you in with this group, but I remember early after September 11th there were those who criticized the U.S. PATRIOT Act and were called traitors and asked rhetorical questions like "Do you want to help the U.S.?" and "Are you with us or against us?" Those groups are still out there.
I guess I just got a wrong impression of your previous post. My apologies.
Q: when was the problem of folks spitting (both physically and figuratively) on soldiers coming back from Vietnam ever discussed in this democratic system in the means that you're implying? I don't think it ever was. Let's not forget to confront things like that in a democracy either.
Vietnam wasn't our greatest triumph, both as a war and also as a people. For those who spat on soldiers, I have nothing but contempt for. They had no choice but to go, they were fighting a war for the country, no matter the administration. I think several films have addressed this issue, and I don't think anyone would condone it now.
Yes, and Saddam Hussein must've used about 8 of his "will not comply with the UN resolution FREE" cards until we had to go in and get 'em. Consider that Saddam Hussein also used chemical weapons on his own people. Consider that unless the Allied force invaded Iraq, Saddam Hussein woulda' been more "President-for-Life" than Castro. And ask the folks he tortured or killed, ask non-medalling Iraqi Olympic athletes he (well, mostly his sons) allegedly dragged through razor blades and dunked in human wastes if they appreciated Saddam's regime the way most of us enjoy a fine meal. I think there was not only evidence of "imminent or near imminent attack" against the U.S., but against the rest of the world as well, especially to the Middle East (or does anyone really think that Saddam would've stopped if he had succesfully invaded Kuwait? Sounds Hitlerian to me).
Deliberation was done and Saddam knew he was getting away with murder (indeed, "figuratively" and "physically," as we may confirm soon after his trial). He kept calling the free world's bluff, and kept getting comfortable; all he had to do was respond, no Republican Guard, no guns, no missiles on either side needed. He didn't even wanna do that (respond).
Maybe it's international law itself that needs to be beefed up; and, quite frankly, I'm JUUUUUUST waiting for that to happen along with "but, the United States will be prevented from such amendments." Uh-huh, you can just smell it.
And I can hope you're not advocating a lateral comparison between criminal law and the edicts (currently in existence and those that will inevitably need to be established) regarding the war on terror. Two very different things here. They HAVE to be.
Nope, not a lateral comparison. Just pointing out that the standards are the same, so one can compare when one thinks of imminency.
Here is where I probably disagree with you most. Maybe because I'm in law school and all, I'm trained to have a fundamental belief that the law should work most of the time. Maybe not 100% of the time, but most of the time. And if the law doesn't work? One shouldn't break them, one should change them. And if one needs to break them? Then one needs to be ready to accept the consequences.
The U.S. used the following three reasons for why they wished to invade Iraq:
1) Self-defense (U.N. Charter Article 51)
2) Violating U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441
3) Humanitarian intervention
As I said before, self-defense has a legal requirement established in the Caroline case. (Here's a link with a pro-preemptive strike bent, but has the wording of the Caroline case down pat: http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_12_54/ai_87130362
)
To me, this is jumping the gun, and, you must agree too, yes, thetenken? The above being a supposition?
I think it's absotively unfair to call the invasion of Iraq a pre-emptive strike; it was done for good reason (see above, the whole part of "Saddam had plenny chances li'dat" portions) and, while I understand that questioning government is a hallmark of a representative republic, I trust that same government in handling this Iraq situation. I trust they're not warmongers about it.
It's not a a "pre-emptive strike." If you're saying that the invasion of Iraq's supposed to look like an aphrodisiac to countries with steam emitting from the orifices of their head, then, wouldn't the Chinese have invaded Taiwan by now? Wouldn't we be hearing some evidence of that mounting up? And let's not forget that Russian school tragedy in Belsan. President Putin basically gave the Russian version of "you're either with the [Chechnyan] terrorists or you're against us." And, yeah, good idea Japan, g'head, attack N. Korea by yourself; what's Japan gonna' do for an encore (if they're still around after an attack on N. Korea)? Replace the Prime Minister with Mini-Moni?
Part of the war on terrorism is finding out who are terrorizing the free nations. No pre-emptive strikes; where are they? The U.S. sure as heck know there are sneak attacks by the enemy.
I think folks have become comfortable with the "pre-emptive strike" phrase. Yeah, let's face it, we may need new new euphemisms (I'm not saying "spin") to apply with this war on terror if, for no other good reason, we're still in an early stages of this formal (long overdue, I'll admit that) war on terrorism. As much as the works of WWII-era authors Ernest Hemingway, Gertrude Stein, F. Scott Fitzgerald, Nathaniel West (heh, English degree here icon_smile.gif ) and many others seemed, quite actually, to indicate that no words can adequately describe the horrors of war, we may need means of communication with this war on terror.
I'm not discounting diplomacy at all.
Unfortunately, the term pre-emptive strike is exactly the term used, regardless of affiliation. Or if you wish, anticipatory/preliminary strike. It isn't about eupehmisms, but legal terms. The language is out of the Caroline case and other sources of international law.
As for the Japan and North Korea situation, I don't believe I'm jumping the gun at all. It is the exact wording that the Japanese defense minister used:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/2757923.stm
Like I said before, the problem isn't with trusting the good ole United States of America. The problem is that if you create the international precedent, then ANY nation may use it as a justification to strike just about anywhere. Although you may trust the U.S. government, are you ready to trust every government out there? That is the danger I speak of.
But the U.N. said no. "We do not accept the U.S. justifications for a preemptive strike." The Security Council did not provide the go-ahead the United States needed to pursue a legal war. Hence they went in with only a handful of states and therefore the Secretary-General Kofi Annan declared the war illegal. So there was no precedent created, and nations can't use it as a justification to attack others.
As for when you say it wasn't a pre-emptive strike, I'd have to disagree with you 100%. The United States government used the term, because under current international law the right to self-defense requires action to be taken because the threat is "instant, overwhelming, and leav[es] no choice of means and no moment for deliberation."
The threat was not instant: Iraq has no chosen targets. There was no mobilization of forces. We had no direct links between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. There was no information that an attack was 'imminent.'
The threat was no overwhelming: Iraq has no real military left to speak of that can in any way rival the United States. The threat of Iraq was not breathing down our neck in an overwhelming manner.
The threat did not leave "no choice of means and no moment of deliberation": The fact that the United States waited as long as it did before it attacked Iraq was a good example of this. Plenty of time to write petitions to the U.N., plenty of time to talk. George Bush Jr. talked of Iraq in 2001, then announced that we wanted to invade in 2002, and finally did in March 2003. Is a threat counted in years considered imminent? Petitioning the U.S. considered "no choice of means and no moment of deliberation"?
So in all respects, I disagree with your opinion that it was unfair to call our attack on Iraq a pre-emptive strike. It is the legal term used, rather than the idea that we gave them no warning.
As for the other points you gave...
Those were unrelated to the claim of self-defense used by the United States. There were three reasons the U.N. gave, and they all fall or stand on their own (in a legal sense). Even if the U.S.'s self-defense claim didn't work, if one of the other claims passed muster then it could attack Iraq legally in the eyes of the world. Unfortunately, the U.N. Security Council did not agree with the U.S. (this could be because of partisan politics or just the way the Security Council is structured, but that's a different story).
The U.S.'s claim that it was merely enforcing U.N. policy fails on the primary reason that it is not up to the U.S. to enforce U.N. anything. It has no permission to do so, unless expressly granted by the U.N. Security Council. In fact, U.N. Resolution 1441 described what the next step should be if Iraq didn't comply with the U.N. weapons inspectors. It merely called for another meeting of the Security Council to decide the next course! In the same way that America has no legal responsibility or legal authority to say, enforce the policies of Mainland China, it has no such authority to enforce the U.N. Security Council's policies unilaterally.
The last reason the U.S. gave to invade Iraq was for humanitarian intervention purposes. Currently there is no real legal standard that describes its use, and nothing is mentioned in any treaty or in the U.N. Charter. It is the only possible argument that the U.S. can kind of fall back on, and because of its weak legal footing, they needed the other two arguments.
This is my legal analysis, and so I didn't really put in any other questions concerning the Iraq War.
Well, there's always China to lead the pack, followed by Lt. France, and by Ministers of Defense MidEast. C'mon. This war is supposedly illegal folks say, but, despite all this global hopping, despite all the evidence gathered by news agencies and intelligence organizations, despite the war all but existing in the homes of everyone on the planet, despite this supposed majority against the U.S.'s invasion of Iraq, there's apparently no one willing to put the ultimate feather in his or her cap and accuse or try the U.S. and/or its president for war crimes? Now the UN is in cahoots? That makes you sound more like Michael Moore than the genius that I know you are, thetenken.
Yes, the U.S. retains its absolute veto; does anything "absolute" preclude that the majority can't take steps to rectify that? Of course not. If there are so many nations against this war, why isn't a majority doing something about it? Are they 'fraidy fraid?
Here's my point: if the U.S. were or became SO wrong in their actions, you just know the rest of the planet would do something about it. We ain't THAT powerful; no single nation is. Maybe it should be insisted that we are the world's only superpower (which I must refute; China's a superpower . . . and while I'm at it, lemme add the up-and-coming European Union). And you know what? We're the only nation that's not only under a constant microscope but promote the allowances -- however intended or not -- to be inspected in such means.
To say China is a superpower on par with the United States is, I dunno, not acknowledging the leading force of the United States on the stage of world and international politics. China is an up-and-comer, but doesn't have the military, weapons, political clout, and dominance in the legal tradition that the United States has. China isn't even considered a First World nation yet, it's stilled considered one of the developing world. The European Union is also currently mostly an economic organization, which has ambitions of becoming a lot more. The EU has no military power nor is there any delegation of military power by its member states to protect its interests. In that way, it is a long way to go from the United States.
The United States is one tough son of a gun. :applaud: It is indeed the sole superpower in the world. In fact, there are those who have even created a new term for the United States' status after the Cold War: Hyperpower.
To call out the Hyperpower is to bring you under the Hyperpower's lenses. Although there has been criticism of American involvement all around the world, no one is willing to just come out and bring the wrath of the United States on you.
As for the absolute veto, well, the United States can veto any Security Council resolution. Any permanent member can. The United States also has allies which would make it so that resolutions don't pass in the General Assembly, either. To not recognize the dominance the United States has on the world scale and equate it to any other country would be to ignore and disregard the way the world has been the last 15+ years.
Not necessarily the U.N. is in cahoots with the United States, just recognizing that the U.N. is nothing more than the manifestation of the aggregate interests of its member nations. If the United States bloc (U.S., U.K., et al.) wishes to go one way, it is difficult to block them. With the way the U.N. is currently set up, it is very easy to veto things, but not that easy to discipline states (especially the permanent members). That is just the unfortunate reality of the U.N. The world just isn't ready for a truly assertive and powerful global government. That'll only happen when aliens invade, or something. :hehe:
My point though, is that -- and I blame the media for this -- there this faux conventional wisdom that the U.S. President is the SOLE word in appointing U.S. Supreme Court Justices when, quite frankly, participation from the legal profession in appointing justices range from the ABA all the way to the U.S. Senate.
I neglected to include "who did Reagan choose?" U.S. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.
True, but with plenty of qualified candidates out there for the Supreme Court, the President determines the names on the ballot. "As of 2004, 148 people have been officially nominated to the US Supreme Court. The Senate has rejected twelve, taken no action on five and postponed votes on three. The President has withdrawn his nominee on six times. Seven others have declined the nomination." - from Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defeated_nominees_to_the_U.S._Supreme_Court
Looking forward to your response.
jax wrote:woah man, you americans are pretty passionate about this..
i was wondering, does nz have that freedom of speech thing like usa? i was wondering, and remeber i know nothing about politics, and how many countries are 'free' like america?
sorry for my stupidity lol, i gotta learn sometime though
Here you go:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_New_Zealand
New Zealand has no express constitution. As a former colony of the United Kingdom, it does use British common law. Therefore certain rights from the Magna Carta and other rights decided as fundamental rights descended from England are probably included. Though you have no constitutional right to freedom of speech, I'm sure one can argue that such a right exists under common law. New Zealand may have also passed other laws.
Replying needs an account. Registration opens soon.