Commissar

Prove that those are the only calls they're listening in on. We have a system of checks and balances in this country for a reason. You're really comfortable taking their word on it? What if it wasn't a conservative executive in the Oval Office? Would you be so calm with forfeiting your rights to the discretion of the president then? If you're innocent, you shouldn't worry if your rights are being violated. Please tell me you didn't just make that argument.

What was that about shutting the f up about things you don't understand and let the grown-ups talk? Hans Blix, chief of UNMOVIC (UN weapons inspectors), and his team did thorough investigations of Iraq before the war and found nothing that would warrant a war, something which his report clearly stated. But the Bush administration was so war horny that they ridiculed Hans and UNMOVIC and started the war anyhow. The only thing "everyone else in the world" knows is that Bush & Co. was wrong. There were no WMD's and Blix was right. You clearly only get your biased information from US news agencies. Stop watching FOX and search the net for some real news for once. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Have you just never read any of my politics-related posts prior to this weekend or something? Everytime you suggest that I'm a right-wing hack you look rather ridiculous. Why did we need inspections in the first place? Those were UN inspections, of course, so let's analyze that for a moment. Could that mean that there was a distinct possibility that Iraq had banned weapons? Now, to get the UN to do anything, you have to have universal consensus, and consequently, we can safely assume that the rest of the world did indeed think it probable that Iraq had 'em. Intelligence agencies the world over - including European ones - were pretty damn sure. Hans Blix himself complained about the Iraqis playing cat and mouse games with him throughout the inspection process. I personally think they dumped what they had, and I'm not even sure that Saddam Hussein himself knew precisely what he had in his country. I don't buy the argument that they had to have been moved to another country. How many times do I have to say it? When I thought they had banned weapons, I was in favor of an invasion. When I found out our intelligence was crap, I changed my mind. I voted for Kerry in '04, and I never voluntarily watch Fox News. But hey, if you can't come up with anything beyond, "You don't know what you're talking about because you're obviously a neocon!" then I guess we're at our endgame.

I have heard that about Syriana. A few friends of mine (who I consider intelligent) saw the film and had no idea what the hell was going on. The Plain Dealer review corroborated that sentiment. Now, I enjoy the odd documentary and the occasional "important issues" film (Traffic comes to mind), and I don't want a director to hammer me over the head with the plot, but I do like to be able to follow the movie without an outline and index cards. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Well, considering there's not a scene in the movie that's longer than thirty seconds, that's unfortunately precisely what you get: no clue as to what's going on until the last twenty minutes or so. And when everything falls into place, it's an amazingly pedestrian plot. Not worth all of the jump cuts and mystery.

That's fantastic. It's flawed and wrong, but fantastic. It also doesn't address the question of the thread; the military. History doesn't have an ebb nor a flow, it doesn't have shifting patterns, it doesn't have any of that stuff: history is history. A society is doomed only when it loses the ability to perpetuate itself, which is not in any way inevitable. Even granting your premise for the briefest of moments, however, it still doesn't change the fact that the one thing that could never possibly even be seen as ebbing nor flowing is warfare. It's a constant throughout all of known history, and there's a reason for that.

Saw Syriana last night. It's crap, which is a shame, because I like Clooney and I like the subject matter.

And that's fine. I can certainly agree that there are certain conditions that go along with international loans. Try and get an open, no-strings-attached loan from a bank. You give people money, there are certain things they give you in return. Last I checked, we weren't forcing them to accept our cash.

I, uh...I didn't say that. In fact, I said the exact opposite.

And last I checked, the Iraq war wasn't about economics, but national security. Turned out that was one hell of a crap premise. And they'd be doing just fine, by the same standards, if Western imperialism had never taken place at all. But you know what? People want plasma screen TVs and cellular phones. They want air conditioning and clean water. Bushmen were comparable with everyone else at the end of the stone age, but some societies advanced. Others didn't. The societies that didn't, they want to advance. You really want to argue that the Belgians going into the Congo in the 15th century ended up being responsible for the crappy status of certain parts of the world, go for it. But it brings up an interesting point, since we're in a military thread: a society should be capable of defending itself. You want to rely on universal goodwill, you're more than welcome to. Smart money's on making sure you can compete. No. Third worlds are poor today because they lacked the capacity to advance. Your argument is basically like suggesting the Soviet Union failed and imploded only when measured against the lack of failure or implosion on the part of the United States. It's like suggesting that Business A, which recently went bankrupt, is only a failure when compared with Business B, which registered record profits last quarter. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the United States didn't start out fabulously wealthy. It is now. Unless we just happen to be the example that proves the rule? Capitalism favors those who can adapt and survive, much like evolution and life in general. I am completely all for assisting nations, groups, and individuals that find themselves in unfortunate circumstances - I tend to vote Democrat, after all - but at the same time, it's important to realize that such assistance is dependent wholly on the good mood of the benefactor. They're in no way obligated to assist simply because the other guy can't keep up.

uh, the chief justice presides over the trial, but he is in no way "in charge" of any impeachment process. if congress wants to bring the articles and pass them to the senate (an impeachment), it will, regardless of what the chief thinks. also, bush had "his own" chief justice before he got to pick a new one anyway so it's not a real issue. regardless of whether you like bush or not, there's no real grounds for any sort of impeachment. he's committed no real "high crimes and misdemeanors" that can be effectively put forth in articles of impeachment. and remember, gripe all you want about the intelligence, but the guy in charge at the time was clinton's man (tenet was appointed during the clinton administration in 1997), a long time democrat. he was the one that personally assured the president of the information he was getting. taks <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I notice you skipped right over the NSA bit. No thoughts on that, Taksy?

The counterargument, of course, is that the US working towards its own interests is likewise in the interest of the rest of the world. As has been stated many times throughout this thread, American commerce makes up a huge chunk of world trade. The US makes more money, so does everyone else. Would I like to see an end to dollar-a-day wages in third-world countries? Sure. But tell me something; what were those countries doing before they provided cheap manpower for the US? Don't act like America came in, demolished their flourishing societies and economies, and put them to forced labor. Working for a dollar a day is better than getting nothing at all. And let's not forget that the American involvement in international commerce is what allows numerous countries to ride out the socialist wave. It's really easy to not care much about turning a profit when the big kid on the block is picking up the real check with regards to things like a national defense. Von Clausewitz was right in suggesting that war is simply a continuation of political policy; diplomacy in and of itself is often not successful without that potential threat of military action if things get bad. The Europeans are striking out spectacularly with the Iranians at the moment precisely because they can only politely request, not demand. To put it another way: You think Swedish negotiators could keep the North Koreans from taking a road trip to the south? I don't.

You're easily fooled if changing the name of something is enough to confuse you. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> That...that doesn't even make any sense. Compare the current method of US foreign policy to the imperial system and I think you'll come up with very few similarities.

Name a single American colony.

If you can't do that sort of math in your head, there's something wrong with you.

Peace keeping is a part of every one of those stations. It's not the only priority, of course. There is an agenda, the US wants people in power who serve their interests best. They want solid trade and economic certainty. You seem to think this is evil, but I say it's business. Running a country is the same as running a business. You can be ethical, but there is a bottom line that must be managed. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> And let's not forget that, more often than not, democratic regimes do in fact serve US interests, for a variety of reasons.

From the halls of Montezuma, to the forums of Obsidian...

Really? Here's some advice for you: <{POST_SNAPBACK}> You're right, I forgot that Sweden remains neutral come hell, high water, or genocide. My apologies. I'll change it to, "Scandinavia, sans Sweden."

You think I'm anywhere near right of center? You made a ridiculous remark about US servicemen. It's to be expected that US servicemen, no matter their political orientation, will resent it. Speaking of ad hominems, casting aspersions on the mental capacity of well over two million people might just qualify, don't you think? No, you've convinced me. You definitely know what you're talking about.

Means he needs to hit the range and earn some oak leaves to go on top of it.

I've often tried to figure that out myself.

The Supreme Court decided it in fact was in 1965, though it's not explicitly stated in the Constitution.

Oh, only Adams did the free speech thing. Lincoln suspended habeas corpus, and FDR threw thousands upon thousands of American citizens in concentration camps.

... no, those other words would not convey my opinion "i guess it comes down to trusting or not trusting US intelligence people (who's actions are regulated by strict laws) who will listen in or track you." those intelligence people have a mandate to keep the country safe and secure, and if they don't step out of those bounds, then i am willing to sacrifice some of the peripheral freedoms i have like keeping my whereabouts unknown or my internet being monitered. if it got out of hand then people would vote it out, simple as that. if they got to not allowing us to vote then i am sure people would rebel, and i am sure that won't happen. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> No. 'fraid not. See, the government most definitely does not have the right to listen in on the frequent calls from my household to Russia. And they're made on a weekly basis, with e-mail going a lot more frequently. The current administration claims that it's all kosher with the ol' Constitution, but they have yet to prove it. Sounds like an astonishing violation of the rights to privacy and due process to me. The peripheral civil liberties are always the first to go. Nobody suggests taking away the right to free speech; they suggest taking away the right to speak against the government. Adams, Lincoln, FDR...all good, even great presidents. All horrendously violated American civil liberties under the threat of war.

i guess it comes down to trusting or not trusting US intelligence people (who's actions are regulated by strict laws) who will listen in or track you. But if you are innocent, and they have evidence that you conspired to something, i am guessing that you probably conspired to something or you sounded a lot like you did, especially since the jury (hopefully reasoning and logical people) will be sitting in on a case. If they searched my home for no reason i think that'd be just fine. i'd leave cookies for them or something. seriously though, i doubt they would take the effort to bother with me or other innocents like that unless they have a probable case against us and want more evidence. even then an innocent would comply and allow them to investigate the house anyway, i mean, why not? would it take more than a few days to inspect somebody's house? i think not. Sveet, an RFID chip implanted in my driver's license. now if i ever get lost in the wilderness you guys will be able to find me. what a great christmas present <{POST_SNAPBACK}> So, in other words, we can throw the Constitution out the window, in your opinion.

What an attitude to have. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> he said it like it was some deep dark secret that was soooo bad and everybody should hate the US cabinet right now just because of that. i was just putting in my opinion that nobody who is innocent should care. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I suppose, if you're innocent, you shouldn't care if the police are allowed to hold you indefinitely before a trial. I suppose, if you're innocent, you shouldn't care if the government is allowed to randomly search your home without probable cause. I suppose, if you're innocent, you shouldn't care if your internet connection is monitored twenty-four/seven. I suppose, if you're innocent, you shouldn't care if your driver's license has an RFID chip implanted in it, so that your movements can be tracked at all times. I suppose, if you're innocent, you shouldn't care if Big Brother's watching.