Impeach Bush?

[Sand]

That is one thing I do agree with you. We should have invaded Afganistan, wipe out its government, then went after the Al Qaeda terrorist cells with well executed strikes and assassinations of key individuals. I do think that some of the actions done by the CIA, such as the secret prisons and torture is wrong, but strengthening its intelligence gathering without resorting to such crude methods is definitely needed. Iraq and Saddam was contained and no threat to the US nor was the nation a threat to its neighbors. The Iraqi war is a waste of resources and lives.

[Guard Dog]

That is one thing I do agree with you. We should have invaded Afganistan, wipe out its government, then went after the Al Qaeda terrorist cells with well executed strikes and assassinations of key individuals. I do think that some of the actions done by the CIA, such as the secret prisons and torture is wrong, but strengthening its intelligence gathering without resorting to such crude methods is definitely needed. Iraq and Saddam was contained and no threat to the US nor was the nation a threat to its neighbors. The Iraqi war is a waste of resources and lives.

 

I've told you before, the Iraq war was more about Iran than Saddam. Iraq's strategic importance was greater than any threat Saddam might have posed. WMDs was just a pretext. With the US in control ot Iraq and Afghanistan, and with Uzbekistan and Pakistan allied, Iran would have an enemy on every border. The word for that is surrounded. It would have made them much easier to deal with and if it was necassary to invade, it would have made a tough fight much easier. But the highest objective in war is to win without fighting.

 

Case in point, the Soviets were much more frightened of the several hundred Pershing II missles in Turkey than the were of the several thousand Minuite Man missles in Montanta. So having them there gave us a strategic advantage that made a war less likely.

 

Where they screwed up was they did not count in Iran stirring up ethnic hatred in the aftermath. And they seemed to forget that these are people who would rather die than live peacefully next to each other.

[Sand]

That does not make invading Iraq any more right, Guard Dog.

Edited July 17, 2007 by Sand

[taks]

i suppose you meant to say "any more right" and you are correct. however, you've also drilled down every other reason for the war into one statement, which was _originally_ only a minor point prior to the war. the media hammered it, and the bush administration picked up on that suspecting it would be the final selling point. WMDs were only mentioned once in his original statement that we were going to invade. heck, they even gave saddam another 4-5 months to extricate what he had, or comply, before they went in.

 

taks

[Sand]

In any case, we invaded on false pretenses and we should leave because of that.

[taks]

we invaded on ONE false pretense, and that was one that everyone agreed upon post-invasion. granted, had the intelligence been better, or maybe not even nearly as "forced," it would have changed the eventual vote, but we still would have gone in. it was only one of many pretenses, most of which were clear violations of the treaty saddam signed after the first invasion. obviously, given the outcome, other methods may have worked better, but we got what we got and none of your hatred for bush can change that.

 

taks

[Sand]

Does not change the fact that we need to leave Iraq. It is a money pit and there won't be any peace in that country till the Iraqis want it. Each death of an American in that country, civilian or soldier, is a waste.

[taks]

which is another matter altogether. way to dodge the bullet!

 

i don't disagree, btw, at least not anymore. the problem now is how to get out without creating more havoc. neither the dems nor the repubs seem to have any legitimate answers.

 

taks

[Sand]

I think the cleanest way for us to leave is let the Iraqi government decide. If they want us to leave then we should bug out and leave. We can move our forces into Afganistan, use part of them to bolster the forces already there and cement our control and have staging areas which we can use to attack Al Qaeda on their own turf. Give the Iraqi government favored trade status so that we can still trade goods favorably for the Iraqis sop that they can still have money coming in. If the Iraqi government and people want us to stay then we should but relegate our people as support and not the main fighters.

[taks]

I think the cleanest way for us to leave is let the Iraqi government decide. If they want us to leave then we should bug out and leave.

unfortunately, they don't want us to leave. they're smart enough to know that this problem is over and above their current capability to handle it.

 

If the Iraqi government and people want us to stay then we should but relegate our people as support and not the main fighters.

the people may or may not have the same opinion as the government, but if push came to shove, they'd probably ask for us to stay as well in spite of the rhetoric that makes it into the press.

 

lose-lose all around.

 

taks

[Calax]

Except that nobody seems to understand the constitution. Isn't it one of the jobs of the supreme court to translate the document and how it should apply to current situations? (which is kinda like asking Don Juan for which toy to buy at an adult store)

plenty of people understand the constitution, though i would not number you in that lot based on nearly every post you've made on such topics.

 

the supreme court cannot hear _anything_ unless suit is brought. don't you get it? even then, its power is limited to adjudicating laws that are passed, not simple functions of daily government. if the executive branch does something that is otherwise unconstitutional, perhaps by stepping on an existing law (or some facet of the constitution), then it is up to somebody to appeal that to the supreme court. SCOTUS may or may not choose to review such a case, and it is within their power to decide which cases are within their domain.

 

taks

I understand most of the constitution just fine, I just suck at your version of the special Olympics.

 

And you just proved my point, I said that the supreme court was created to test weather or not the laws are constitutional or not (ie interpret the constitution) and they are ultimately the final say in terms of constitutionality unless the congress is able to get it's act together and get the 2/3rds vote AND the popular support to push an amendment though. Thus the presidents job is primarily to enforce the will of congress while keeping the publics needs and desires in mind (hence his veto power). What he should not be able to do is initiate armed conflict without the consent of congress (which he actually got by lying about the facts).

 

I think that the entire system is broken. We essentially have the same two dynasties in power no matter what because an independent or third party candidate wouldn't have the money, backing, influence or publicity to gain enough of the vote (not the popular stupidly enough) to achieve a higher office than the house. While technically we all CAN run, realistically you can only run if your blood is bluer than the arctic ocean, or you have fought your way into the societies of power and been able to convince enough people to have them back you for the parties pick for presidency. usually along the way you will loose what ever morals you had and you will sell your soul for a constituent. Everything our framers wanted to avoid (a monarchical system that more often than not paid little heed to the underlings) has generally been demolished because of the two party system. Instead of a single monarch who is able to make their actions last, we get a congress that is so confused with itself that the Tax Code can break almost any table it's placed on, everything one president does another will undo in less time than it takes to tie my shoes, and the only people who get any attention at all are those who are so far on the left or the right that they get offended anytime the word breast is mentioned or that a person is suspended for having a sign that says "Bong hits for Jesus". Otherwise most of the public either ignores the whole mess because they don't think it's relevant to daily life other than "are we being invaded" or "am I going to get drafted" or "why's the price of milk higher?" Or they vote for whichever party has that little inkling of similarity to the persons ideals. Hell in the california recall I know people who wanted to vote for the Green party candidate but didn't because the system was working so well only Davis and Arnie were able to pick up more than about 20ish % of the vote. (don't even try and quote me on that)

[Sand]

the people may or may not have the same opinion as the government, but if push came to shove, they'd probably ask for us to stay as well in spite of the rhetoric that makes it into the press.

 

lose-lose all around.

 

taks

 

You are probably right in this assessment but, then again maybe not. In any case we cannot and should not force democracy and our civilization on another people who do not want it. Freedom and democracy must be earned and wanted if it is to have any chance of success.

[Walsingham]

In any case, we invaded on false pretenses and we should leave because of that.

 

 

*ear piercing shriek of animalistic primaeval fury and frustration*

[Sand]

*ear piercing shriek of animalistic primaeval fury and frustration*

 

Well, we did.

[Guard Dog]

Must.....stop......reading.....this....thread. ARRRGGGHHH!

[taks]

I just suck at your version of the special Olympics.

i'm definitely an arrogant ass, that's for sure.

 

I think that the entire system is broken. We essentially have the same two dynasties in power no matter what because an independent or third party candidate wouldn't have the money, backing, influence or publicity to gain enough of the vote (not the popular stupidly enough) to achieve a higher office than the house.

i don't disagree. this is ultimately a problem not necessarily with the US, but with large governments (uh, in democracies) in general.

 

everything one president does another will undo in less time than it takes to tie my shoes,

actually, the whole concept of executive power is often questioned on constitutional grounds. _most_ of it is supposed to be directed at day to day operations of the government, and that is really what happens. it just turns out that the definition is loose enough that their orders creep into micro-managing our lives, which is bad.

 

as for the rest, i mostly concur. many of these are also affiliated with issues related to large governments (i.e., nanny state), hence the framers' intent to minimize federal power. it has become a self-licking ice-cream cone that we cannot diminish.

 

taks

Edited July 18, 2007 by taks

[taks]

You are probably right in this assessment but, then again maybe not.

tough call, i agree.

 

In any case we cannot and should not force democracy and our civilization on another people who do not want it. Freedom and democracy must be earned and wanted if it is to have any chance of success.

damned if we do, damned if we don't, unfortunately. being the last superpower it's almost as if we're expected to help police the world, and not police the world depending upon which day the opinion was posted. i almost yearn for the days of the cold war simply because everyone was so afraid of the USSR they largely ignored the US.

 

taks

[Sand]

Wait. Isn't China a superpower?

[taks]

they aren't considered one, though i suppose they are fast approaching a position to be considered as such. it is somewhat of a subjective classification anyway. militarily i suppose they are close, but economically they're still about 1/6 of the US. the US ~2/7 of the total GDP at official exchange rates (the EU is about the same as the US, for comparison). that puts china at about 5% of the world GDP (which is currently estimated around US $48T).

 

taks

[Sand]

Only 5%? That is pretty low for their population. I mean, last I heard they have at least 5 times the amount of citizens that we do.

[taks]

per capita income is also about 1/6 of the US. such figures are somewhat misleading since most of their population consists of farmer types. i've heard estimates that their actual "workforce," i.e. middle class, numbers around 100 million, which is about half that of the US.

 

of course, their estimated population of 1.3 B may be low as well. hard to say with that many in general, and so many undocumented in the numerous villages throughout the country.

 

taks

[Calax]

Every piece of near future fiction I've seen (as well as economist and secret society forecasts) says that china will probably rival the US within the next twenty years for worlds most powerful nation.

[taks]

yup. that is, assuming their reforms continue. they've already dumped their largely communist approach to economics (can't support 1.3 B people on the income from 100 M or less), which is a start. they'll need to dump the remaining aspects of communism to continue... if they don't continue their reforms, we will see a decline in their economic growth sooner than later.

 

taks

[Meshugger]

I see China going from communism to freer market for every day. Nationalism is high there as well. I expect within the next 25 years, China have completely ditched communism and remained it in name only. The market would be free, but the government would still be totalitarian (corporatism? fascism? A bit hard to define...) with a high emphasis on the common chinese identity, which will breed a dangerous form of nationalism. Russia is following China, AND still be independent on oil. I wouldn't be surprised if they will form stronger ties in the future than before. Russia + China would be an interesting counterweight to western democracy in a geopolitical sense. Exciting times ahead folks!

[Walsingham]

*ear piercing shriek of animalistic primaeval fury and frustration*

 

Well, we did.

 

 

If I pretend to agree with you that we went in for the wrong reasons can you pretend to tell me WHAT BLOODY DIFFERENCE IT MAKES NOW?