Bush's Iraq-Afghan farewell tour marred by dissent

[Killian Kalthorne]

'scuse me? sorry, but as soon as saddam violated treaty he signed, he gave up his right to sovereignty.

 

Oh, what about Pakistan or are you conveniently forgetting that we are killing people across their borders without their permission of late?

[SteveThaiBinh]

What would be the practical effect of the US government suddenly only being able to do things, domestically and overseas, that were constitutional? What the are the major things that would change, I mean? Is it just that the executive would have to go through a lengthier progress of congressional approval for everything, or would certain actions become entirely off-limits?

[Killian Kalthorne]

Ha! You DO realize a Constitutional Convention now would lead the the break up of the USA don't you? Think that one through. You may believe it would be a good thing, I do not.

 

Actually I do think that would be a good idea. The religious nutjobs can have their corner of the US while more progressive minded people can have their own nation.

 

As to the subject at hand, the US in not subject to the caprice of the World (kangaroo) Court. If such a body ever tried to seize a US citizen for prosecution even I would be ready to take up arms and fight.

So, it is okay to try citizens from other countries in our kangaroo courts but not okay to have other countries try our citizens in theirs. Hypocrisy much, Guard Dog?

 

Another thought, the ingratitude of the Iraqis, Afghans, and for that matter the "allies" of Europe and Asia whose freedom was won and defended with American blood and treasure these last eighty or so years just drives home the wisdom of the Monroe Doctrine, and the warning of our Founding Fathers to avoid "foreign entanglements". Once the Republican Party stood firmly for a strong national defense and a non interventionist foreign policy. Nixon was the one who put an end to that. I wish they would find their way back to it. I think they would find the voters amenable to it.

 

If the Republicans were more fiscal conservative in affairs foreign and domestic, and we went back to minding our own store then I would be more favorable towards the Republicans. We aren't the world police and it is high time we stop acting like it.

[Guard Dog]

What would be the practical effect of the US government suddenly only being able to do things, domestically and overseas, that were constitutional? What the are the major things that would change, I mean? Is it just that the executive would have to go through a lengthier progress of congressional approval for everything, or would certain actions become entirely off-limits?

 

Actually, the US works kind of backasswards on that. The Executive does something like warantless wiretaps for example and the court decides two years (in that instance) after the fact that it was not Constitutional and puts a stop to it. That is not a new phenomenon by the way. During the Civil War Lincoln issued a few executive orders that amounted to a de facto suspension of Habeas Corpus. IIRC it was six years later the SCOTUS ruled he did not have the constitutional authority to do that.

 

The practical effect in foreign policy would be nil since the Constitution grants the Federal Government sole power to make treaties, prosecute war, conduct trade, etc and the authority is pretty broad. Domestically it would make a huge difference. I believe it would be an improvement since the State governments would take a larger role in the lives of citizens than the Federal Govt. I think you will find I'm in the minority on that one.

[Enoch]

Once the Republican Party stood firmly for a strong national defense and a non interventionist foreign policy. Nixon McKinley was the one who put an end to that. I wish they would find their way back to it. I think they would find the voters amenable to it.

Fixed that for you.

 

What would be the practical effect of the US government suddenly only being able to do things, domestically and overseas, that were constitutional? What the are the major things that would change, I mean? Is it just that the executive would have to go through a lengthier progress of congressional approval for everything, or would certain actions become entirely off-limits?

Very little. taks and GD are part of a small but very vocal minority whose views haven't been in accordance with mainstream public opinion or legal precedent for a century or so.

 

In the overseas area, I do agree that the courts have been too deferential to the executive over the past 30 or so years, generally at the expense of Congress. But often Congress has only itself to blame for that one-- most legislators would rather run against the institution rather than stand up for what should be the legislative branch's domain.

[Volourn]

"Bush told reporters later that he didn't think "you can take one guy throwing shoes and say this represents a broad movement in Iraq. You can try to do that if you want but I don't think that would be accurate."

 

Reaction in Iraq was swift but mixed, with some condemning the act and others applauding it."

 

'Nough said.

 

 

"Those damn Eurosnobs who came up with these Geneva conventions don't need to tell US what is good or bad."

 

Are these the same 'Eurosnobs' who enslaved entire continents and love to start world wars? If so, R00fles @ them for preaching morality. LMAO

Edited December 15, 2008 by Volourn

[SteveThaiBinh]

Actually, the US works kind of backasswards on that. The Executive does something like warantless wiretaps for example and the court decides two years (in that instance) after the fact that it was not Constitutional and puts a stop to it. That is not a new phenomenon by the way. During the Civil War Lincoln issued a few executive orders that amounted to a de facto suspension of Habeas Corpus. IIRC it was six years later the SCOTUS ruled he did not have the constitutional authority to do that.

I think it's probably the same everywhere. I'm superficially attracted to the opposite idea where the government has to demonstrate the constitutionality of its actions in advance, but I can see the impracticality of it, particularly in national security/foreign policy issues.

The practical effect in foreign policy would be nil since the Constitution grants the Federal Government sole power to make treaties, prosecute war, conduct trade, etc and the authority is pretty broad. Domestically it would make a huge difference. I believe it would be an improvement since the State governments would take a larger role in the lives of citizens than the Federal Govt. I think you will find I'm in the minority on that one.

It is interesting that devolution of power from national/federal government to regions or states seems to be seen as a right-wing issue in the US, whereas it's more often a left-wing policy in Europe (the UK and Spain, at least). Personally I'm all in favour of decisions being made as close to those affected as possible, because it's more likely that the individual voter affected can confront the decision-maker face-to-face (always good for democracy ).

[Guard Dog]

taks and GD are part of a small but very vocal minority whose views haven't been in accordance with mainstream public opinion or legal precedent for a century or so.

 

Thats no joke there. That whole concept of "Ask not what your country can do for you..." has become very outdated hasn't it? Right along with rugged individualisim and the spirit that it is everyones responsibility to work hard and succeed on their own merits, to take care of their families and themselves, not ask the state to do it for you.

 

I have become more and more aware of late that the battle is over. My side has lost. And that breaks my heart more than you will ever comprehend. Not for me but for what our country is becoming, and will become.

[taks]

Actually I do think that would be a good idea. The religious nutjobs can have their corner of the US while more progressive minded people can have their own nation.

borderline treasonous, but what can i say coming from a US citizen that fled to Kanada. oh well.

 

So, it is okay to try citizens from other countries in our kangaroo courts but not okay to have other countries try our citizens in theirs. Hypocrisy much, Guard Dog?

i think it's safe to say that you completely miss the point with this strawman. our citizens commit crimes in another country, they are subject to that country's laws. "international law" is a different situation.

 

If the Republicans were more fiscal conservative in affairs foreign and domestic, and we went back to minding our own store then I would be more favorable towards the Republicans. We aren't the world police and it is high time we stop acting like it.

then get the hypocritical rest of the world to stop pretending we are.

 

taks

[taks]

Very little. taks and GD are part of a small but very vocal minority whose views haven't been in accordance with mainstream public opinion or legal precedent for a century or so.

actually, i think mainstream public opinion would be in favor of abiding by the Constitution more than we do. mainstream media opinion, however...

 

In the overseas area, I do agree that the courts have been too deferential to the executive over the past 30 or so years, generally at the expense of Congress. But often Congress has only itself to blame for that one-- most legislators would rather run against the institution rather than stand up for what should be the legislative branch's domain.

well, congress did sort of give away its mandated powers through the war powers act. a travesty indeed.

 

however, in the case of iraq, whether they want to admit it or not, the excuse of "i didn't really think he'd go in" is hardly legitimate. they gave their approval. morons in hindsight, obviously, but what we know now ain't what we knew then, either.

 

taks

[Enoch]

It is interesting that devolution of power from national/federal government to regions or states seems to be seen as a right-wing issue in the US, whereas it's more often a left-wing policy in Europe (the UK and Spain, at least). Personally I'm all in favour of decisions being made as close to those affected as possible, because it's more likely that the individual voter affected can confront the decision-maker face-to-face (always good for democracy ).

It may be good for democracy, but it's often not good for efficiency/effectiveness or for prevention of corruption. Differing regulations from jurisdiction to jurisdiction destroy economies of scale for government services and place a heavy informational/compliance burden on entities (companies) doing business over a large area. Also, it's a lot harder for dirty officials to escape scrutiny in a town with 20,000 people and 1 tiny newspaper than it is at the national level. IMO, you've got to weigh the pros and cons on an issue-by-issue basis.

[Guard Dog]

It is interesting that devolution of power from national/federal government to regions or states seems to be seen as a right-wing issue in the US, whereas it's more often a left-wing policy in Europe (the UK and Spain, at least). Personally I'm all in favour of decisions being made as close to those affected as possible, because it's more likely that the individual voter affected can confront the decision-maker face-to-face (always good for democracy ).

 

Actually that is another thing backasswards in the US. We call Obama a liberal but if you ever look up the definitition of the word: Liberalisim - a theory in economics emphasizing individual freedom from restraint and usually based on free competition, the self-regulating market, and the gold standard c: a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties you can see Obama is NOT a liberal by any means. He is the exact opposite of that. Our politics are a little weird. Logic, reason and facts might be regarded as interesting but they have little bearing on who gets in office or what they do there.

 

Oh, and we have a word for the greatest amount of government being closest to the voters, it Federalisim. We are in the process of dismantling that now in favor of big central oligarchy that we will have no control over and that will have no regard for us. Ain't progress grand?

[Rosbjerg]

Okay taks I'm getting a little offended by your constant remarks about "the rest of the world" .. It's really people like you that give your great country a bad image with such ignorant outbursts, childish accusations and obvious hostility towards others for simply stating an opinion.. Why are the rest of the world envious of you? Do you truely believe that europeans are envious of americans? in that case I suggest you come over here and ask us.. Instead of acting like you actually know what you are talking about.

 

And your opinions are very un-american I might add! What happened to the land of the free? where everyone was entitled to an opinion no matter how crazy it was?

 

Take a look at what you are defending and what you are defending it with....

 

 

And Guarddog .. What are you talking about when you say ungrateful Europeans.. Have you forgotten your own countries history and who helped you to claim independence.. Without America - Europe would be a fascist dicatatorship now - true.. but without Europe - America would still be an English colony.. Don't forget that!

 

Because we haven't forgotten what you did for us.. And we are eternally grateful..

[taks]

well, that would be solved if we got rid of government services, at least at the national level. the general welfare and interstate commerce clauses are the two most abused historically.

 

did you mean to say it is easier to escape scrutiny at the local level, i.e., it's easier for corrupt officials to get away with things locally than nationally?

 

taks

[Guard Dog]

And Guarddog .. What are you talking about when you say ungrateful Europeans.. Have you forgotten your own countries history and who helped you to claim independence.. Without America - Europe would be a fascist dicatatorship now - true.. but without Europe - America would still be an English colony.. Don't forget that!

 

Because we haven't forgotten what you did for us.. And we are eternally grateful..

 

Point taken.

Edited December 15, 2008 by Guard Dog

[taks]

Okay taks I'm getting a little offended by your constant remarks about "the rest of the world" .. It's really people like you that give your great country a bad image with such ignorant outbursts, childish accusations and obvious hostility towards others for simply stating an opinion.. Why are the rest of the world envious of you? Do you truely believe that europeans are envious of americans? in that case I suggest you come over here and ask us.. Instead of acting like you actually know what you are talking about.

oh give me a break. i've made my positions regarding the "rest of the world" beyond clear. i've always couched them in terms relating to those that are hypocritically condemning the US telling us how to live. you either haven't been paying attention or just don't care, but that is the truth. it is akin to a strawman to think i really mean every single person that does not live in the US... rather than calling my positions "ignorant outbursts, childish accusations and obvious hostility" why don't you take a long hard look at whom i reply to and why. do yourself a favor and search for the intellectually honest approach.

 

And your opinions are very un-american I might add! What happened to the land of the free? where everyone was entitled to an opinion no matter how crazy it was?

exactly, everyone, including me, is entitled to his own opinion yet here YOU sit in judgment calling me childish. not one of my opinions, btw, calls for my or any government forcing an opinion or behavior on its people.

 

Take a look at what you are defending and what you are defending it with....

i am, apparently you can't see it or don't understand it.

 

Because we haven't forgotten what you did for us.. And we are eternally grateful..

and those that aren't are the ones GD and i speak out against.

 

taks

[Volourn]

"but without Europe - America would still be an English colony.. Don't forget that!"

 

Without you there wouldn't have been world wars. There also wouldn't have been rampant slavery in the Amerikas. Or the slaughtering of indians. So, keep bragging about Europe's awesome history. Or the fact that certain European countries would prefer Saddam Hussein in power still in Iraq just so they could make a profit. *cough* France *cough*

 

Europe has accomplished some good stuff; but let's not be ignorant - they're also repsonsible for some of the more horrific evils. In fact, one of the main reasons why the US is prone to attack those who oppose is because they had to earn their freedom through blood. That is a legacy that Europe gave to the US.

[Calax]

I skimmed the last page but are taks and Guard Dog saying that the Nuremberg trials should have had all the defendants remanded to German Custody, and had German's decide the sentence of their leaders?

[Rosbjerg]

"but without Europe - America would still be an English colony.. Don't forget that!"

 

Without you there wouldn't have been world wars. There also wouldn't have been rampant slavery in the Amerikas. Or the slaughtering of indians. So, keep bragging about Europe's awesome history. Or the fact that certain European countries would prefer Saddam Hussein in power still in Iraq just so they could make a profit. *cough* France *cough*

 

Europe has accomplished some good stuff; but let's not be ignorant - they're also repsonsible for some of the more horrific evils. In fact, one of the main reasons why the US is prone to attack those who oppose is because they had to earn their freedom through blood. That is a legacy that Europe gave to the US.

 

Of course, it would be like denying the holocaust if I said we weren't.. But both the European and American legacy is what this world is.. Without either of us a great percentage of this world would still be living in huts made of ****.. and because of both of us some are far worse off..

 

But if we removed Europe from the equation don't you think the Arabs would've conolized the world? and if we take them away don't you think the chinese would? There's always gonna be a superpower that takes advantage of others. I can only hope that we are able to keep USA in check and hold them accountable to their ideals and they are there to do the same to us, because then we might actually be remembered for something far greater than what blood stained legacy we have now.

 

And just so we are clear - France is a country in Europe not Europe itself - Denmark has stood by America since WW2 and I wager that we will continue to do so. Sure we don't agree with everything they do, but we are willing to give our lives just as they are, to defend the values we *do* share..

 

Okay taks I'm getting a little offended by your constant remarks about "the rest of the world" .. It's really people like you that give your great country a bad image with such ignorant outbursts, childish accusations and obvious hostility towards others for simply stating an opinion.. Why are the rest of the world envious of you? Do you truely believe that europeans are envious of americans? in that case I suggest you come over here and ask us.. Instead of acting like you actually know what you are talking about.

 

oh give me a break. i've made my positions regarding the "rest of the world" beyond clear. i've always couched them in terms relating to those that are hypocritically condemning the US telling us how to live. you either haven't been paying attention or just don't care, but that is the truth. it is akin to a strawman to think i really mean every single person that does not live in the US... rather than calling my positions "ignorant outbursts, childish accusations and obvious hostility" why don't you take a long hard look at whom i reply to and why. do yourself a favor and search for the intellectually honest approach.

 

And your opinions are very un-american I might add! What happened to the land of the free? where everyone was entitled to an opinion no matter how crazy it

was?

 

exactly, everyone, including me, is entitled to his own opinion yet here YOU sit in judgment calling me childish. not one of my opinions, btw, calls for my or any government forcing an opinion or behavior on its people.

 

Where did I say that I'm forcing you to change your opinion? I'm just calling your sweeping generalizations bull**** - because you might think that polishing them makes it fine, I simply argue that it doesn't - and your shotgun arguments are hitting anything but their mark.

 

Take a look at what you are defending and what you are defending it with....

i am, apparently you can't see it or don't understand it.

 

Because we haven't forgotten what you did for us.. And we are eternally grateful..

and those that aren't are the ones GD and i speak out against.

 

taks

 

Just to round this up - bascially I'm on your side - I don't like these guys either and I think they should shut up and go play with their small manhood somewhere else. I just don't like the fact that you go all Rambo, because you have a problem with a few idiots.

[taks]

I skimmed the last page but are taks and Guard Dog saying that the Nuremberg trials should have had all the defendants remanded to German Custody, and had German's decide the sentence of their leaders?

well, saddam did technically get tried by his own people.

 

if you lose a war badly enough that you have to surrender to the other guy, you're going to have to suffer the consequences dictated by the other guy. if the they likewise did morally reprehensible things as the nazis did (hardly anything can equate), you can expect those consequences to ultimately be bad for the people that made the decisions.

 

taks

[taks]

But if we removed Europe from the equation don't you think the Arabs would've conolized the world? and if we take them away don't you think the chinese would?

actually, no. their cultural beliefs are too deeply held, and not exactly universal enough to be force fed on everyone. they probably would have had to exterminate everyone to colonize the world. just an opinion, however, as i really don't know. i think, too, back in the days when colonization was going on, we of the caucasian ilk were much more expansionist than the rest, i.e., we were the only ones that really wanted to colonize the world. not so much because we were caucasian, just because that's how our cultures evolved, by taking over everyone else.

 

Denmark has stood by America since WW2 and I wager that we will continue to do so. Sure we don't agree with everything they do, but we are willing to give our lives just as they are, to defend the values we *do* share..

as has great britain, australia and numerous other countries. we know this. we aren't stupid. accusing the likes of GD and i of not knowing this, acting as if we have blinders on thinking "the rest of the world is against the US" is disingenuous at best. i shouldn't have to define Eurosnobs every time i use it (that's part of the reason i put the little trademark notation in there to point out that i'm making a generalization in order to avoid having to type out a lengthy explanation every freaking time). context, rosbjerg, context. certainly it is understandable when someone new drops in, that they won't get the context... but c'mon, i've been posting with this crew for probably 9 years now, nearly 5 in this forum alone.

 

taks

[Volourn]

"And just so we are clear - France is a country in Europe not Europe itself"

 

Um. Isn't that what i said. I did say specific European countries, and gave France as an example, right? France *is* an European country last I checked.

 

I enevr calimed that ALL European coutnries (or people) were pro Hussein/anti Iraq War simply because of monetary concerns. I'm sure there are plenty who opposed it for actual moral reasons. That's cool, and I can respect that.

[taks]

i should add, can you guys believe it, 5 years almost. february 2004. wow.

 

taks

[Enoch]

Can we at least agree that bickering over whose ancestors were more virtuous and helpful to the rest of civilization is pointless and irrelevant to pretty much everything?

[~Di]

Nothing annoys me more than America-bashing.... but Europe-bashing is a close second. I think this international e-peen contest has gotten a little out of control. I mean, we're all friends here. No reason to try and hurt each other's feelings, and I kinda-sorta think that's what's going on here.

 

C'mon. Group hug!