Printable View
Fair enough. Of course, the people being held without trial might disagree, oh yeah, or the people being tortured by the government, but that's okay isn't it. Or the warrantless wire-tapping, I mean luckily we all trust the police right? ;) Or have I just imagined all those stories.....Quote:
Originally Posted by szlamany
There are no US citizens being held without trial.Quote:
Originally Posted by SurfDemon
But why are you even trying to keep this thread alive?
I was only playing devils advocate to disruptivehair - and I think I've pissed her off (which was not my intent - I apologize if I did).
And the dem's did shoot themselves in the foot in Connecticut (anyway) - hoping to get a more liberal Senator (Lamont - idiot though) - they managed to get all the republicans to go to the polls yesterday and vote in Lieberman (who is one of the most conservative Dem's around). This helped to sweep in a bunch of other republicans as well in CT that might have never had a chance. With any luck Lieberman will turn tail and join the Rep party...
The two party system we have stinks - it's become just a platform for tossing slanderous attacks back and forth. A true independant candidate (like Ross Perot) will never stand a chance - that's a shame, he might have changed things in Washington - being a non politician - but we never got to find that out.
Lieberman is a guy who refuses to vote down party the lines every time. Occasionally he votes with the republicans sometimes with the democrats. That's why the dems hate him. If he was a republican, the republicans would hate him as well. I think that is a good trait. The guy votes bases on what HE thinks. Now if someone could give him a brain upgrade we'd have a decent president. Ross Perot, was a brilliant cutthroat business man. That would make him a horrible pres.Quote:
Originally Posted by szlamany
:p I was unaware that posting 1 and half hours after the last person posted was "keeping this thread alive"...Quote:
Originally Posted by szlamany
Is this guy still being held with trial...Quote:
Originally Posted by szlamany
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%...ged_terrorist)
I honestly don't know......
or what about this guy
http://www.propagandamatrix.com/arti...thouttrial.htm
or this guy...
http://www.theepochtimes.com/news/5-1-10/25626.html
*Of course, you seem to imply that it's okay to kidnap and lock up non US citizens.... even when they are not on US soil... maybe this is an interesting twist on civil liberties. Unfortunately it gives an excuse to other countries to do the same (China etc.).
So I'm guessing you have no sympathy for this guy:
http://www.faluninfo.net/displayAnArticle.asp?ID=6956
Just like the link says:
I'm not saying I agree or disagree with this - but it's the justification being used...Quote:
The U.S. administration has in the past described him as an illegal enemy combatant, arguing that he was thereby not entitled to the normal protection of US law, nor protection under the Geneva Convention
Fair enough. :thumb:Quote:
Originally Posted by szlamany
This parts a great read - if you can get through it without throwing up...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%..._Habeas_Corpus
Apparently the legal system can spend thousands of high-paid legal hours debating stuff out of both sides of their mouths...
Jose Padilla was held for three years before he was even charged.Quote:
Originally Posted by szlamany
Nah, you haven't. :wave:Quote:
I was only playing devils advocate to disruptivehair - and I think I've pissed her off (which was not my intent - I apologize if I did).
[/QUOTE]
Looks like your prediction pretty much came true anyway ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by disruptivehair
[/QUOTE]Quote:
Originally Posted by disruptivehair
we had a japanese citizen held here for 10 years for vagrancy (he was a tourist that didnt speak english and didnt have his passport on him at the time) he got thrown around the jail cells and in prison basically for around 10 years, without ever seeing a court .. when a prison guard finally took interest in who he was and why he was in prison he was finally released and sued our gov for millions .. successfully .. and trust me .. if you goto the prison here you would rather be dead ... :eek2:
PS. 3 years is average time to wait for a court case here ...
Hehehe...the Senate hasn't been decided yet. Virginia looks like it'll go Democrat.Quote:
Originally Posted by szlamany
Eh...it's not normal to wait 3 years to be charged.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory
Lieberman won - he's not a democrat anymore :pQuote:
Originally Posted by disruptivehair
He promised to caucus with the Democrats. Let's hope a bunch of CT Republicans didn't just elect a liar. :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by szlamany
VT elected an independent, too. Both he and Lieberman will caucus with the dems.
However, with a majority as thin as that (it doesn't get any thinner, regardless of how VA goes), moderates and independents of both parties carry enormous power. Look what Jefferts did when he went independent and switched control of the senate from R to D. Lieberman, the new VT guy (whoes name I don't remember), along with moderate republicans like Olympia Snow, and some dems, will wield huge power. If VA goes R, Olympia Snow will have the most power in the senate, because she could offer the whole body to the other side if she doesn't get what she wants. Quite the leverage. I don't know exactly who would hold that leverage if VA goes D, but Lieberman seems like one possibility, since he wouldn't even have to switch parties.
We can't have a third party because of our voting system. With a single vote, winner takes all, system, there is no room for a third party. Some form of rank voting system would break the field wide open, but we'd have to be awfully enlightened before something like that would happen.
I disagree that third parties aren't viable. In UK parliamentary elections, each MP is elected on a 'first past the post' basis, i.e. 'winner takes all', and the UK's third party (Liberal Democrats) is viable in local and parliamentary elections though it is never really a contender to lead. Our local parish council is Lib Dem. If a moderate third party emerged I think it could be viable under the right circumstances.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
I think it would actually be more likely to be an extreme (nb not extremist) party in a time of crisis that would break through. Historically GB was a two party system between the conservatives and the liberals. Labour came through representing the working man at a time when our economy was collapsing and there was REAL exploitation going on. At the time they were considered extreme because they were so far to the left, suported Illegal trade unions, strikes etc. They usurped the left wing ground traditionally held by the moderate liberals who've been out in the cold, as far as national government is concerned, ever since. Labour have become more moderate as they gained in influence until now they're more 'middle ground' than any party that's ever run this country before.Quote:
If a moderate third party emerged I think it could be viable under the right circumstances
Labour moved to the right so it could keep the Labour party faithful while capturing moderate Tories and Lib Dems. It's a classic tactic, one used by Bill Clinton in 1992. To me, the Lib Dems appear to be the extreme leftists and the Tories don't appear to subscribe to any political philosophy at all except 'be against whatever Labour is for'.Quote:
Originally Posted by FunkyDexter
Agreed, apart from the bit about the tories. They're no longer "anything that labour isn't" since Wavey Davey Cameron came along (though they definitely were a year or so ago which is what I think you were refering to). Now they're "anything a bit middle class and liberal". Cameron's so wet you could swim in him. But they still don't subscribe to any particular political philosophy.
Cameron Smiley: :cry:
Quote:
Originally Posted by FunkyDexter
Hahahahaha...I think David Cameron's a bit of a joke, personally...but people are so sick of Tony Blair and David Cameron is so non-threatening that the Conservatives may actually win the next general election, even though the leadership isn't actually conservative. 'Conservative' in the UK nowadays means 'we'd like the immigrants to learn English.' Anything further to the right than that is the BNP's purview apparently. :rolleyes:
Shaggy, what are you talking about with the "no third party" thing? You live in the US don't you? Just curious, not trying to be a weenie.
Are you suggesting you see a viable 3rd party here in the US?Quote:
Originally Posted by demotivater
Viable? Perhaps not currently, but that doesn't mean it's not possible. If a third party candidate had the charisma, money, and support, then it certainly would be possible. I just got the impression that posters were saying there are only two parties in the US, period, and that's not the case.
I think that Ross Perot, who could be argued to have been viable (enough money to run, not a Ralph-Nader-like greenie), already kind of proved that a third party isn't ever going to happen in the US...Quote:
Originally Posted by demotivater
At least not in my lifetime...
Never say never. Perot had the money to get the exposure, but he wasn't all there despite being pretty close. It certainly could happen, but I agree that it's very doubtful it will any time soon (not trying to shorten your lifespan there). :)
By the way - best Perot comment ever - in his debate with Clinton and Bush --
"We've got to collect the taxes to do it. If there's a fair way, I'm all ears"
Which part are you wondering about? I'm in the fairly large camp that believes that under the current system, if a third party candidate gains a large amount of support on one issue, one of the two primary parties will take that issue as it's own, thus sucking the life out of the third party. This basically assumes that the major objective of the two current parties is staking out a power base, rather than adhereing to a single platform. If they find a significant pool of voters who are mostly concerned about a certain issue, one of them will move in on that issue to attract that pool of voters.Quote:
Originally Posted by demotivater
Of course, the Republican party formed around just such an issue: slavery. When the whigs couldn't take a position on the key issue facing the nation, and the democrats sided with "states rights", the republican third-party formed around the anti-slavery platform, which proved to be the decisive issue, and spelled the end of the whig party. There probably isn't an issue quite like that one right now, so any third party forming around a specific issue would get subsumed by one of the existing parties, because the issue would not attract sufficient voters to unseet an existing party.
One thing that might change that would be corruption. Disgust of the voterate with both of the main parties, coupled with a charismatic leader, could unseat the existing parties, much like Jesse Ventura in MN, but that was a momentary change in the end.
One reason to support this is the odd dance of the Dem and Rep parties since the civil war. The "states rights" issues that was the issue of the Dems, is now more often considered a Rep position. The south was strongly Dem for a long time as a result of the civil war (because the Reps brought it to them, in their eyes). When Johnson signed the civil rights act, he said that he did so knowing full well it would cost the south for the Dems for the next few generations. In that, he was correct, as the south moved quickly to the Rep camp. The Reps formed around anti-slavery, but now they find themselves to be the party of racists and white supremecists, a distinction the vast majority of the Reps abhor.
There are a few other examples of that. If you are old enough, you may remember when the Reps claimed that all American wars had been started by Dems. You don't hear that anymore, since the Reps are now the ones who have started the last two wars, and no longer blame Roosevelt for getting the US into WWII, but instead use WWII as proof that appeasement doesn't work, a claim which doesn't stand up very well under any serious scrutiny.
Right now, the dems won both houses. However, if you look at the candidates, this country just elected a bunch of dems who have moved to the right of their republican foes on lots of core conservative issues. Furthermore, there is a strong evangelical environmentalist movement forming in this country (I think it actually started right here, in the one state that became more red in the last election). I wouldn't make any strong predictions, but the groudwork has been laid for the two parties to each aggressively move in on the core issues of the other to the extent that Dems become the conservatives, and Reps become liberal. Don't be laughing too loud, most major environmental bills have come from the Reps, and the Dems did a much better job of building the military than the Reps would like to acknowledge.
The reason for this is simple: The Dems are painted as soft on defense, so they focus on that. The Reps have been the same way on the environment (though not in the last decade). The Reps were always weak on military spending, because they are credited with that regardless of what they do, just as the Dems are credited for environmental issues when Clinton never really did anything about it.
Politics is a game. I grew up in it, as my mother was working on a PhD in government systems, and dropped it to serve three terms of office at state and local levels (three terms each). When the game is played by a master, even if I don't like them, I admire their skill (Bush Sr., Clinton, and occasionally Reagan). When it is played by a fool, I am disgusted (W). But either way, it is a game. One that could kill us all, but still a game.
Ooohh, good postage Shaggy. I particularly like the point about parties being complacent about the issues they're accredited with. I've never thought of that before but it's probably true.
Parties swapping sides isn't really that unlikely at all. As disruptive and I were saying earlier in the thread, this has definitely been happening in the last couple of decades in the UK. Twenty years ago our political spectrum read (from left to right) Labour, Liberal, Tory and the distinctions were pretty clear. Now it's probably more like Liberal, Tory, Labour (although whether Tory or Labout are right or left of each other is debatable - they're pretty much carbon copies at this point).
I think a third party in the states is unlikely but far from impossible. Take an issue like Iraq. Both your parties declared for it initially and public opinion seems to have slowly swung from 'strongly for' to 'moderately against'. Now imagine that Iraq had gone much worse from the get go - even the inital invasion was bungled (I'm being hypthetical, of course) so public opinion had swung much faster and harder. That leaves an anti war ticket that a well funded independent can exploit and which neither major party can move in on without being accused of hypocracy.
What it needs for a new party to emerge is an issue which none of the majors can feasably adopt as their own. There are a few reason that such an issue can emerge.
Both parties declared for the war just because of the points I made before. Most educated people realized that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, but after that attack, doing nothing was political suicide, so the Dems got tepidly (except for a few) behind attacking a country they knew to be uninvolved with the problem, simply because they didn't want to appear weak. This was especially the case because, as polls showed, the vast majority of Fox news viewers believed that Saddam had been involved with 9/11, partly because everybody in the admin, except W himself, kept linking the two.
I actually was working with someone who said that the war in Iraq was justified because "they attacked us first." Now, I never thought that guy was the brightest bulb on the tree, but I didn't realize he was that clueless. I guess he forgot to wear his sign that day.
Ok - let's make believe we did not do anything in IRAQ.
Saddam still in power. Still being insane - building big tubes to flop missles into the desert...
Slide forward to now - Iran being very extremist and insane - potential nukes (well not really, but at least 2 grams of poorly purified uranium)...
Afghanistan - they are on our side (do we actually believe that?)...
Pakistan is kind of insane...
Syria is a big-old-bad-boy from day one anyway...
Do you really want Saddam in power in Iraq with this scenario?
Who cares who wins the US Elections? Really?
The EU economy will overtake the US economy within a decade, China, and India will be the superpowers and will gradually evolve economic success in the next 25 years as they gradually deregulate their industries.
It's rather like worrying about the British Commonwealth Board of Director elections, isn't it?
Compared to where we are now? Yeah, no question. Saddam wanted to stay in power, which meant he could be bullied. One thing the hunt for WMD showed pretty well was that the embargo worked as far as pulling his fangs was concerned. He was killing his own people, but America has basically never intervened in a country to prevent that. Besides, my understanding is that the Iraqiis preferred Saddam because predictable violence tops random violence.Quote:
Originally Posted by szlamany
On the other hand, if you compare Saddam in power to what appears to be shaping up: A shiite dominated state. Well, I think Saddam could easily be preferrable, depending on how closely the shiite majority was tied to the other local shiite power.
How do you know that? We gave Saddam a year and a half heads up that we were going to invade him and take his WMDs away. Put yourself in Sadams shoes. Would you hide or even better cash in and sell your WMDs first? maybe donate them to a good cause like Syria or Hezbola? We will never know and that is the UN's fault.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
One thing I'll give Saddam props on, He knew how to run a country full of very stupid lunatics. If they act up, rape their wives and chop off their heads. Brutal, but it gets results. In the long run though, I still believe we can turn this into the greatest acomplishment of our generation. If that region can be educated, the fighthing will eventually stop. Unfortunatially, I don't think the rest of the world has the ballz to see this thing through to the end and will screw the middle east over one more time. Yeah, we shouldn't be there in the first place but why not take a stab at doing something good since we're there already.Quote:
He was killing his own people, but America has basically never intervened in a country to prevent that. Besides, my understanding is that the Iraqiis preferred Saddam because predictable violence tops random violence.
On the other hand, if you compare Saddam in power to what appears to be shaping up: A shiite dominated state. Well, I think Saddam could easily be preferrable, depending on how closely the shiite majority was tied to the other local shiite power.
So you mean to tell me the Democrats agreed to the war in Iraq to keep their political power? If that is true the Democrats sent people off to die in Iraq just so they could keep their political power. I love it how Democrats try to divorce themselves from the war by saying, we were lied too, we were mislead. I have to say I do like the new excuse, we agreed to the war to keep our political power, you are probably the most correct because as we saw the poll numbers shift from support to disapproval of the war so did Democratic support for the war shift.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
Iraq is part of the war against Islamic fascism. It amazes me that people are still trying to say Iraq has nothing to do with terrorism, which it obviously does. It makes no sense to keep discussing why we went to war; it makes more sense to discuss how soon we can stabilize Iraq so that we can get the hell out.
X
Actually the latest news out of Iraq shows that the Shiite dominated government has now offered a lot of the former Baathists their jobs back in the new government. Saddam’s old Vice-President Al Douri(sp?) who still hasn’t been captured yet has now called for the end of violence and resistance. Hopefully this will have the effect of slowing down the violence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
A lot of mistakes were made when the old government and the old military was dismantled. Hopefully these new steps will decrease the level of violence in Iraq that has been on the increase as of late.
X
So are you saying that you still believe there was WMD? Isn't it more likely that he just didn't have any?Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterBlaster
It does annoy me a little bit when people imply that not seeing a bad idea through to the end is equivelant to not having balls. It is much the same as implying that if you disagree with the war, then you are a coward, which is ludicrous. I thought that Bush's stance of staying the course no matter what, was a very dangerous thing thing to do. It basically means that you will give no further thought to your decisions, but will just keep repeating the same mistakes over and over and will ignore a better solution if it comes up (my take on it anyway).Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterBlaster
Now, having said that, seeing as how the US and UK have made this mess, then they are morally obliged to stay there and try and sort it out, but I don't know of any good solution to this situation (which anybody could have seen would be the result 5 years ago... well, anyone apart from those who supported the war... :( )
But like all these things, we end up cleaning up someone else's mess.
Much as he was a murderous dictator (which to be honest is only par for the course for that region of the world), I'm sure the relatives of the 50,000 iraqi war dead would rather he was still in power.Quote:
Originally Posted by szlamany
No matter how you speculate about what might have been, the world sees the attack on Iraq as an attack driven by pure vengence on the first country that met the acceptable criteria of being easily recognisable by US citizens as "evil" and that most of them might actually have some chance to find on a map. The fact that at the time a good war gave Bush something to define his "leadership" around probably didn't escape his advisors.
That wasn't my question at all...Quote:
Originally Posted by Ex-FB
And I think that your suggestion about defining leadership and Bush advisors is truly absurd.
Do you really think that Bush put all our troops and those of the coalition in danger for political advance?
I'm saying it is impossible to know for sure. What I do know was the inspectors who were kicked out in the Mid 90's had not documented the destruction of all of his estimated Anthrax, CS Gas stores and artillary delivery systems. Do you honestly believe Saddam would destroy them on his own? Maybe they didn't exist in the first place. Maybe they did. My point is We will never know for sure and stating that WMD's did not exist in Iraq is not a fact. It is an optimistic opinion at best.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ex-FB
Don't hate Bush for not finding WMD's, Hate him for rattelin his saber for a year and a half giving Saddam plenty of time to ??????? whatever with them if they did exist. He should have parked 2 carriers right off the kuwaiti coast and gone after them if he thought they were there. Not waste his time with the friggin UN.
I agree, But simply cutting and running instead of coming up with a new solution to the original problem is probably what is going to happen. Iraq is political suicide right now so the "ballless" politicians are going to cut and run.Quote:
It does annoy me a little bit when people imply that not seeing a bad idea through to the end is equivelant to not having balls. It is much the same as implying that if you disagree with the war, then you are a coward, which is ludicrous. I thought that Bush's stance of staying the course no matter what, was a very dangerous thing thing to do. It basically means that you will give no further thought to your decisions, but will just keep repeating the same mistakes over and over and will ignore a better solution if it comes up (my take on it anyway).
I agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xanith
Yes, that's pretty much what I said. Does that shock you? Do you feel that you should always throw yourself on your sword? If the Dems had opposed the war at that time, they would have lost big time. If they truly felt that the Reps were harmful to the country, would you have thought it wise of them to commit particularly ineffectual political suicide? That battle was lost, but at least they were still in it overall.Quote:
So you mean to tell me the Democrats agreed to the war in Iraq to keep their political power? If that is true the Democrats sent people off to die in Iraq just so they could keep their political power. I love it how Democrats try to divorce themselves from the war by saying, we were lied too, we were mislead. I have to say I do like the new excuse, we agreed to the war to keep our political power, you are probably the most correct because as we saw the poll numbers shift from support to disapproval of the war so did Democratic support for the war shift.
If it offends you that people, especially politicians, calculate the cost/benefit ratio of their actions, you had best stay in bed, because the world is going to deliver unto you a particularly sharp disappointment.