Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Bobboau on May 16, 2006, 12:04:33 am
-
boom (http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-05-15-bush-immigration-edit_x.htm)
-
Has... has anyone even told him of the US Economic situation? Seriously, did that memo slide under one of the couches in the Oval Office?
-
If he invaded central/south America, then the illegal immagration problem would be solved. :p
-
It's because he's been watching Red Dawn again......
Anyways, war with Venezuela anyone?
-
Pffff, war with Japan FTW.
-
You guys are so dumb. Why are you all assuming that Bush is telling the truth when he claims that this is to keep people out. It's pretty obvious he's just gearing up for the purges. :p
-
No, retards.
It's to stop people skipping the border to Mexico when he invades Iran and institutes the draft.
-
Expect claims of Canadians illegally entering America all the time soon.
-
No, they'll use the whole 'medical marijuana' thing to justify increased patrols of the Canadian border.
That's if anyone even bothers reporting it.
-
Clicksor ads FTW:
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
hahahaha This will do wonders to enlistment!
Seriously though, use the National Guard - weekend warriors with civilian life who are needed in disasters and UFO landings and stuff - instead of border guards who are trained for this and actually do that for work. NG will absolutely LOVE this.
I bet that this is yet another PR stunt.
-
The illegal immigration thing is just one big publicity stunt. Think about it, it's all a conspiracy to take the public focus off the real issues! Mind-controlling drugs administered through Flu Shots, collaborations with extraterrestrial organisms for the latest in shower-gel technology, and of course the horrifying secret behind Tic-Tacs... it sickens me...
-
The "up to" 6,000 Guard members won't make arrests, and they'll be deployed only temporarily
what are they going to do - stare menacingly?
"Oi, you, stop there!"
"Eh....no comprende Englessh senor! No understandamente!"
"I said stop!"
"Eh, or what, gringo?"
"Or i'll...I'll.....I'll call the police!"
"Bye senor!"
-
well, two ways this could possibly go, one with more media coverage than the other.
-
The NG don't need to actually do anything.
If they're just standing around at the easy breach points, immigrants will see them, won't try to use those places and will hit the less covered areas where real border patrols are laying in wait.
The simple process of having US troops visible on the border will be a deterant. And even if they lack the authority to detain people, they can still point their guns at them and make the immigrants think they'll be shot if they don't lay down and wait to be arrested.
It's also possible they're using it as a training exercise for when they ship the National Guard out to patrol the borders of Iraq.
-
Considering Mexico are soon to legalise personal quantities of just about any drug, I wouldn't be surprised if those Guards are deployed mainly to search Americans on their way back from Mexico ;)
-
They tried this before...and somebody got shot. Mass public relations disaster. Somebody'll get shot again.
-
They tried this before...and somebody got shot. Mass public relations disaster. Somebody'll get shot again.
Before or after the PR disaster?
:nervous: (http://www.sectorgame.com/aldo/aw/dangerousprey.jpg)
-
During.. they wandered out of the Free Speech zone, which was under a bridge in Nevada whilst Bush is in California ;)
-
The "up to" 6,000 Guard members won't make arrests, and they'll be deployed only temporarily
what are they going to do - stare menacingly?
"Oi, you, stop there!"
"Eh....no comprende Englessh senor! No understandamente!"
"I said stop!"
"Eh, or what, gringo?"
"Or i'll...I'll.....I'll call the police!"
"Bye senor!"
This isn't militarization.
The NG troops are there in order to support the border patrol by building infrastructure, etc. so more actual border patrol agents are freed up to, duh, patrol the border.
-
The "up to" 6,000 Guard members won't make arrests, and they'll be deployed only temporarily
what are they going to do - stare menacingly?
"Oi, you, stop there!"
"Eh....no comprende Englessh senor! No understandamente!"
"I said stop!"
"Eh, or what, gringo?"
"Or i'll...I'll.....I'll call the police!"
"Bye senor!"
This isn't militarization.
The NG troops are there in order to support the border patrol by building infrastructure, etc. so more actual border patrol agents are freed up to, duh, patrol the border.
What, like the Berlin wall?
-
This is one of the few issues on which I back Bush and US conservatives. Every country has a right to maintain its borders and control the influx of immigrants. If a nation decides that it will let in one immigrant every ten years, that their choice and they are allowed to enforce it. Given the size of the US-Mexico border, and the large numbers of people trying to constantly get acrosss it, deploying troops may be the only way to have effective control. Either that, or building a wall, but that would be even more unpopular. Now arguably, those patrolling the border should be trained and certified Border Guards (or whatever they're called), and not 18 year-old kids in the National Guard, but whatever.
From everything I've seen and read, illegal immigration is a very real and significant problem in the Southern US, with Mexicans displacing Americans as the majority in some places.
-
This is one of the few issues on which I back Bush and US conservatives. Every country has a right to maintain its borders and control the influx of immigrants. If a nation decides that it will let in one immigrant every ten years, that their choice and they are allowed to enforce it. Given the size of the US-Mexico border, and the large numbers of people trying to constantly get acrosss it, deploying troops may be the only way to have effective control. Either that, or building a wall, but that would be even more unpopular. Now arguably, those patrolling the border should be trained and certified Border Guards (or whatever they're called), and not 18 year-old kids in the National Guard, but whatever.
From everything I've seen and read, illegal immigration is a very real and significant problem in the Southern US, with Mexicans displacing Americans as the majority in some places.
:nod:
I was going to make a nice long post but you beat me to it.
-
This isn't militarization.
The NG troops are there in order to support the border patrol by building infrastructure, etc. so more actual border patrol agents are freed up to, duh, patrol the border
If they are just "building infrastructure", then why not call in the Army Corps of Engineers? They are the ones who do that sort of thing, not the NG.
-
Actually, the National Guard DOES do that sort of thing.
-
Actually, the National Guard DOES do that sort of thing.
When they have a budget for it and it's not been pissed away on the Department of Rubik Cube Knockoff Inspections, IIRC.
-
Actually, the National Guard DOES do that sort of thing.
Other than helping with sandbags during floods, what do they do?
Where do you get your info from?
But also, what exactly are they going to build in the middle of nowhere?
-
A big sign that says 'GO AWAY!'?
-
If they are just "building infrastructure", then why not call in the Army Corps of Engineers? They are the ones who do that sort of thing, not the NG.
Because... the engineers are needed... elsewhere? :nervous:
Of course army is not wanted to perform army operations on domestic soil, they are sent elsewhere to do them. If they DID put army to do this, it would raise even more eyebrows and cries about militarization, even though they are now putting the National Guard to do exactly the same things army engineers would do.
Though I don't really know about the NG's role on US, I had a vague impression that they are more like a vacational disaster control force, deployed on areas where work power is needed for clearance operations or search&rescue missions. Pretty much what Finnish Defence Forces are also committed to do, if police, fire department or medical department or practically any authority requests help to do some simple things that simply require a lot of man power to do but do not require long trainging - an ideal task would be for example filling sand sacks to prevent flooding damage, or search for a demented old granny who disappeared from her home and wonders somewhere in the wilderness.
Practically, I tend to think that as long as they keep on to their own borders the US government can do pretty much anything their own laws let them to do, I have nothing to say to that. If they want to keep the mexican immigrants away by these kind of means, fine, I cannot judge them for it (though I do have my suspicions of what the real reasons behind this are - why have they not done this ages ago if they think the immigrants are this big a problem? They can't be that slow to understand things... or can they...? :shaking:)
Anyway, as long as they keep to US soil I don't really have a word of complaint. On the other hand, sending soldiers on the other side of the world to invade countries and overthrow their governments on basis of unreliable intelligence suggesting there to be WMD's is much, much worse. Good second of the List of Nasty Things is the government doing illegal things in the name of national security - Guantanamo prisoners' rights question, government telling untruthful things to their own nation and illegal telephone eavesdropping, to mention but a few things that, to tell the truth, scare me hella lot more than 6000 national guards sended to help patrol the US-Mexican border.
What scares me even more is that no real power that would oppose to these actions. What I hope is that if US goes for a war on Iran, the other UN countries would simply unite and say that if you do that, we put you onto a commercial blockade and it will last until every intention to invade Iran has faded and every last of the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay has been trialled and either convicted or freed (in which case the US would have to pay significant sums of money to little compensate the suffering of innocents that there might are. Added with a public apology. If they are so sure they are "dangerous people" that cannot be set free - why don't they trial them and convict them if proven guilty? I mean, if they have done something illegal by national laws, or illegal by US laws on US soil and it can be proven, there should be no problem trialing and convicting them. AFAIK no one should be convicted for crimes he hasn't yet done.
Hell, saying that they are dangerous is in itself no reason to keep them detained. I might also become quite dangerous if I was kept in a prison without a reason, trial or anything for several years, then freed and told that you haven't actually done anything wrong, but the reason we kept you here was that you could have done something wrong.
Well, this post is getting way off topic and becoming more of an angry rant about these things that we already have more than enough threads here, sorry about that. Anyway, if you US citizens don't like what your government does, start voting less lazily if you really care. This is not directed to any specific person or people, it's just that too many people in america are too little interested in politics to keep an eye on the politics and what they do. Meh. Okay, rant over, tear it apart or do whatever you wish with it. :blah:
-
If they are just "building infrastructure", then why not call in the Army Corps of Engineers? They are the ones who do that sort of thing, not the NG.
The Corp of Engineers does the design, management, and supervisory stuff. They're highly trained technical people, they don't do spadework. The Guard, more often then not, are the ones who provide the manpower to actually build things.
-
I see. But still, what is the gaurd going to build? The Great Wall of America?
-
Watchtowers presumably. According to people who own property on the border, once a watchtower goes up, illegal immigration (at least in that area) goes down significantly.
-
for those of you unaware of what exactly the national gaurd is, let me provide a breife history lessen and explaination, when this country was young it was basicly a confederation, that is virtualy no central government (I'm talking the post revolutionary war-pre(and early post) constitution), before the current constitution was writen the national government had (amung many other things) no military, if the central government wanted to send a force into the ohio vally to take out a few british forts that were causeing problems they had **** all authority to do anything. in the early days _ALL_ power rested in the hands of the states, includeing military power, each state had it's own independent militia. after the constitution the central government quickly gain huge swaths of power, but in it there are to this day remnants of the old state run era, the national gaurd is the modern decendant of the state militia, each state has a national gaurd, the governer can call them up for just about any job he thinks is needed from them, usualy this is something like disaster releafe, however, if there is for example massive out of countrole (beond the capacity of the city police forces) riots, or if some group (like a cult or something) tries an armed upriseing of some sort the governer of a state can call in his national gaurd troops to do the military thing. now the somewhat confuseing thing is that the president can overide the governer and call up a state's national guard for some national crisis (if there was a major war with someone who could fight back and our cities were getting bombed, it's most likely that it would be the national guard that would be the domestic military preasence) each of the states that are involved could have at any time independently taken this action, unfortunately most state governers and governments lacked the political will to do so, largely due to the fact that these states have huge populations of illigals, and decendants of illegals (BTW if you are born on American soil you are a citizen, even if neither of your parents were in the country legaly) so the demographics of these states makes takeing any stand against illigal emigration politicaly dangerous or suicidal.
-
"What scares me even more is that no real power that would oppose to these actions."
there is an expresion; better the devil you know that the devil you don't. don't do everything in your power to bring down America just because we do things elsewere that you are uncomfortable with, if you succeed the next power to rise might be a hell of a lot more agressive and dangerous than us, all jokeing asside, the US realy isn't _that_ bad, the US was the balinceing power against the Nazis (eventualy and with help) an the USSR, the the US of that day was a hell of a lot wilder than today, I'm not asking you to fall to your knees and kiss our asses, but just consiter that a world with the US with solid power might not be the worst case the world could know.
"What I hope is that if US goes for a war on Iran, the other UN countries would simply unite and say that if you do that, we put you onto a commercial blockade and it will last until every intention to invade Iran has faded and every last of the prisoners in..."
what I hope is that if we go for war in Iran the rest of the world will look at the situation and try to make a judgement for themselves. if Iran is makeing nukes (and I think this time every one seems to more or less agree it at least looks bad) and gives the rest of the world the finger, I hope the rest of the world will give Iran the finger right back, and not let Iran get nukes just to get back at us.
I sould also probly mark this as the start of a potential thread split.
-
there is an expresion; better the devil you know that the devil you don't. don't do everything in your power to bring down America just because we do things elsewere that you are uncomfortable with, if you succeed the next power to rise might be a hell of a lot more agressive and dangerous than us, all jokeing asside, the US realy isn't _that_ bad, the US was the balinceing power against the Nazis (eventualy and with help) an the USSR, the the US of that day was a hell of a lot wilder than today, I'm not asking you to fall to your knees and kiss our asses, but just consiter that a world with the US with solid power might not be the worst case the world could know.
1. The USSR lost over 12 million people during the war. The American casulties can be counted in (hundred) thousands.
2. You ovetook half of Europe (or pretty much put 'em on a short leash) for half a century with your red mongering, and pretty much didn't give a **** when people actually asked for your intervention against said menance.
In 1956 the Russians - fresh troops brought in from the East mind you, not the ones that were stationed here as they refused to pound us - pretty much raped Hungary and the revolution was a political scar and stigma that lives on even today.
During that same interval, you shamelessly exploited your power over the international economy - since the stock markets were all valued against the dollar, you could simply press your money and get away with it, all in defense against the Red Menance™.
The USA is on a road where more the personal freedom of its citizens is curtailed, whereas your political freedom was forever pretty tight: you could never claim to be a communist and live to tell about it.
Your idea of secularisation is also somewhat skewed: you don't have a state religion, but religion is present in any foundation of your government. Every facet of your state is also ironbound to be a facet of God.
(He's in the courtrooms, the school, in all your oaths and even your football matches.)
So to sum it all up:
In spite of all your sermons of enlightenment and moral superiority, your superpower has wrought just as much grief on the world as the ill fated comrades did.
Your morals often seem hypocritical in face of reality. Your crusaders are no better then their original namesakes - with holy icons on their shields they are the worst band of bloody bandites history has ever seen.
Check South East Asia, the manufacturing farm for your empire - it's a practical modern colonialism with slaves bound by economic realities instead cold iron chains.
Check Africa, your dumping and testing ground for anything nasty you'd be too ashamed to see on your own soil. Recommended Film: Darvin's Challenge.
You're no hollier than the rest of us.
Is there *anyone* out there, that was actually saved by *you*?
-
Is there *anyone* out there, that was actually saved by *you*?
*Raises hand*
*Looks around*
*Slowly lowers hand*
-
Your idea of secularisation is also somewhat skewed: you don't have a state religion, but religion is present in any foundation of your government. Every facet of your state is also ironbound to be a facet of God.
(He's in the courtrooms, the school, in all your oaths and even your football matches.)
Not in the schools and courts of Washington State at least ;)
But yes... most of the country is pretty screwed up in that regard...
-
there is an expresion; better the devil you know that the devil you don't. don't do everything in your power to bring down America just because we do things elsewere that you are uncomfortable with, if you succeed the next power to rise might be a hell of a lot more agressive and dangerous than us, all jokeing asside, the US realy isn't _that_ bad, the US was the balinceing power against the Nazis (eventualy and with help) an the USSR, the the US of that day was a hell of a lot wilder than today, I'm not asking you to fall to your knees and kiss our asses, but just consiter that a world with the US with solid power might not be the worst case the world could know.
Yes indeed, the fear of unknown is often greater than the fear of what is.
I'm not talking about bringing down America, I'm talking about even trying to make US change its international policies at least a little bet onto more appreciable way. You know, not invading other countries and trying to talk for "free world", making many many people in third world countries (primarily moslims) quite angry about what is happening.
Then, when the religious nutcracks have taken advantage of negative emotions US actions have awoken, which makes it hole lotta easier to recruit suicide bombers and stuff like that, your government starts capturing "illegal fighters", which are basically any bearded civilian found near a battlezone, perhaps holding a self-made Klashnikov (probably just to protect himself and perhaps his family from bandits), call them "illegal combatants" and thus strip them off their human rights, such as international war legislation, because they are "not POW's" - but they don't give them civil legislation either, because they are not civilians either...?
If you look at the situation you notice that US is quite a bit closing to 50's situation in realtion to communism, but in stead of communism ther is now terrorism, and in stead of McCarthy's liaisons there is the Homeland Security and all other domestic intelligence. If you look at the Homeland Security (http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/) web pages, you quite soon notice following, under "Threads and Protection":
The Department of Homeland Security merges under one roof the capability to anticipate, preempt and deter threats to the homeland whenever possible, and the ability to respond quickly when such threats do materialize.
The department is responsible for assessing the vulnerabilities of the nation's critical infrastructure and cyber security threats and takes the lead in evaluating these vulnerabilities and coordinating with other federal, state, local, and private entities to ensure the most effective response.
DHS encourages individuals to report information concerning suspicious or criminal activity and cyber security incidents to Homeland Security.
Notice that
a. threats materialize, ie. appear from nothing. Though this might also be an attempt to use a bit more colourful language than most department pages...
b. the part in bold. That is what I would be most worried - in effect, they are gearing up a civil net to keep an eye on their neighbours. Not unlike in 50's US, or STASI in East Germany.
So, in the name of communism they are constructing a net of increased surveillance and putting the citizens to do the surveillance for them.
And no, US being a solid power does perhaps somewhat stabilize the world politics, but the point is that the situation could be so much better without mistakes made by US in the more distant past (putting Saddam on power, helpin Bin Laden to battle Russians in Afganistan, supporting dictators like Augusto Pinochet in countries where there was even a slight risk of the country having even remotely "communist" government, AND the mistakes made more recently, like attacking Iraq in the first place, but mostly dealing the invasion quite much half-assed, effectively turning the country onto a sandpit of suicide bombers, without an effective centralized government, and causing a greatly increased risk of civil war therein.
The point being that very big deal of anger against US in moslim collective mind really originates in mistakes US has made. When that anger grew too big for US, (that is, started to have a direct effect against US - mainly September 11th) they started "dealing" with it, but in process they have thus far only sprouted more anger. Even though I haven't learned psychology or political sciences, I can see that the current US international politics is not getting the situation any better but quite the contrary.
what I hope is that if we go for war in Iran the rest of the world will look at the situation and try to make a judgement for themselves. if Iran is makeing nukes (and I think this time every one seems to more or less agree it at least looks bad) and gives the rest of the world the finger, I hope the rest of the world will give Iran the finger right back, and not let Iran get nukes just to get back at us.
Oh bloody hell...
Firstly, Iran themselves have continuously stated that their nuclear program is only for civilian purposes.
Secondly, the agencies saying that the Iranese are developing nuclear weapons are the very same that, according to president Bush the Second, calimed that it was absolute certainty that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, which was of course complete bull****. So I don't really trust any more very much what is said about the possibility of Iran manufacturing nukes.
If they do develop nukes, the do infrict the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty they have verified, which would of course have grave consequences to their country's economy (which isn't in very good state the time being), and frankly, I don't think they would want to risk that. I rather think that as long as they are proved to lie about their nuclear programme's purposes, they really are doing civil research for civil purposes. "Innocent until proven guilty", as they say even in US - at least until these times. And for the time being, my opinion is that it is not yet proven. As long as they are into Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, they must of course not develop nukes. If they withdraw from it, things become more complicated.
I don't want anyone to have nukes. That doesn't give me right to force everyone to agree with me. As much as it sucks, a country that is not onto Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty has full rights to develop and produce nukes. What would needed is some kind of stron consensus in the UN to make having nukes at all illegal, and make the existing nuclear powers to get rid of their nukes ASAP. This would, of course, require the countries really submitting to international authority, including US. Unfortunately I don't see that coming very soon. ::) What would rock, and hard, would be to gather all the fricking nukes in the world onto one spot on high orbit and DETONATE them all at the same time, preferably on new year's eve. ;7 Unfortunately, I can't see that coming either...
I sould also probly mark this as the start of a potential thread split.
Seconded, this is getting out of hands.
-
Firstly, Iran themselves have continuously stated that their nuclear program is only for civilian purposes.
To be fair, would anyone actually take Iran at their word on this?
-
To be fair, would anyone actually take Iran at their word on this?
Possibly? I don't know, i've never heard of Iran making blatantly fraudulent claims to the world, that seems more of a Western thing.
-
To be fair, would anyone actually take Iran at their word on this?
Possibly? I don't know, i've never heard of Iran making blatantly fraudulent claims to the world, that seems more of a Western thing.
Well, would you trust them (the leadership) to? Because even if they've never lied before, it doesn't make them incapable of deceit. Especially as we know the effect of the admitting to having any form of nuclear weapons programme would likely be war (and yet, conversely, I'd imagine the US pre-emptive strike policy is what would lead to nuclear weapon development).
-
To be fair, would anyone actually take Iran at their word on this?
Id doesn't really matter whether we believe them or not.
They either are trying to develope nukes or they aren't. They say they aren't. So, until there is conclusive eidence (and I'm not talking about trucks in satellite pictures or some vague things pointing that this might be the case) we have to presume they are not trying to develope nukes.
Well, telling blatantly untruthful things is not actually just a western thing. Russians are well known of it too, so is the former Iraqi Minister of Information, Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf. ;)
Anyway, to say even something related to original subject: Putting National Guard to guard the border is definitely not on top of my list of not-so-good things in America, many other things reach much higher. But perhaps we should discuss about them on other threads.
-
god damnit, were did I say we were the saviors of the world? all I said was we were a counter balince to the USSR and an important force before that, that as far as world powers go things could be a whole hell of a lot worse, and you'd probly be better off not opposeing stuf just because you think we need to be opposed, that you should actualy look at each situation and ask if we have a point, rather than just saying, "the US wants it therefore it must be bad"
and the "president" of Iran has made a nomber of nutjob statements, do you realy want someone that unstable with both medium range missle technology AND nukes within strikeing distance of not mearly Isreal but also a great swath of Europe? if your thinking that Iran is not developing Nukes, a lot of people we treated very baddly after they refused not to go along with us in Iraq are saying that they are worried about the current situation, and infact calling for more action.
-
Yeah, before the Soviets came along, those Americans were all up in protecting the world with their important force and looking out for the free world! Go them! ...Wait a minute ...That doesn't sound right ...Oh, what I meant to say was that they were isolationist f***tards motivated to action only by direct threat economically or militarily. Yeah, we could do a lot worse, be would could also do a hell of a lot better.
and the "president" of Iran has made a nomber of nutjob statements, do you realy want someone that unstable with both medium range missle technology AND nukes...
I love the hypocrisy in that statement.
...do you realy want someone that unstable with both medium range missle technology AND nukes within strikeing distance of not mearly Isreal but also a great swath of Europe? if your thinking that Iran is not developing Nukes, a lot of people we treated very baddly after they refused not to go along with us in Iraq are saying that they are worried about the current situation, and infact calling for more action.
I hate to drag the subject on further, but for f***'s sake, I hate it when people instantly assume that if Iran is developing Nuclear Weapons, they'll suddenly have the ability to strike anywhere on the continent inside of a week. If they chose to develop nuclear weapons, it would be at least three years before they could even begin testing, which is going to be mighty f***ing difficult given the miriad of orbital cameras and seismic observation stations listening out for the slightest hint of a nuclear-scale detonation. Even if they manage to get nukes, I believe [correct me if i'm wrong] Iran lacks the capability to shoot into Europe without considerable investment which would be picked up years before it's even started, not to mention the distinct lack of will whatsoever to shoot into Europe... why the f*** would they shoot at Europe?!
The fact of the matter is, they say they're not developing Nukes, and nobody has any [publicly available] proof that they are, so - as Herra pointed out - cannot we entertain the possibility that they're not developing? I would think that, after the Iraq debacle, accusations from the US regarding WMDs would now hold considerably less credence on the global stage, but sadly, this appears not to be the case.
@Aldo: Point well made. Frankly, what I truly contest is not their willingness to lie, but their willingness to actually develop nuclear weapons in the first place. Iran has been around long enough to know that nukes - while alluring with the whole 'cleansing holy fire' thing - cause more problems than they solve. They know just as well as anyone else that the discovery of a nuclear weapons programme within their borders will 'serously jeopardise the continued existance of the Iranian people' if you know what I mean.
-
As much as a nutjob you might think Bush is, he hasn't denied the Holocaust.
-
But Bush supports ID, which - while it may not be as wrong as Holocaust denying - is so damn stupid I can't even think of an adjective to denote how stupid it is!
-
*Sigh*
It's not THAT stupid though.
-
Yes. Yes it is. And we had multiple very long discussions why that is.
-
It's irrational, not stupid. There's a slight but crucial difference.
And I don't know how US foreign policy became mixed up in all this. In fact, one of the only reasons I support the whole "lock down the border" plan is because it's exclusively a domestic poilicy decision. The difference being that one is a more or less illegitimate exercise of power, while the other is wholy legitimate.
-
ok, we did play an important role in WW2, yes? did I say "protecting the free world" at any point in that coment? no, I said we were important, and implied not evil.
Iran's presedent has even more questions to his legitimacy than Bush, and that is saying something.
I am fairly sure the guy has said he/Iran has a divine right to develop nuclear weapons, once they get them it will be a hell of a lot more dificult to take them away than it would be to simply keep them from getting them in the first place, the question is are they developing them and should we do something about it, I am simply asking that you slow, down look at the situation and think about it, without reactivly saying 'if the US invades we'll blockade them cause tehy is teh ev1|!!!1!'. we're no were near that point yet, just consiter it might be bad if Iran gets Nukes.
and Iran actualy has very good missle technology, they currently posses missles that can reach parts of Europe (not that missle are the only delivery system at there disposal).
-
and Iran actualy has very good missle technology, they currently posses missles that can reach parts of Europe (not that missle are the only delivery system at there disposal).
True, but again, why would they want to go after Europe? At least 2 EU members have more than enough nuclear missiles to flatten Iran if they tried something like that.
And about the USSR, to be fair it was a legitimate threat to literally everyone around it. However, that still does not excuse some of the things the US did during the Cold War.
-
What scares me even more is that no real power that would oppose to these actions. What I hope is that if US goes for a war on Iran, the other UN countries would simply unite and say that if you do that, we put you onto a commercial blockade and it will last until every intention to invade Iran has faded and every last of the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay has been trialled and either convicted or freed (in which case the US would have to pay significant sums of money to little compensate the suffering of innocents that there might are. Added with a public apology. If they are so sure they are "dangerous people" that cannot be set free - why don't they trial them and convict them if proven guilty? I mean, if they have done something illegal by national laws, or illegal by US laws on US soil and it can be proven, there should be no problem trialing and convicting them. AFAIK no one should be convicted for crimes he hasn't yet done.
Quite unfortunate that you are that desperate to see America defeated and humiliated. You forgot to mention that the UN sits in New York.. dont think they would imagine trying something that foolish, and the US is a permanent member on the security council.
-
What scares me even more is that no real power that would oppose to these actions. What I hope is that if US goes for a war on Iran, the other UN countries would simply unite and say that if you do that, we put you onto a commercial blockade and it will last until every intention to invade Iran has faded and every last of the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay has been trialled and either convicted or freed (in which case the US would have to pay significant sums of money to little compensate the suffering of innocents that there might are. Added with a public apology. If they are so sure they are "dangerous people" that cannot be set free - why don't they trial them and convict them if proven guilty? I mean, if they have done something illegal by national laws, or illegal by US laws on US soil and it can be proven, there should be no problem trialing and convicting them. AFAIK no one should be convicted for crimes he hasn't yet done.
Quite unfortunate that you are that desperate to see America defeated and humiliated. You forgot to mention that the UN sits in New York.. dont think they would imagine trying something that foolish, and the US is a permanent member on the security council.
Where in my post did I say I want to see United States defeated and humiliated?
What I would like to see is the following:
- US starts to mind more their own business (which, by te deteriorating state of its economical situation would be much more profitable and useful to it than invading countries in fear of nonexistent WMD's) and if they have a problem with some other country, deal with it THROUGH the United Nations just like any other country and not by bypassing it and practically using the "right of the strongest" in world policy against countryes they are pissed off by, and
- US either releases the prisoners they keep in Guantanamo Bay OR gives their a trial and convicts them. If they have a way to prove they are criminals, it shouldn't be any kind of a problem to trial and convict the, If, on the other hand they cannot get the proof to convict them... Why keep them there? Also, to those who they cannot prove to be guilty of committing crimes and convict them, they owe some big compensation and a public apology, though I doubt their ability to compensate for being kept imprisoned for years without trial.
Also I'd very much like to see US government starting to follow their own legislation (incliding constitution) and stop to bypass it in the name of national security. I'm talking, of course, mainly the incident(s) involving illegally authorized wire tapping and lying to their own citizens. But that, on the other hand, is not my headache. It should be the US citizens' headache. My opinion doesn't matter on this; if you really are not disturbed by it, by all means allow your government to do whatever they wish inside your own borders. That's your problem.
It becomes my problem when they start breaking international laws outside their own borders, imprisoning citizens of other countries, transporting them to US military facilities and keeping them there without trial for years.
Now, if you see those things listed there as being defeated and humiliated... well, that's your problem. Perhaps I should give a clearer definition to what I meant by this:
What scares me even more is that no real power that would oppose to these actions. What I hope is that if US goes for a war on Iran, the other UN countries would simply unite and say that if you do that, we put you onto a commercial blockade and it will last until every intention to invade Iran has faded and every last of the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay has been trialled and either convicted or freed (in which case the US would have to pay significant sums of money to little compensate the suffering of innocents that there might are.
What I meant by this, is that if the US keeps having continuous difficulties with international laws, something should be done, if we don't want international laws to be just words on the paper. All meaning in having an international law disappears when the strongest state in the world leaves themselves a possibility to bypass the international law if it's appropriate for them. Now, of course things as extreme as a commercial blockade are highly unlikely to happen, and I wouldn't want to see it in the first place. But I also don't want to see the small authority the UN has being undermined completely by a state that only follow the common rules when they want, and when they don't want to they just show the UN the finger and do whatever they want... but still want anyone else to keep it civil with the UN?
So. A random state breaks UN rules, it's but under commercial blockade or otherwise hindered. US breaks the international laws and UN rules - the logical follow-up would be at least SOME action that would at least prevent a thing like that from happening in the future.
The things become entirely different if the US gets UN appreciation for attack on Iran, which I don't think they will likely get, but anyway. In that case the operation would be completely legal and I would have no great grimes about it.
And if someone yet has difficulty comprehending what I have just said, here's the deal shortly:
I think United States is a country amongst others and should be susceptible to same rules as any other UN member country is (considering that the US was actually a major contributor when the UN rules were being made, it shouldn't be very difficult for them, but it seems to be nevertheless).
I do not think US is some great devil that should be punished or anything like that. That would be kinda stupid. I also don't want to see Us being "humiliated" or "defeated", I'd only like it to follow the same rules they presume everyone else must follow. By all means the US can be as profit-seeking and arrogant as they want as long as they keep it within the limits they helped to set up themselves.
If you see that as humiliation, so be it. I call it equality. Which, I believe, is also quite a prominent thing in your own constitution.
I'm sorry for the obvious repetitive for this message. I just wanted to make sure it would be as hard to misinterpret as possible.
-
Mmmmmm... so Egyptian.
-
What scares me even more is that no real power that would oppose to these actions. What I hope is that if US goes for a war on Iran, the other UN countries would simply unite and say that if you do that, we put you onto a commercial blockade and it will last until every intention to invade Iran has faded and every last of the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay has been trialled and either convicted or freed (in which case the US would have to pay significant sums of money to little compensate the suffering of innocents that there might are. Added with a public apology. If they are so sure they are "dangerous people" that cannot be set free - why don't they trial them and convict them if proven guilty? I mean, if they have done something illegal by national laws, or illegal by US laws on US soil and it can be proven, there should be no problem trialing and convicting them. AFAIK no one should be convicted for crimes he hasn't yet done.
Quite unfortunate that you are that desperate to see America defeated and humiliated. You forgot to mention that the UN sits in New York.. dont think they would imagine trying something that foolish, and the US is a permanent member on the security council.
Hmmm.... it's interesting that this would entail 'defeated and humiliated', given that it'd be punishment for 2 manifestly illegal (presuming there was no mandate for a war on Iran) acts under treaties the US has signed and pledged to obey as a UN member (is a thief 'defeated and humiliated' when they are jailed for stealing, or just punished?).
Even though the US' veto would prevent any security council resolution against it, I don't see how it would be 'foolish' for the UN to actually do it's job and enforce those treaties and the will of the member states, although there could be (just & fair) criticism if it were only the US being held to rights. In a world where the US is the only superpower, it is really necessary for the UN to function as it should do (not necesssarily as it does), to prevent a de-facto hegemony; if you want a reason for it, imagine if China was the only superpower and how happy you would feel about it.