Printable View
Evan,
You must have been here on a Sunday, we clean our firearms then. :D
In all seriousness, there was a major campaign in New York City to improve "quality of life" by having a rather low tolerance for all crimes, including the "harmless" stuff like grafitti. It was controvertial (and still is), but most people feel it worked.
I have to say, calguard, that I wish more people here were as level headed as you seem to be.
On polls, I believe that we elect leaders to lead based on information that they have and the rest of us don't. If we wanted leaders to simply do what the polls say the public want's then we should have an Athenian Democracy instesd of a Republic.
Of course, the idea of the U.S. being led by the decisions of the very uninformed and capricious "mob" terrifies me. And should terrify the world as well.
I don't have access to all of the intelligence data that our leaders do, and I don't want them to release it to the public because it would harm our long term ability to gather more. While this does leave open the door to abuse by our leaders that is hardly a new condition in the world and frankly there is no system of government that cannot be abused by it's own leadership.
So, instead of second guessing the government based on the incomplete info I possess, or on the word of so called experts(who don't have access to that intelligence data either), I try to simply support the people that were elected to make those decisions.
I admit I do not always agree with them, but it is the way things work.
The U.S. won't find more support in Europe than in the Eastern part. Countries like Lithuania, Romania and Poland see the U.S. as the ultimate good-guy.
The U.S. should also place Romania on its list of "close" allies, I read somewhere that they signed a special treaty with the U.S. concerning the I.C.C.. Romania will not handover any U.S. citizen to the I.C.C. without prior approval.
While I agree with what you said, my own personal concern is the executive branch has been, in my opinion, taking excessive power from other branches, meaning the elected leaders are not making decisions, save for the president.Quote:
Originally posted by aelius
On polls, I believe that we elect leaders to lead based on information that they have and the rest of us don't. If we wanted leaders to simply do what the polls say the public want's then we should have an Athenian Democracy instesd of a Republic.
Of course, the idea of the U.S. being led by the decisions of the very uninformed and capricious "mob" terrifies me. And should terrify the world as well.
As an example, while Bush is commander-in-chief, he is dependent upon the Congress for declarations of war and, since those are so rare, funding for the military. While I agree with calguard's statement that Congress has already authorized the use of force against Iraq, it is my opinion that that was in regards to liberating Kuwait and enforing the treaty at the end of the war. The executive branch has indicated that regardless of compliance, Hussein must go. Whether I agree with that or not, if Hussein were to suddently let inspectors back in (which I doubt), then even if he were still to be a threat (which he may very well be), this would go beyond the original authorization of congress.
Similarly, the stripping of US citizens of their right to trial by jury (i.e. the "dirty bomber") takes away power from the judicial branch. It is one thing if he were caught in an enemy army, but to arbitrarily strip rights away from a citizen is another.
Oddly, I agree with most of Bush's goals, however his methods I disagree with. I dislike too much power going to the executive branch. Do I need to be consulted for an invasion of Iraq to oust Hussein? No. Should congress? If the purpose of an invasion is to oust him no matter what, then I believe yes.
I agree, Dan, that were Saddam to suddenly comply with the terms of the ceasefire we would lose our justification for an invasion. However, I feel confidant that this hypothetical scenario will never happen.
To comply with the ceasefire Saddam would have to agree that the inspectors could go anywhere in the country with no warning or delay's as well as stop shooting at our aircraft. I can't see him agreeing to that. If he did that would be fine because we could then defang his weapons production. But as they say "I won't hold my breath".
As it stands however, the country of Iraq has been in violation of the ceasefire for almost ten years and that is more than sufficient justifacation for the resumption of hostilities under international law.
In fact, hostilities are ongoing. An invasion would simply be retaliating for the near daily attacks on coalition aircraft conducted by Iraqi forces in violation of the ceasfire agreement.
Because of this situation the President has no legal obligation to get approval from Congree or our allies for any attack on Iraq.
In spite of this, what I would do is go to the UN and lay it on the line. Point out those nations that are helping Iraq violate the sanctions and tell the security council that if they do not clamp down on the sanction busting and enforce the resolutions passed against Iraq that we will resume hostilities against Iraq for violations of the ceasfire agreement put in place by the coalition under UN aegis.
The only way the UN could block such a move would be a security council resolution and the US could veto any such attempt.
As to the increasing power of the Executive branch, I agree that Padilla should not be declared an enemy combatent without evidence. The problem is that the US government seems to thrive on leaks. The people who do the leaking seem to ignore the fact that when they leak classified information they are placing peoples lives at risk, as well as compromising the ability of the US to gather further intelligence. So the gov't needs to find a judge who can evaluate the info who can be trusted not to leak it to the press.
Of course when they do something like that the press starts accusing them of secret trials.
There is no simple solution to this problem, and it will take time to find a good one. The problem is that everyone want's the right answer immediatly. Many times in the history of this country situations involving conflict between the branches of gov't have been settled, but it takes time to reach a balance point.
Dan & Aelius: I agree with you that there are cetain issues that have raised questions even in a conservative like me. For instance, I agree that the dirty bomber is entitled to a trial by jury of his peers. With this whole international terrorism problem, however, we find ourselves dealing with some very sticky wickets; namely intelligence versus law enforcement.
Alot of the tips we get concerning terrorist activities do not come from law enforcement but from intelligence. On the surface, this is simple. Have the intelligence folks pass the information on to law enforcement under the aegis of posse comitatis. Here's the problem: under posse comitatis, intelligence can only be used for the development of leads, not for evidence.
This can be worked around if the evidence can be produced by a Law Enforcement Agency (LEA) from a friendly nation. What if the crucial evidence, however is located in a hostile or (for lack of a better term) quizling state? You know the guy is as guilty as sin but under current laws, what evidence you have is inadmissable in court. Do you let the terrorist-in-the-making go?
A Sincere Apology to the Two Captain Hunters
Guys, I dropped the ball big time and I don't know what to say except I'm sorry.
Khrys: THere is no doubt about it that Poland has been a big time booster to NATO. They have hit the ground running and have proven themselves to be stalwart allies. Romania is...coming along.
...and a Little Something from the CYA Department
I do not by any stretch of the imagination consider any North American or Western European nation to be a "Quizling State". We both have the same goals but the devil is in the details. The fact that we are arguing back and forth over ways and means is a pretty solid indicator that we are allies to one another, not vassals. The current arguing is not going to be the end of all things. It's just the same process all of us went through the Cold War and even after this terrorism mess is sorted out we'll argue again. Nations, like the people they represent, have their own view points and it is far better that they are aired out rather that kept bottled up. While the folks on the political side continue to bicker, the folks on the operational side of the house continue to talk. The more things change, the more things stay the same (I'd use the French phrase but I fear that if I attempted to write it out, I'd make the eyes of all the Fracophones on this board bleed). I deal with alot of frustration in a job where it is very easy to slide into cynicism. Deep down inside, however, I ultimately believe that things will work out. I guess I'm just an "In the Closet Optimist".
I understand completely. However, the horror of war is only one of many lessons WWII has to teach. If that is the only lesson learned, which it seems to be with many Europeans, the result is a ostrich-like head-in-the-sand denial of reality.
Quote:
Originally posted by Evan van Eyk
Maybe that reluctance is because large parts of Europe were battlefield in WWII. Concerning me I still have many family members who remember WWII and as I am interested in history I always tried to get information of that time and know pretty well of the horros of it, althouh certainly not comparable to actual experience.
Although US were a major power in the war they never had battles in front of the door.
On the other hand I am not of the opinion to add any achievements of single persons to records of single cuntries, after all its not our benefit that Einstein was a genius and the like. I like more to regard achievements of any kind, may it be good or bad, as human achievements, because after all we all have to live with the consequences.
Well, actually... that IS me, but not all (or perhaps even most) Americans. And I prefer a shotgun to a revolver.Quote:
BTW
"The caricature of an American in Europe is probably a gunslinger who wants to shoot badguys, eat at McDonalds, and drill for some oil to pump directly into the 3 Mile Per Gallon SUV"
Do not tell that is not the right picture?? I am shocked!! ;)
I'm glad you had a good experience. Come visit the West Coast next time.Quote:
On a side note I have to admit, while I am certainly no prejudiced person and openminded, I expected something like that when entering the US. Its been three years now that I was in New York and I somehow expected to see more, well brutal people, after all what you hear about crimes and that. But I was really surprised how friendly, polite and generous the US were. It was really surprising when I sat on a bench with my friends looking on a city map. It's been several times that peopl asked us if we need help or advice. That people ranged from the ' guy next door' to the 'well dressed business man' leaving a bank on Wall Street. Sadly to say I never experienced something like that in Germany.
That's because we ARE... now where did I put that cape? :)
Quote:
Originally posted by Lt.Khrys Antos
The U.S. won't find more support in Europe than in the Eastern part. Countries like Lithuania, Romania and Poland see the U.S. as the ultimate good-guy.
It's Sunday - don't you on the left coast clean the capes the same time as those trusty six-shooters? :DQuote:
Originally posted by calguard66
That's because we ARE... now where did I put that cape? :)
(Though here in Massachusetts, I believe there's a 348,283,228,526,971 day waiting period to buy a can of mace, slightly longer for a pistol...)
Are you kidding? I'm at work on a Sunday. What makes you think I have time for taking my cape to the cleaners?
Egads... I just realized I'm at work on a Sunday at 1830!
Those Al Queda punks are gonna pay! :)
Quote:
Originally posted by Dan Stack
It's Sunday - don't you on the left coast clean the capes the same time as those trusty six-shooters? :D
(Though here in Massachusetts, I believe there's a 348,283,228,526,971 day waiting period to buy a can of mace, slightly longer for a pistol...)
"Of course, the question is, can we Americans who should be the living examples of our own values and principles of the Constitution, afford to allow Iraq to take a step toward democracy and have the people elect their own leaders, even if there is a possibility of having an elected leader with an anti-US disposition? This hypothetical question assumes that we have already removed Saddam (which is not a matter of "if" but "when")."
...
"the question is, can we Americans who should be the living examples of our own values and principles of the Constitution "...
Actually maybe even live up to those values before getting a H&K woody?
I agree with the original poster. I stopped coming here for a while because I expected something a little more even-handed than "We'll put a boot in your ass". Try this:
www.democraticunderground.com
I don't always agree with their tone, but it tends to be accurate enough...
Well I guess some people enjoyed the fact that most East Europeans feel that the U.S. is right.:D
The only reason I brought it up is that West and East really do differ on opinion. Having been occupied by the Soviets for nearly 50 years really can affect the population especially when the primary enemy is the U.S. to the established government.
I remember after 9/11 I was reading Polish newspapers, all of them were smearing nearly every Arab state and were stating how the U.S. should pulverize state X over state Y. Now, the only reason they don't stick out for the U.S. is that they want to join the E.U.. Next year is the referendum in Poland on whether or not to join the E.U., most polls in Poland suggest it will not pass. If it doesn't expect the government to turn 180 degrees, drop the I.C.C. treaty (which all the parties are opposed to) and help the Americans. This same situation exists in many Eastern European states, joining the E.U. is a very powerful reason why we (as in states) don't speak up.
I honestly don't quite follow what you're talking about. Could you explain further? I see little evidence of "H&K woodies" and I see a lot of diversity of opinion, on both sides of the pond.Quote:
Originally posted by Morticutor_UK
Actually maybe even live up to those values before getting a H&K woody?
I agree with the original poster. I stopped coming here for a while because I expected something a little more even-handed than "We'll put a boot in your ass".
Like the thread starter, I find it... unpleasant... that on a website dedicated to a TV show based on the ideas of universal brotherhood, IDIC and strong morality can harbour such strong, uncritical, unreflective hawkish attitudes. That's why I stopped coming here, because I got fed up of hearing so much aggression and so little reflection.
Granted, I was not clear. I was far too pissed off to actually verbalise the strong emotions I felt at the time. For this I apologise - I do not like to lose my point.
Perhaps it is unpleasant to some, but I'm surprised you would find that outside the bounds of IDIC (infinite diversity in infinite combinations). Is not understanding, perhaps even finding some value in, a view which you find abhorrent part of diversity?
On Star Trek: The Next Generation we learned the Federation had become allies with the Klingon Empire, a bunch of "militaristic hawks" if there ever were one - they fight simply for the love of battle, because they are "warriors". Yet the Federation finds something of value in them. Perhaps then there is something of value in the point of view of the hawks.
(Ironically, there is a parallel on Enterprise, where the Vulcans, inventors of IDIC, can't seem to find much of value in the Humans - Phlox even chastizes T'Pol over this. Perhaps the Vulcan-Human relationship is a metaphor for the European-American one :D )