|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,817 Year: 4,074/9,624 Month: 945/974 Week: 272/286 Day: 33/46 Hour: 5/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: George Bush leads us into the world of Kafka. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2197 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: We have lost the right of habeas corpus.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
"Some sort of reason"? Sure, there's always "some sort of reason" to spy on people. Okay, then let me extend my meaning to mean either Reasonable Suspicion or Probable Cause, not hunches.
Do you trust every single person who is currently or who will ever come into such power to not ever abuse it, not even once? I'm not sure what that has to do with the discussion. Maybe you can elaborate on your meaning.
We know that the government spies on political activists. We know that the government spies on civil rights activists. We know that the government spies on journalists. We know that the government spies on its political enemies. You say that like its a bad thing. Again, the gov't doesn't just spy on people without some corroborating reason to do so. What you are doing is demonizing and basically slandering the entire intelligence and counterintelligence community. If they spy on activists its because there is credible reason to believe that they are engaged in illegal activities. Having said that, I'm certain that somewhere along the line there has been corruption on some level, but surely you have to believe that this would be few and far between.
Do you really think that nobody has, nor will ever in the future, abuse this power, knowing that they will never be held accountable by Congress or the Courts? What a ridiculous argument. That's like saying no police officer is allowed to carry a gun because somewhere along the line someobne will use it incorrectly.
Think of the liberal politician you detest the most. Now, imagine them with the power of the Patriot Act. Still feel OK about it? Yes, because one man doesn't make a system. there are checks and balances in place so that we don't have dictatorships in power. Its called Congress who has to approve these kinds of things. "There is not in all America a more dangerous trait than the deification of mere smartness unaccompanied by any sense of moral responsibility." -Theodore Roosevelt
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
kuresu Member (Idle past 2540 days) Posts: 2544 From: boulder, colorado Joined: |
Basically, whenever a nation or system that does anything that could be construed as negative aren't Leftist by your default plan, even when all their stated ideals, goals, and programs elucidate leftist idealogies, they aren't in fact apart of "the Left? what's the point of this statement? It's like saying: "they're blue, but even though they espouse red, they aren't, hence they're blue". It's on of those duh! statements. Of course they aren't part of they aren't communist, much less leftist, when they put one group of people above the others and subjugated the lesser group's rights. I don't recall communism being about subjugating people's rights, just being about putting people on an equal footing, gov't and economic wise. let me ask you this: if someone goes around shouting that they understand the bible, they know it's true meaning, that A and E weren't punished, but freed, and called themselves christians, would you accept them as christian? After all, everything else is the same--particularly the need of christ as savior, golden rule, et al. No, the "communist" countries were not true communistic countries-they were, at best, conservative. What is the left? it's a whole range of issues, including "true communism", not the fake shit that the USSR, Cuba, China, Venezuela, et al have. Their "communism" is nothing more than facsism--I take it you're familiar with the political ideology circle? Tell me, how was Stalin's USSR different from Hitler's Germany? How was Mao's? If they want to call themselves Communist, they can go right ahead--doesn't change the facts. They do not follow the basic tenets of Marx's communism, never mind Leninism-Marxism. Jar at least follows the most basic tenet in Chrisianity--Christ as your savior. Want to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
kuresu Member (Idle past 2540 days) Posts: 2544 From: boulder, colorado Joined: |
And what happens when you have a judiciary, congress, and presidency, in control of one party? Those checks and balances begin to breakdown. It is not congress's job to pass what the president wants passed. It is not the job of the judiciary to quitely submit to what violations the congress passes. It is the duty of each branch to oppose the other branches, assuring that no single one gets too powerful. It isthe job of the people to insure that coalitions between congress and president do not happen.
Rome had a senate, consul, and a lot of other checks. And what happened when Julius got in a bunch of friends? Well, bye-bye republic, hello empire and dictator. Want to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2197 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
Do you trust every single person who is currently or who will ever come into such power to not ever abuse it, not even once? quote: The Patriot Act allows such spying without Congressional or Judicial oversight.
quote: It isn't always, but the point is that the power of spying has been abused many times, even with rather strict Congressional and Judicial oversight. We KNOW that abuses take place fairly regularly wven when we watch the Watchers. Now you want to take away any accountability or oversight from the Watchers.
quote: But if they do not have to tell anybody their reason, don't you think that is dangerous? Don't you think that this is a situation that is ripe for abuse?
quote: This is probably true most of the time. But we KNOW that they don't always do this all of the time. Abuses have happened, and continue to happen. Do you think that removing Congressional and Judicial oversight is going to make it less likely that abuses will occur?
quote: Why do I have to believe that? And besides, do you think that removing Congressional and Judicial oversight is going to make the cases of corruption and abuse [i]less frequent[/b]?
Do you really think that nobody has, nor will ever in the future, abuse this power, knowing that they will never be held accountable by Congress or the Courts? quote: No, it isn't, because police officers have lots and lots of supervision, and the consequences for misusing their guns are severe. What you are saying wrt the Patriot Act is, "It's perfectly OK if we do not have the ability to know if police officers are misusing their guns. If people are killed or injured with these guns, we, or their families or friends, have no right to know about it."
quote: Do you not understand that you have been arguing for an act that removes these checks and balances?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jazzns Member (Idle past 3938 days) Posts: 2657 From: A Better America Joined: |
It was 120 pages of information, much of it referencing other cases and statutes critical in providing an overall analysis for this particular case. Please don't make it out to be something one could just traipse through and I also have serious doubt as to whether or not most people even read it because it is 120 pages long. I got pretty quick at reading court transcripts after marching through the entire Dover trial. That is besides the fact that the most important part, the conclusion, is less than half of a page.
The final judgement was that the FBI was attempting to obtain this information clandestinely when it did not need to obtain it from "Doe's" ISP address. It was stated by the Court that the information the FBI sought was already a public domain and that essentially it was uneccesary to covertly retrieve said information. How you got this from the reading I do not understand. This is pretty plain english to me:
quote: quote: It is more than just judgement against the FBI, it ruled that portion of 2709 as ammended by the PATRIOT ACT as unconstitutional. Moreover the section regarding the non-disclosure provision, 2709(c) was ruled to be linked to 2709(a) and 2709(b) such that those section are covered by the judgement also as unconstitutional.
It should also be made known that "Doe" was never in any trouble with law enforcement personell at any time. This isn't like Doe was ever attacked or harassed by the US gov't. The only people who could have ever tried this law in court were those who were issued the NSLs. Since it was illegal to disclose to the target of the NSL that their information was being seized contrary to the ECPA, no one who was an actual target of a NSL could EVER challange the law! This should have been your first hint that this law is pushing the limits!
Yeah, I saw that after reading the document. Thanks. I guess the government isn't so bad afterall, aye. The Government asked for the Plaintiff's name to be hidden to supposidly protect the investigation. This has also been ruled as unconstitutional per the second link given by subbie. It is a violation of the First Amendment. Doe in this case simply didn't challange it. No kudos to Uncle Sam here.
In this particular case a certain field office of the FBI, that was not cased, conducted an investigation that went against the 4th Am and that their obtainment of said information was declared to have been garnered unconsitutionally. Then explain why the judgement clearly stated that the relevent section of 2709 (a)(b)(c) were unconstitutional and that the federal government could not longer excercise them? Why the 120 pages of describing case law about the constitutionality of non-disclosure if the only thing the ruling was about was a single investigation?
Okay, I hastily stated that it 'came from' the ACLU. Poor choice of words on my part. My deepest apologies. Thank you for the apology. The only thing left about this is simply that even if it was from the ACLU you had no reason to dismiss it out of hand. "evos" don't dismiss AIG or IRC out of hand unless they are pages that have already been discussed elswhere. The content of the source is what matters most. Once you start dismissing sources by fiat, why would you expect anyone to bother with your sources. This is especially after they went through all the trouble, often taking lots of time, to get you those sources in the first place. It really is a slap in the face. Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jaderis Member (Idle past 3452 days) Posts: 622 From: NY,NY Joined: |
The US has every right to defend and support a nation that shares similar visions of Democracy in a middle east that predominantly despises such notions. I made no moral judgement regarding US support of Israel. I was simply answering your question about "aggressive actions" that might be used as a justification (in their minds) for terrorist actions. I'm sure you'll agree that US support and arming of Israel is a major point of contention in the Arab world and definitely pisses alot of them off.
You also need to realize who is getting 'bombed.' Let's see... 40 Palestinian women and children killed in the 1953 Qibya massacre47 Egyptian children killed while in an elementary school that was on a military base during the War of Attrition 5000+ civilians killed in Beirut alone during the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon as well as hundreds of thousands of refugees 241 Palestinian children killed during the First Intifada Over 2000 Iraqi civilians killed during the Persian Gulf War, not to mention the continuing devastating effects of depleted uranium (Of course, Israel did not conduct this war, the US did). 120 Lebanese civilians killed and 300,000 displaced during Operation Accountability in 1993 118 Lebanese women and children killed while housed in a UN installation in Qana during Operation Grapes of Wrath Thousands (and counting) of Palestinian civilians killed during the ongoing Al-Aqsa Intifada 1187 Lebanese civilians (1/3 children) killed during the recent Israel-Lebanon crisis and over a million displaced Just to name a few. And do you really think it matters to them if their father/mother/sister/brother/uncle/etc is killed as a combatant? Especially if one believes that they were fighting for a just cause against an outside aggressor? I think not.
There were human rights abuses in Iraq where the US intervened and supplanted the Hussein regime but that didn't seem to make anyone happier about the US. This is yet another case of damned if we do, damned if we don't. Whenever the US intervenes the charge almost always seem to condemn the US for sticking their nose where it doesn't belong, but then when it doesn't intervene, the charge is that America is heartless. Seeing as this was in response to charges of US support for abusive despotic regimes, I don't see your point. Unless, of course, you purposely left out the fact that we supported Saddam Hussein for most of his reign. However, it is important to note that we did NOT go to war in order to altruistically liberate the Iraqi people from an evil dictator. That was just a side effect (minus the altruism). I notice you have nothing to say about the abuses perpetrated by the US suported nations I mentioned. Do such truths interfere with your version of America?
Really, what exactly should the US do to make the Muslim nations happy? Leave them the fuck alone.
What about the Iran-Iraq war? You're not serious are you? We supplied arms to both sides. Iran received fighters and missiles and various equipment (via Israel no less because we weren't supposed to have trade relations with them as per Operation Staunch) and Iraq received chemical and biological weapons, military technology, financial support and helicopters. Iran received alot of bogus (and some factual) intelligence about Iraqi movements and Iraq received alot of factual (and some bogus) intelligence, including satellite photos. US naval ships were positioned in the Gulf to "protect" Iraqi and "neutral" ships by preventing retaliatory fire, but the patrol could be interpreted as trying to goad Iran into a war with the US. US naval ships also fired upon suspected targets during the conflict (most notably the Iranian civil airliner shot down by a US Cruiser killing 290 people) We intervened the way we did as a maneuver for control over the Gulf region, helping prolong the conflict and using the dubiously gained profits from arms sales to fund South American terrorists. We had nothing to say about Saddam's use of the chemical and biological agents we supplied him with until after our relations soured in the early 1990's (and even then - and now - didn't allude to the fact that he received such technology from us, among others).
Uh, Iraq invaded a Muslim nation called "Kuwait" because he wanted to control it. The US signed a treaty with Kuwait years before granting the Kuwaitis protection for continuing to support us through oil. So, please explain to me how this offended the Muslim world? You know, I kind of think that not honoring our part of the agreement would make the US more suspect in regards to its offenses to Muslim nations. Not all of my statements pertained to all of the Muslim world. I'm sure alot of Iraqis are pretty perturbed by the events of the Persian Gulf War, especially the abovementioned effects of depleted uranium that sicken and kill Iraqis (and US soldiers) to this day and the effects of the economic sanctions on Iraqi citizens. As for the treaty, I found no note of such a treaty on any Kuwaiti history sites, US gov factsheets, etc. The closest thing I found was the re-flagging of Kuwaiti oil tankers in the Gulf towards the end of the Iran-Iraq war, hence granting them maritime protection. As I have read it, the original reasons for entering the Persian Gulf War were to prevent Iraq from gaining access to Saudi Arabian oil fields, which added to the Kuwaiti fields would give Iraq a large chunk of the world's oil fields and to prevent skyrocketing oil prices. I don't think we would have given a damn if Kuwait didn't have alot of oil and wasn't adjacent to Saudi Arabia. It was about oil and US control of/access to it. Plain and simple. The point is that the devastating effects of the war became fuel for future terrorists.
Oh, yes, that evil US who is only interested in the ME for oil, because France, Germany, Canada, the UK, Sweden, Norway, Japan, the Phillipines, and so on care about the ME for reasons other than oil? When did I mention any of these other countries? The discussion is about US policy in regards to the "prosecution" of "terrorists" and I was simply giving you some possible reasons that people may have to detest the US in response to your implication that the US was attacked unprovoked. Not France or Sweden or any other country.
Please tell me when the moment a nation was allowed to secure its interests. This sentence seems incomplete, but I believe you are asking "when is a nation allowed to secure its interests?" yes? Well, as someone else has mentioned, up until the (reasonable) interests of another sovereign nation are threatened. Kinda like the quote "Your rights end where mine begin" in regards to individual freedoms. Propping up cruel despots, inciting coups, supplying WMD, etc should be unacceptable avenues of securing one's interests.
Why do you condemn the US and implicate the US as the sole proprietor for the world's problems. Could you please point out where I said that the US is solely responsible for all the world's problems because I don't recall saying anything of the sort. I do, however, condemn alot of US foreign and domestic policy because I take no pride in the despicable things that have been done and are being done in my name. I really, truly want my country to be great and prosperous, but not on the bloodied backs of other people. I really, truly want people to have a positive image of America, but that's really hard when we have so much unnecessary blood on our hands. Bottom line is that terrorism (not just of the Islamic variety) will never stop as long as we and other nations arrogantly continue to abuse our power by supporting the interests of a few at the expense of many. PS - I noticed you had no comment on the US instigated coup and subsequent installation of the Shah in Iran. Care to comment now? Edited by Jaderis, : moved a sentence
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5846 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
You keep bringing up the Patriot Act. I don't remember my mentioning it by name as my main problem. Extraordinary rendition is against the concept of civil liberties and existed well before the Patriot Act. The nature of tribunals that Bush wants to run, and which Jar was complaining about in his OP, is not in the Patriot Act (or there wouldn't be wrangling about it right now in Congress). The centralization of power to a central authority is not in the Patriot Act.
I can agree that many people complain about things they are not fully informed on, and the PA may be one of them. I am even willing to agree that large portions of the PA are relatively innocuous. That does not undercut what I have been saying, or other people's complaints about infringements on privacy.
Wire tapping has been around almost as long as phones have in the law enforcement community. This is not a new advent.
Yes, wiretapping has been around. What does that mean regarding my point? I said that one type which was claimed would not be used against anyone but terrorists (in order to argue how people should not be worried about its allowance) was in fact used shortly after its allowance against someone that was not a terrorist. Thus when we allow the gov't to do something we would normally object to with the promise that it is to protect us from extraordinary case of terrorism, they WILL use it outside that extraordinary case.
If any porn company is 'forced' into closure its because they have engaged in illegal activity.
You are simply speaking from ignorance, the very kind you blasted above. With the advent of PCs, video cameras, and the internet, sexual speech (by which I mean communications which involve or focus on graphic sexual activity) moved beyond large corporations to many diverse independent sources. There were many individuals and couples who decided to run their own home based business, essentially run in their free time. Often times it was real and not involving professionals in the biz. The new recordkeeping requirements, as well as the nature of the investigation and prosecution of these requirements, makes such businesses practically impossible. That is to say if they are not making tons of money (which many aren't) or operated as something fun on the side (which many have been). It also drives people away from attempting to express themselves as actors/actresses due to the overtly intrusive data collected by the gov't. I have known more than a couple businesses that have closed, and there are reports of more people going to close because they cannot operate, or are afraid to operate in the hostile environment the Bush administration has imposed on this kind of speech. It has nothing to do with illegality. Furthermore it has driven many companies out of the US. My gf is not a US citizen and we have contacts within foreign adult businesses. They discuss the number of US companies looking to move out of the US, primarily because of this hostility. Further still this does not just affect porn. The regulations affect all movies that contain any graphic sexual content, and that definition has just technically been broadened to encompass plain nudity. It is a standard no company outside the US is likely to follow and so their movies will not be able to be played (legally) in the US. Within the US it would create a chilling effect on companies choosing to have such content or pursue such themes. They are unlikely to start a whole new division to handle recordkeeping duties for FBI raids. This would eliminate movies such classics as Last Tango in Paris, and In the Realm of the Senses. Heck it might even effect Romeo and Juliet.
What's an oxymoron? A purveyor of porn talking about rights to privacy.
Why is that an oxymoron? Why isn't it possible that people wishing to express their sexuality, just like they might cooking (gourmet shows), or competition (sports shows), or other facets of life and fantasy, would not have a sense of personal space like people involved in all those other things? You go on to hold a dual position on privacy...
I agree fully with a right to privacy. You and all the other detractors neglect to give a single instance of what exactly violates your privacy, nor have they offered solutions for how the gov't is supposed to protect them.... Just as I said: Damned if they do, damned if they don't.
Freedom and Privacy secured by an observing Gov't is an oxymoron. I guess the first part of desiring freedom is the belief that one does not require a gov't to protect them, particularly when it involves giving up the very thing they want to keep as their own. The Gov't is not damned if they do, damned if they don't to those that desire freedom and privacy. If you are looking for solutions from that quarter it is already given. The gov't must do what it can without invading the privacy of others, and especially without some oversight by the community so as to place a check on such invasions. It may not be the best security but it sure is the best security which allows an assurance of quality of life from our own gov't. No one from your side of the argument has provided any reason why this is necessary. Because someone might not catch something and we have another incident? If that were the criteria for allowing security measures be put in place, why don't we turn the US into Guantanamo and have everyone live in open cells? That would be the most secure. If you start sliding back from that, I am unaware why demanding personal privacy, or in the case of this thread right to evidence against one at one's trial, would be bizarre or unfeasible as a demand.
No, privacy is great. I can sit in my house with total privacy can't I? Can't you? Yes, you can.
I don't know, and I don't care. The question is are we going to give the gov't tools so that they can break into your privacy whether you know it or not? The answer is no. When they ask, we say no. That way there is no chance that anyone can abuse it. If we discover they are doing it, we repeal that power. That way there is no chance that anyone can abuse it. If you are claiming that we can trust a gov't never to abuse that power, I'd wonder what gave you that idea. The history of gov'ts are to increase power over people's lives, and last century certainly did abuse its investigative powers. If I would not give such a right to AQ, I would not give such a right to the US gov't. Though one is sworn to my destruction and the other my safety, I trust each the same to handle my rights with care. They are all people and so are capable of anything. If I'm going to allow my rights to be crossed by the latter, I might as well let the former win. Its what I want the US to be fighting AQ to preserve in the first place... right? holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode} "What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
quote: And seeing how the US was founded upon the genocide of the original inhabitants of the area it occupies, we see that it is supporting a nation that shares similiar visions of "democracy". "The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one." -- George Bernard Shaw
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ramoss Member (Idle past 639 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
Here is a video clip about the subject, where an editorial proclaims Bush owes an apology.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQoa0FMmQe4
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
MangyTiger Member (Idle past 6380 days) Posts: 989 From: Leicester, UK Joined: |
Okay, no offense but how does that get Brits off the same charge that Americans are stuck with? No offense taken since I didn't say anything to suggest it did[1]. I merely pointed out my opinion that no matter what happened in Iraq New Labour was going to win the last General Election, just the same as no matter how badly Margaret Thatcher screwed up she essentially couldn't lose her second and third General Elections because Labour was an unelectable mess. Just as an aside:
Isn't it true that if the people rose up and demanded change they could have gotten Blair out and someone else in... even if it was simply as a new choice for PM from within his party? Actually no. This has been much in the news this last week or so with the never-ending 'when will Tony step down for Gordon' story. The Tories have a straightforward mechanism for replacing a leader pretty much any time - which is how Mrs. T bit the dust. The Labour Party rules, on the other hand, make it more or less impossible for the Party to jetison a leader midstream. [1]Or at least I didn't mean to. Apologies if my language wasn't precise enough. Oops! Wrong Planet
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
MangyTiger Member (Idle past 6380 days) Posts: 989 From: Leicester, UK Joined: |
2) The US does not dictate the policies of other nations You're joking right? The US dictates policies to the point of toppling governments it doesn't like. There is also the following comment from the President of Pakistan which will be on 60 Minutes this Sunday:
The United States threatened to bomb Pakistan "back to the stone age" unless it joined the fight against al-Qaeda, President Pervez Musharraf says. General Musharraf said the warning was delivered by former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage to Pakistan's intelligence director. "Do what we want or we bomb you back to the Stone Age" isn't dicating the policies of another nation? Having said that I recognise Tony Blair didn't need any persuading to join Bush. It has been reported here that Bush gave Blair the chance to back out of the Iraq invasion if he thought it could lead to him losing power in the UK but Blair declined the offer. Oops! Wrong Planet
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5846 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
I'll answer your last two posts here...
No offense taken since I didn't say anything to suggest it did[1].
I'm sorry, I did take your argument to suggest that Brits could be excused.
I merely pointed out my opinion that no matter what happened in Iraq New Labour was going to win the last General Election, just the same as no matter how badly Margaret Thatcher screwed up she essentially couldn't lose her second and third General Elections because Labour was an unelectable mess.
Okay, but that still holds true for the US. People generally don't vote out a "war president" and many felt the opposition parties (namely the Dems) were an unelectable mess. There was no coherent message coming from them, especially to those critical voters outside the Dem party.
The Labour Party rules, on the other hand, make it more or less impossible for the Party to jetison a leader midstream.
Can't the public rise and have the party change its rules?
The US dictates policies to the point of toppling governments it doesn't like.
I didn't say the US didn't threaten nations in order to force policies. And I certainly didn't say it didn't topple gov'ts and institute new ones. All I said is that the US does not dictate the policies of other nations. That is for sovereign nations they do not have Bush and Co actually directing what they do. They have a choice. That may have to include standing up to being bullied.
Having said that I recognise Tony Blair didn't need any persuading to join Bush
That is the critical point, and not just for the UK. There were plenty that backed this fiasco. holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode} "What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Legend Member (Idle past 5033 days) Posts: 1226 From: Wales, UK Joined: |
quote: holmes writes: That is the critical point, and not just for the UK. There were plenty that backed this fiasco. There are plenty who backed this up on both sides of the Atlantic, true enough, but the point is that for us in the UK backing it up or not doesn't change anything. Bush was dead-set on doing what he did and he has both the power and fanaticism to carry it through with or without the rest of the world, as should be evident by now. We (Brits) could have toppled Blair and elected a new PM. So what ? What would that have changed ? Nothing, that's what. Americans, on the other hand, could have not voted for Bush, or at least not given him the percentage to justify the coup-d-etat that he effectively pulled. "In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5846 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
Bush was dead-set on doing what he did and he has both the power and fanaticism to carry it through with or without the rest of the world, as should be evident by now.
I'm sorry but I do not see how that would have been possible. He used international support, most especially that by the UK gov't to gain support in the US for his policies. He used intelligence findings from the UK to gain support in the US for his policies. You might have noticed that Bush has been having a much harder time getting anything done, now that other nations are backing out and initial claims by the UK have been undercut. I honestly don't see how he would have found backing for an invasion of Iraq if the world community stood against it, especially major European allies. That is not to mention the physical assistance which made it possible. I guess I can't say it would have been physically impossible for us to invade without it, but it would have been more difficult and again would have resulted in more popular resistance. And of course if Bush's zeal and power was as great as you make it out to be, I don't see how the american electorate would have stopped it either. If armed resistance from other nations would not change his course, how could a bunch of voters? holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode} "What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024