But it's worth noting that over the last 24 years, going by what they've actually done, the Democrats are for a large government in the areas they care about; while the Republicans, in the areas they care about, are for a government that is utterly enormous beyond all reason or ability to pay for it. It bugs me that W gets credit for cutting taxes when his policies have gauraunteed massive tax increases in the (increasingly near) future.
I would point out that one of the things the Republicans care about is fewer taxes- and thus, not paying for their own increases.
I used to have a problem deciding how to vote because I am a social liberal and a fiscal conservative. Now the Democrats win on both counts, so no problem.
I still have a problem- I'm a fiscal progressive and a social liberal. I just don't see a place for people like me in American Politics at all.
What most people don't realize is that privacy hasn't existed now for at least a generation- we just act like it still exists for mythical traditionalism.
You might be surprised to learn that, despite all the shit I said above, I'm voting for Kerry. I think terrorism is an important issue, but it's only one issue.
Kerry isn't measureably different than Bush on the War on Terror- just more intelligent and more likely to change away from taxtics and strategies that don't work.
Huh? The Republic died when people realized that the majority of people can oppress minorities in a Democracy, whether they are ethnic minorities, or simply wealthy. This country is being destroyed by socialism, and people wonder why outsourcing is so cost effective.
What an interesting oxymoronic statement- when you consider that all of the outsourcing is to socialist or outright communist countries like India and China (the reason is obvious- if the state pays for food, clothing, water and medical care, the corporations can have a lower payroll because they don't have to pay for such needs).
No, socialism alone isn't the end of the Republic- the end of the Republic was when the minority (the rich corporations) gained control over the majority (poor citizens). The majority has not had power in this so-called "Democracy" since Southern Pacific was allowed to give money to political candidates.
I would hope so. I hope to be running against the Republicrats in 2008 with a populist theme that combines an economic system that concentrates on individual survival (as opposed to corporate survival) with social conservativism, since NEITHER major party can seem to ignore their corporate sponsors long enough to actually figure out compromise solutions to the problems that plague actual citizens.
What? If I weren't listening to everything, he might actually sound like he's making sense! Your logic is flawed here, dopey. As a matter of fact, I follow politics very actively, I probably know more than you do. Kerry says hardly anything of substance, I dont think many would argue with me there.
Actually, about 49% of the country would argue with you there. Every word Kerry says is of substince- his problem is that he uses way too many words, because people like you would rather have "Hussien bad, American good" be the sum total of our foreign policy.
I do have to guess because he is not giving any concrete answers. Every question he waffles around. I don't know how one would execute a "secondary" exit strategy
Perhaps by not executing your primary one? How hard is this anyway?
, you exit once and you don't exit again, and where on earth did you get this?
Try listening to all the words next time instead of looking for sound bytes to nitpick on.
Are you just making this up? Do you think Kerry would actually say "well I intend to add 40,000 troops, and if that fails, I'll do the next best thing, retreat!" Do you expect me to take you seriously?
I actually think that being able to change one's mind based on new evidence is a mark of intelligence- and since you seem not to exhibit this property, well, your ability to think is greatly in question. Retreat is not necessarily the next best thing- there are an infinite variety of possible paths to every future, the wise man keeps trying until he finds one that works. The idiot gives up and stays on the path of least resistance.
There are those people who think first and STILL are able to get things done promptly- I'm one of them. Being a doer does NOT mean you need to check your brain at the door.
Anyone who undertakes the responsibility to do something is going to create the opportunity for enemies. Its far too easy to sit back and criticize a doer, as there's plenty of opportunity for second-guessing any decisions made, even the right ones.
That's the problem- as far back as can be found, this guy has a record of wrong decisions. He couldn't even keep a company going for more than a few years without runing it into the ground. The closest thing he's ever had to success was winning elections- and even that was a failure for anybody who had to live under his rule.
I'd much rather have a doer working for me. Do-nothing career politicians make me ill.
Yep- apparently you'd rather send your own children into battle for a wrong decision than elect a guy who'd wait to make the right decision.
True enough- but perhaps the winners should HAVE to put up with it as well. We'd certainly have more people thinking twice about going to war in that case.
We have, for instance, the Just War Theory to go by- Was a war porportional? Did it avoid civilian casualties (every civilian casualty is a murder, and should be tried as such)? Was there right cause? Were there other noncombatant countries involved because the war didn't respect national boundaries? These are the sorts of questions we SHOULD be asking, even the winners need to give humanity justification for their actions.
Not necessarily- we've got this thing that has been developed over the last 1600 years or so called the Just War Theory- the idea of what makes a just war and what doesn't- and anything that doesn't is a war crime.
We don't have a stable economy- I have no faith at all in either the NYSE or the multinational coporations, and any faith I had in the economy was dashed when it was proved that we still allow the economy to be cyclical and based on chaotic math. And it's rather obvious that in the last 40 years or so, the entire tax structure, military excursions, and regulatory nature of the federal government has been skewed away from the citizenry and towards the large companies. The only way we'll ever get it back is with voting in a third party or the violent equivalent.
You know that there are a lot of people who work in the NYSE building, right?
I'm not talking about the building- current policy seems to indicate that buildings and people can be easily replaced. I'm talking about *business interests*- MNCs world wide.
Not to mention the fact that there are a lot of noninstitutional investors who would be effected by a run in the stock market. Who was hurt worst by the depression? Small time investors. "Average joe" types. Look, I agree that security starts at home, but we have to be realistic about cause and effect.
A depression wouldn't hurt anybody if we hadn't have given corporations power over basic needs of the citizens to begin with- the worst mistake of having a capitalist economic system is extending it to things that no corporation should ever control, like food, clothing, shelter, water and medical care. Because we have, and because the corporations want to earn huge profits, they're making practically everything we need elsewhere- thus requiring large amounts of fuel to ship it to us. Which makes OIL a major national security issue- since without oil we don't get food, clothing, shelter, water, or medical care. Thus our involvement in the Middle East.
It's this involvement of corporations in the governmental duty of providing for the general welfare that I take the largest issue with; we could EASILY make everything here at home if we choose to, thus cutting our shipping fuel needs down exponentially, thus enabling us not to get involved with the Middle East at all, if we'd only make it a priority to have our basic needs met with goods produced here at home. And if we weren't involved in the Middle East we wouldn't be terrorist targets. I personally blame the Bush family for a lot of this- Prescott Bush (the current President's grandfather) was the reckless businessman who decided to exploit middle east oil to begin with- a totally immoral and stupid thing to do in the long run. But that's what the NYSE rewards: immorality and stupidity. We'd be better off without any of those idiots.
I just thuoght we'd have some truth in advertising for once. You readily admit you're a Marxist, so any opinions you might have should be put through the appropriate filters.
In that case, let's have COMPLETE truth in advertising, instead of a half-truth: I'm a hacker who likes systems. Economic systems are just another form of operating system, just one for people rather than for silicon. I hack Marxism. 42 comes from HitchHiker's Guide to the Galaxy- it's the answer to Life, The Universe, and Everything. The key is that I'm trying to debug Marxism- make it workable. So far I've got two forks for the code: the Laisez Faire Fork, which imposes only one regulation, a maximum wage law, and allows cities to form Free Enterprise Zones. And the Electronic Commune fork, which would replace corporations with a "decentralized" beowulf cluster working on resource distribution problems in an automated fashion, on an FCFS ordering system, with Dijkstra's least paths algortithim for shipping.
Well, I admit I'm not up on current events as much as I could be, but has any other country has invaded another (as of Jan. 2003) since 1991?
Loads have- the breakup of Yugoslavia caused several border skirmishes between the resultant new countries. African Countries seem to always be invading one another for various reasons; but since most of them are still pre-industrial, our American Media doesn't pick up on it. Kashmir is a special region, a province claimed by both India and Pakistan and is regularly invaded by one or the other. There have been several attempted invasions of Israel from it's neighboring states. Just because the Western Hemisphere has been relatively quiet doesn't mean that the rest of the world has stood still.
Can we please define a terrorist country? If a terrorist country is one that harbors terrorists, then Iraq qualifies. If a terrorist country is one that is headed by a terrorist, then Iraq qualifies. If a terrorist country is one that supports terrorists, then Iraq qualifies. If a terrorist country is one that pays terrorists' families' after they commit an act of terror, then Iraq qualifies.
I would define a "terrorist country" as one that spreads terror in ANY form. The United States qualifies as a terrorist country by those standards. Of course, by those standards, almost every country in the world qualifies to some extent. The key word though in my sentence wasn't "terrorist" but rather "nukes"- as in the ability to destroy entire cities.
I'm not saying that Iran doesn't qualify, but let's be clear here. If you want us to do something about Iran now, why won't you accept that we had to do something about Iraq then?
Why would we have had to do ANYTHING about Iraq? They were relatively contained- and easy to keep contained with the armements we already had in place. There was NO chance of Saddam gaining nuclear ICBMs in the near future, the way North Korea had and the way Iran was begining to (and still is). Iraq *might* have been able to create a low-level dirty nuclear weapon, but so can any US High School Student, it's not that hard. North Korea has missiles that can hit San Francisco- Iran *may* have purchased this technology from Pakistan as well, and have a missile that could take out DC- without any *human* terrorists involved at all. Which do you think is the more imporant target, an old man who hasn't been able to do anything more than saber rattle in a decade, or a new nuclear threat? Seems OBVIOUS to me which would be the bigger threat.
Having said that, however, the whole region is very dangerous, and we'd be MUCH better off if we had no interests there, business or otherwise, and practiced a hands-off policy in the region entirely. But Bush & Kerry are MUCH too adicted to mere money to do that- so we won't. Since we won't, we might as well go all the way; we're in a damned if we do, damned if we don't scenario with no realistic exits, so we might as well be the devils everybody thinks we already are. We've given up our moral reputation already- let's show them what the United States can do without moral guidance of any sort.
I never claimed to be for liberal tolerance- however, if I was, tolerance means letting other people do as they will even when we disagree with it, tolerating their behavior. Promoting the security of Iraq against it's own dictator is NOT tolerating that country's sovreignity or internal behavior. Ousting the rebel Taliban Government does not show tolerance for Afghani culture. Supporting the House of Saud against a Wahhbaist rebellion doesn't help either, nor does putting the interest of Multinational Corporations ahead of American Citizens.
Tolerance in this case basically means a combination of Star Trek's Prime Directive and Augustine's original Just War Theory- don't invade other nations that you know nothing about, and fight your battles on your own territory only.
Only in this way, teaches Augustine of Hippo, can you say that you have shown love for your enemy and refrained from judging him, as the Lord asked us to do. Christian Liberalism taken to the extreme. And if you don't think Augustine knew what he was talking about- he was in Rome for the Great Sack- he knew battle.
Korea, Vietnam, Gulf War I, War on Terror, Gulf War II. The key here is "Authority" vs "Declaration of War". You see, the problem with a REAL Declaration of War is that it binds us to all sorts of interesting international treaties on what weapons we can use, what prisoners can be tortured for inforation, even what payments have to be made to civilian populations for collateral damage. The way around it, as of late, has been for the President to ask for "Authority" to use the troops instead of a real Declaration of War. By obtaining this entirely unconstitutional delegation of authority instead, American troops aren't tied to internation rules of war and thus can't be tried in internation war crimes tribunals. It's an incredibly sneaky thing to do- but both the Major parties are for it, and Presidents from both Major parties have used it. The Green, Libertarian, and Constitutional parties have gone on the record repeatedly against the practice.
Why not? Ever since Truman, it seems, laws and the Constitution certainly don't matter. Every war since WWII has been undeclared. Executive Priviledge and the Executive Order rule what actually happens, not law. All a future President Kerry would really have to do is order his Attorney General NOT TO ENFORCE the DMCA, and it effectively disappears.
When Bush gets interested in AMERICAN security (as opposed to Irai Secuirty, Afghan Security, Saudi Security, Corporation Security, etc), let me know.
Real American Security includes having enough troops at home to protect the homeland against ALL comers- and an immigration/border system that actually prevents certain people from ever entering the country. I don't see EITHER Kerry or Bush interested in American security at all. Unlike most of our current politicians, I don't consider the New York Stock Exchange and Multinational Corporations to be more important than citizens.
Unfortunatly I'm convinced the Republic can't survive a Kerry win and that while Bush is screwing up a lot of things pretty badly, we can survive another term with him at the helm.
I'd rather have individual people survive than the Republic any day. Besides, the Republic has basically been dead since the Corporations were allowed to enter politics in 1885.
At this point, what would you change? We are not going to pull out. To do so, it would give US a black eye. We got one in 'nam. We are not going to do it again.
At this point, we've already gotten the black eye with the behavior of our troops in Iraq's prison system. It's too late to save our honor OR our economic system, far better at this point to run home with our tail between our legs and vow NEVER to mess with the internal affairs of other countries again.
We won't do that of course- our country is run by corporations, not by people, and the corporations require foreign trade for survival.
Things could also go further south for Iraq. It would almost certainly mean slaughter everywhere. I am not saying that things are a cakewalk there, but things can get much worse.
Things are already much worse, thanks to a single mistake made on the way in- failing to disarm the population. A pretty basic error that was- but it's because Bush wasn't looking at being an occupier.
Kerry was in 'nam and knows that we do not have the right number of ppl there to handle a guerrilla war. He will almost certainly bring in many more troops, while increasing the local troop training. Further, I think he will speed up civilian business development.
None of which will do any good if we don't disarm the population. It's far easier to shoot the shopowner and loot what you want than buy it, any day of the week.
I guess you missed my point on the more moral solution- killing capitalism instead of people and getting a new economic system not based on oil from the Middle East.
You said he had substantially the same PLAN- not reasons why it wouldn't work. I can imagine a way that Germany would have to send troops to Iraq- Kerry killing the WTO and threatening to raise tarriffs on german-built autos if they don't.
Yep- exactly right! Everybody forgets that the Maccabees and the Zealotes are the original prototype of Hamas and al Qaida- just a couple a thousand years apart is all.
Slashdot Mirror
But it's worth noting that over the last 24 years, going by what they've actually done, the Democrats are for a large government in the areas they care about; while the Republicans, in the areas they care about, are for a government that is utterly enormous beyond all reason or ability to pay for it. It bugs me that W gets credit for cutting taxes when his policies have gauraunteed massive tax increases in the (increasingly near) future.
I would point out that one of the things the Republicans care about is fewer taxes- and thus, not paying for their own increases.
I used to have a problem deciding how to vote because I am a social liberal and a fiscal conservative. Now the Democrats win on both counts, so no problem.
I still have a problem- I'm a fiscal progressive and a social liberal. I just don't see a place for people like me in American Politics at all.
What most people don't realize is that privacy hasn't existed now for at least a generation- we just act like it still exists for mythical traditionalism.
You might be surprised to learn that, despite all the shit I said above, I'm voting for Kerry. I think terrorism is an important issue, but it's only one issue.
Kerry isn't measureably different than Bush on the War on Terror- just more intelligent and more likely to change away from taxtics and strategies that don't work.
Huh? The Republic died when people realized that the majority of people can oppress minorities in a Democracy, whether they are ethnic minorities, or simply wealthy. This country is being destroyed by socialism, and people wonder why outsourcing is so cost effective.
What an interesting oxymoronic statement- when you consider that all of the outsourcing is to socialist or outright communist countries like India and China (the reason is obvious- if the state pays for food, clothing, water and medical care, the corporations can have a lower payroll because they don't have to pay for such needs).
No, socialism alone isn't the end of the Republic- the end of the Republic was when the minority (the rich corporations) gained control over the majority (poor citizens). The majority has not had power in this so-called "Democracy" since Southern Pacific was allowed to give money to political candidates.
Ah, but what if we do what they do in India, since that's where our people are heading?
I would hope so. I hope to be running against the Republicrats in 2008 with a populist theme that combines an economic system that concentrates on individual survival (as opposed to corporate survival) with social conservativism, since NEITHER major party can seem to ignore their corporate sponsors long enough to actually figure out compromise solutions to the problems that plague actual citizens.
What? If I weren't listening to everything, he might actually sound like he's making sense! Your logic is flawed here, dopey. As a matter of fact, I follow politics very actively, I probably know more than you do. Kerry says hardly anything of substance, I dont think many would argue with me there.
Actually, about 49% of the country would argue with you there. Every word Kerry says is of substince- his problem is that he uses way too many words, because people like you would rather have "Hussien bad, American good" be the sum total of our foreign policy.
I do have to guess because he is not giving any concrete answers. Every question he waffles around. I don't know how one would execute a "secondary" exit strategy
Perhaps by not executing your primary one? How hard is this anyway?
, you exit once and you don't exit again, and where on earth did you get this?
Try listening to all the words next time instead of looking for sound bytes to nitpick on.
Are you just making this up? Do you think Kerry would actually say "well I intend to add 40,000 troops, and if that fails, I'll do the next best thing, retreat!" Do you expect me to take you seriously?
I actually think that being able to change one's mind based on new evidence is a mark of intelligence- and since you seem not to exhibit this property, well, your ability to think is greatly in question. Retreat is not necessarily the next best thing- there are an infinite variety of possible paths to every future, the wise man keeps trying until he finds one that works. The idiot gives up and stays on the path of least resistance.
Its not stupidity. Its the fact that he's a doer.
There are those people who think first and STILL are able to get things done promptly- I'm one of them. Being a doer does NOT mean you need to check your brain at the door.
Anyone who undertakes the responsibility to do something is going to create the opportunity for enemies. Its far too easy to sit back and criticize a doer, as there's plenty of opportunity for second-guessing any decisions made, even the right ones.
That's the problem- as far back as can be found, this guy has a record of wrong decisions. He couldn't even keep a company going for more than a few years without runing it into the ground. The closest thing he's ever had to success was winning elections- and even that was a failure for anybody who had to live under his rule.
I'd much rather have a doer working for me. Do-nothing career politicians make me ill.
Yep- apparently you'd rather send your own children into battle for a wrong decision than elect a guy who'd wait to make the right decision.
True enough- but perhaps the winners should HAVE to put up with it as well. We'd certainly have more people thinking twice about going to war in that case.
We have, for instance, the Just War Theory to go by- Was a war porportional? Did it avoid civilian casualties (every civilian casualty is a murder, and should be tried as such)? Was there right cause? Were there other noncombatant countries involved because the war didn't respect national boundaries? These are the sorts of questions we SHOULD be asking, even the winners need to give humanity justification for their actions.
Not necessarily- we've got this thing that has been developed over the last 1600 years or so called the Just War Theory- the idea of what makes a just war and what doesn't- and anything that doesn't is a war crime.
We don't have a stable economy- I have no faith at all in either the NYSE or the multinational coporations, and any faith I had in the economy was dashed when it was proved that we still allow the economy to be cyclical and based on chaotic math. And it's rather obvious that in the last 40 years or so, the entire tax structure, military excursions, and regulatory nature of the federal government has been skewed away from the citizenry and towards the large companies. The only way we'll ever get it back is with voting in a third party or the violent equivalent.
You know that there are a lot of people who work in the NYSE building, right?
I'm not talking about the building- current policy seems to indicate that buildings and people can be easily replaced. I'm talking about *business interests*- MNCs world wide.
Not to mention the fact that there are a lot of noninstitutional investors who would be effected by a run in the stock market. Who was hurt worst by the depression? Small time investors. "Average joe" types. Look, I agree that security starts at home, but we have to be realistic about cause and effect.
A depression wouldn't hurt anybody if we hadn't have given corporations power over basic needs of the citizens to begin with- the worst mistake of having a capitalist economic system is extending it to things that no corporation should ever control, like food, clothing, shelter, water and medical care. Because we have, and because the corporations want to earn huge profits, they're making practically everything we need elsewhere- thus requiring large amounts of fuel to ship it to us. Which makes OIL a major national security issue- since without oil we don't get food, clothing, shelter, water, or medical care. Thus our involvement in the Middle East.
It's this involvement of corporations in the governmental duty of providing for the general welfare that I take the largest issue with; we could EASILY make everything here at home if we choose to, thus cutting our shipping fuel needs down exponentially, thus enabling us not to get involved with the Middle East at all, if we'd only make it a priority to have our basic needs met with goods produced here at home. And if we weren't involved in the Middle East we wouldn't be terrorist targets. I personally blame the Bush family for a lot of this- Prescott Bush (the current President's grandfather) was the reckless businessman who decided to exploit middle east oil to begin with- a totally immoral and stupid thing to do in the long run. But that's what the NYSE rewards: immorality and stupidity. We'd be better off without any of those idiots.
I just thuoght we'd have some truth in advertising for once. You readily admit you're a Marxist, so any opinions you might have should be put through the appropriate filters.
In that case, let's have COMPLETE truth in advertising, instead of a half-truth: I'm a hacker who likes systems. Economic systems are just another form of operating system, just one for people rather than for silicon. I hack Marxism. 42 comes from HitchHiker's Guide to the Galaxy- it's the answer to Life, The Universe, and Everything. The key is that I'm trying to debug Marxism- make it workable. So far I've got two forks for the code: the Laisez Faire Fork, which imposes only one regulation, a maximum wage law, and allows cities to form Free Enterprise Zones. And the Electronic Commune fork, which would replace corporations with a "decentralized" beowulf cluster working on resource distribution problems in an automated fashion, on an FCFS ordering system, with Dijkstra's least paths algortithim for shipping.
Well, I admit I'm not up on current events as much as I could be, but has any other country has invaded another (as of Jan. 2003) since 1991?
Loads have- the breakup of Yugoslavia caused several border skirmishes between the resultant new countries. African Countries seem to always be invading one another for various reasons; but since most of them are still pre-industrial, our American Media doesn't pick up on it. Kashmir is a special region, a province claimed by both India and Pakistan and is regularly invaded by one or the other. There have been several attempted invasions of Israel from it's neighboring states. Just because the Western Hemisphere has been relatively quiet doesn't mean that the rest of the world has stood still.
Can we please define a terrorist country? If a terrorist country is one that harbors terrorists, then Iraq qualifies. If a terrorist country is one that is headed by a terrorist, then Iraq qualifies. If a terrorist country is one that supports terrorists, then Iraq qualifies. If a terrorist country is one that pays terrorists' families' after they commit an act of terror, then Iraq qualifies.
I would define a "terrorist country" as one that spreads terror in ANY form. The United States qualifies as a terrorist country by those standards. Of course, by those standards, almost every country in the world qualifies to some extent. The key word though in my sentence wasn't "terrorist" but rather "nukes"- as in the ability to destroy entire cities.
I'm not saying that Iran doesn't qualify, but let's be clear here. If you want us to do something about Iran now, why won't you accept that we had to do something about Iraq then?
Why would we have had to do ANYTHING about Iraq? They were relatively contained- and easy to keep contained with the armements we already had in place. There was NO chance of Saddam gaining nuclear ICBMs in the near future, the way North Korea had and the way Iran was begining to (and still is). Iraq *might* have been able to create a low-level dirty nuclear weapon, but so can any US High School Student, it's not that hard. North Korea has missiles that can hit San Francisco- Iran *may* have purchased this technology from Pakistan as well, and have a missile that could take out DC- without any *human* terrorists involved at all. Which do you think is the more imporant target, an old man who hasn't been able to do anything more than saber rattle in a decade, or a new nuclear threat? Seems OBVIOUS to me which would be the bigger threat.
Having said that, however, the whole region is very dangerous, and we'd be MUCH better off if we had no interests there, business or otherwise, and practiced a hands-off policy in the region entirely. But Bush & Kerry are MUCH too adicted to mere money to do that- so we won't. Since we won't, we might as well go all the way; we're in a damned if we do, damned if we don't scenario with no realistic exits, so we might as well be the devils everybody thinks we already are. We've given up our moral reputation already- let's show them what the United States can do without moral guidance of any sort.
I never claimed to be for liberal tolerance- however, if I was, tolerance means letting other people do as they will even when we disagree with it, tolerating their behavior. Promoting the security of Iraq against it's own dictator is NOT tolerating that country's sovreignity or internal behavior. Ousting the rebel Taliban Government does not show tolerance for Afghani culture. Supporting the House of Saud against a Wahhbaist rebellion doesn't help either, nor does putting the interest of Multinational Corporations ahead of American Citizens.
Tolerance in this case basically means a combination of Star Trek's Prime Directive and Augustine's original Just War Theory- don't invade other nations that you know nothing about, and fight your battles on your own territory only.
Only in this way, teaches Augustine of Hippo, can you say that you have shown love for your enemy and refrained from judging him, as the Lord asked us to do. Christian Liberalism taken to the extreme. And if you don't think Augustine knew what he was talking about- he was in Rome for the Great Sack- he knew battle.
Korea, Vietnam, Gulf War I, War on Terror, Gulf War II. The key here is "Authority" vs "Declaration of War". You see, the problem with a REAL Declaration of War is that it binds us to all sorts of interesting international treaties on what weapons we can use, what prisoners can be tortured for inforation, even what payments have to be made to civilian populations for collateral damage. The way around it, as of late, has been for the President to ask for "Authority" to use the troops instead of a real Declaration of War. By obtaining this entirely unconstitutional delegation of authority instead, American troops aren't tied to internation rules of war and thus can't be tried in internation war crimes tribunals. It's an incredibly sneaky thing to do- but both the Major parties are for it, and Presidents from both Major parties have used it. The Green, Libertarian, and Constitutional parties have gone on the record repeatedly against the practice.
Why not? Ever since Truman, it seems, laws and the Constitution certainly don't matter. Every war since WWII has been undeclared. Executive Priviledge and the Executive Order rule what actually happens, not law. All a future President Kerry would really have to do is order his Attorney General NOT TO ENFORCE the DMCA, and it effectively disappears.
When Bush gets interested in AMERICAN security (as opposed to Irai Secuirty, Afghan Security, Saudi Security, Corporation Security, etc), let me know.
Real American Security includes having enough troops at home to protect the homeland against ALL comers- and an immigration/border system that actually prevents certain people from ever entering the country. I don't see EITHER Kerry or Bush interested in American security at all. Unlike most of our current politicians, I don't consider the New York Stock Exchange and Multinational Corporations to be more important than citizens.
Unfortunatly I'm convinced the Republic can't survive a Kerry win and that while Bush is screwing up a lot of things pretty badly, we can survive another term with him at the helm.
I'd rather have individual people survive than the Republic any day. Besides, the Republic has basically been dead since the Corporations were allowed to enter politics in 1885.
Unfortuneately I can't type it adequately as I don't have the HTML tag for SuperScript memorized:
Write the integers 2,3,4,5 with one plus sign and one equals sign as an equation.
Answer (replacing the superscript with ^) 4+5=3^2
Hampsterdance isn't dead- it's just gone commercial (even has, believe it or not, CDs and Videos from Sony- some of them pretty good).
At this point, what would you change? We are not going to pull out. To do so, it would give US a black eye. We got one in 'nam. We are not going to do it again.
At this point, we've already gotten the black eye with the behavior of our troops in Iraq's prison system. It's too late to save our honor OR our economic system, far better at this point to run home with our tail between our legs and vow NEVER to mess with the internal affairs of other countries again.
We won't do that of course- our country is run by corporations, not by people, and the corporations require foreign trade for survival.
Things could also go further south for Iraq. It would almost certainly mean slaughter everywhere. I am not saying that things are a cakewalk there, but things can get much worse.
Things are already much worse, thanks to a single mistake made on the way in- failing to disarm the population. A pretty basic error that was- but it's because Bush wasn't looking at being an occupier.
Kerry was in 'nam and knows that we do not have the right number of ppl there to handle a guerrilla war. He will almost certainly bring in many more troops, while increasing the local troop training. Further, I think he will speed up civilian business development.
None of which will do any good if we don't disarm the population. It's far easier to shoot the shopowner and loot what you want than buy it, any day of the week.
I guess you missed my point on the more moral solution- killing capitalism instead of people and getting a new economic system not based on oil from the Middle East.
You said he had substantially the same PLAN- not reasons why it wouldn't work. I can imagine a way that Germany would have to send troops to Iraq- Kerry killing the WTO and threatening to raise tarriffs on german-built autos if they don't.
Yep- exactly right! Everybody forgets that the Maccabees and the Zealotes are the original prototype of Hamas and al Qaida- just a couple a thousand years apart is all.
I remember first hearing this about 2 years ago- along with the Catholic Priests in Bangalore outsourcing prayers for the dead.
Isn't it interesting how a smart troll who actually KNOWS history can usually become the ultimate anti-troll-troll?