29 replies to this topic

[Rikku]

iargue, on 24 January 2012 - 09:42 PM, said:

There are plenty of things that he -can- do though.

He is in charge of the entire government. He can cut programs, erase entire sections of the government. He promised to reduce government spending, and he actually has the power to do so. He can remove departments, and require others to cut back their spending. He has plenty of power over that section.

I'm so tired of politicians promising that they will "Lower taxes and reducing spending to cover it" when in reality they don't have a plan. Its always an empty and broken promise. I want someone to be like, "This program, and this program, and this program. Can all be cut" When that person comes along. I'll vote for them. Until then, no one gets my vote. They are all the same.

I know... i just don't feel like starting an all out war here. Too tired for that tonight.

[redlion]

Drakonid, on 24 January 2012 - 09:05 PM, said:

It's not possible to always capture people, indeed...
But what right did the American government have to capture him?

What right? Ugh. What right did we have to pursue a man who planned not one, but no less than nine major acts of terrorism around the world? We had every right.

He planned, funded and coordinated the 1993 attempt to blow up the World Trade Center. In 1995 he funded the Egyptian Islamic Jihad group in their attempt to assassinate a sitting national leader, Hosni Mubarak. Also in '95, he bombed a US-operated training center for the Saudi National Guard near Riyhad. In 1996 he issued a fatwah (religious edict) declaring war on the United States. He is believed to have planned the Gold Mihor Hotel in Aden, Yemen in 1992. He funded the Luxor massacre in 1997, which resulted in 62 civilian deaths. in '98 he co-issued a fatwah with al-Zawahiri declaring that the killing of North Americans and their allies is an "individual duty for every Muslim." Also in 1998, he was instrumental in the planning, organization, and funding of the US Embassy bombings that resulted in the deaths of hundreds of civilians, not all, but the majority of which were American citizens. He funded and organized the suicide bombing on the USS Cole in 2000. Not to mention the 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center.

As to the court question, no less than 3 courts indicted Osama bin Laden on various charges including:

• Libya, in 1998 for the 1994 murder of a German domestic intelligence officer
  
• USA also in 1998 for the training center incident of '95
  
• USA also in 1998 for his roles in the Embassy bombings in Tanzania and Kenya
  
• in 1999 the UN sanctioned Taliban-led Afghanistan in an attempt to force the extradition of Osama bin Laden to face these charges

I'd say there were grounds for his attempted capture. I'd say that, considering the ISI (Pakistani intelligence) funded and even helped Osama to carry out some of his attacks, the likelihood of their help in apprehending him was slim to none. So please, don't talk to me about what right we had. If we wanted any justice, we had to make it ourselves.

[Cyo]

The problem with ACTA is that it's the physical copyright shit (e.g. to prevent forgery of some higher class French wines, Gucci bags and what not) lumped together with virtual copyright crap.

[Bone]

Oh, I guess he was using Detroit as a synonym for the automobile industry. It would have been nice for him to acknowledge that the city proper is like a third world country.

I really liked a lot of what he had to say, with a few exceptions, mostly which redlion pointed out.

[iargue]

Stitches, on 24 January 2012 - 09:57 PM, said:

If I remember correctly the UN actually condemned the Iraq invasion. UN weapon inspectors looked for WMDs and didn't find any, or any evidence that any were being made or had been being made in a decade. Iraq also had no connections to al-Qaeda. The US under Bush went ahead and invaded against the will of the UN on the premise that Saddam may have been making weapons or could in the future, which was basically a thinly veiled excuse to gain control of their oil supply.

Via wikipedia-

Spoiler

[The Iraq War] began with the invasion of Iraq by the United States under the administration of President George W. Bush and the United Kingdom under Prime Minister Tony Blair. Prior to the invasion, the governments of the United States and the United Kingdom asserted that the possibility of Iraq employing weapons of mass destruction (WMD) threatened their security and that of their coalition/regional allies. In 2002, the United Nations Security Council passed Resolution 1441 which called for Iraq to completely cooperate with UN weapon inspectors to verify that it was not in possession of weapons of mass destruction and cruise missiles. The United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) was given access by Iraq under provisions of the UN resolution but found no evidence of weapons of mass destruction. ...
Following the invasion, the U.S.-led Iraq Survey Group concluded that Iraq had ended its nuclear, chemical, and biological programs in 1991 and had no active programs at the time of the invasion but that Iraq intended to resume production once sanctions were lifted. Although some degraded remnants of misplaced or abandoned chemical weapons from before 1991 were found, they were not the weapons which had been the main argument to justify the invasion. Some U.S. officials also accused Iraqi President Saddam Hussein of harboring and supporting al-Qaeda, but no evidence of a meaningful connection was ever found.

... There were serious legal questions surrounding the launching of the war against Iraq and the Bush Doctrine of preemptive war in general. On September 16, 2004, Kofi Annan, the Secretary General of the United Nations, said of the invasion, "I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN Charter. From our point of view, from the Charter point of view, it was illegal."

I always thought it was retarded when politicians backpedaled and changed their minds. I was like, "You are not fooling anyone" I was wrong.

Just like Hillary Clinton passed a bill through congress that allowed her to change her vote from Yes to No 2 years after the war started, the UN condemned us for our actions -AFTER- we had invaded. Before then, as a member of the security counsel, we were asked to invade to ensure that they did not have any WMD's.

Stitches, on 24 January 2012 - 09:57 PM, said:

You're actually incorrect. This is a huge misconception. Pretty much everything is required to go through Congress and the Senate before the President signs them into law. If he doesn't sign it, the process starts over again, or Congress can override the decision and put it into law anyway if they have enough support (two thirds majority in each house- Congress does have veto power). Basically if something has overwhelming support and the President still doesn't sign it, it can go ahead anyway.

There are tons of checks and balances in place to prevent anyone, President included, from making sweeping decisions like erasing sections of government or arbitrarily deciding laws. If he just decided "We're cutting A, B, and C, and reallocating funds from B to D" without going through the proper process, he'd be impeached the next day. It makes everything take forever to get done but it also preserves some thread of legitimacy.

Incorrect. He has the power over his own offices, all government building and projects fall under this scope. He cannot undue things that where created through acts or laws, such as NASA, which was created through an act. Everything else, including simply firing people, falls underneath his power. He controls the government, congress controls the laws, and supreme court controls the justice. Hes more then capable of removing government offices, or firing people that do not need to work, but he does not choose to. No one ever does. They just like adding things.