[Winstonm]

Quote

Ok and who else ultimately decides if not the voters. Congress has the power of the purse , but we elect them. The President has the power to enforce the law but we elect 'em. The court has the power to interpert the law but no powers of enforcement.

No one who is chosen by a sponsor would be willing to give up any amount of power - and that power is what the sponsor is purchasing with campaign contributions, so the sponsor would not invest in a non-power seeking official. I believe it impossible to have a complete and total grassroots movement elect a non-sponsored candidate, so the question of election to me is rather moot.

You are correct that we elect them - but we do not chose them.

[mike777]

Al_U_Card, on Jun 29 2008, 01:54 PM, said:

mike777, on Jun 29 2008, 12:27 PM, said:

Some even go further and suggest before an 18 or 19 year old  Marine is allowed to shoot, bomb or kick down the door they should get a warrant or a judge's permission.

The president certainly has decided....everyone and everything that is not to the liking of his controlling interests gets stepped on, rights and all.

Illegal as well as immoral AND unintelligent, but very very profitable for those in control.

Wake up before you pass the torch onto another sleeper.

Since Canada and many other countries have combat troops at war, today, how do they handle the issue of detainees? What rights do you give others in war?
Whatever they are perhaps we should follow the same rules that Canada, France the Netherlands or etc have to go to war and send its young men and women in harms way. Hope Al you can cite some sources on how Canadian troops handle detainees or prisoners they take? What rules they follow and if Canada has declared war?

Yes I know they are part of Nato but I guess they can go to war without a declaration of war also, even years later. Perhaps the USA is not the only country who has not sorted out Winston's question of the "third state"

[Al_U_Card]

When they handle them badly, as they did with the prisoner transfers in Afghanistan, they are taken to task and made to change their methods.

We are hardly without blame as we ruined our good rep. as a peace-keeper to suck "W"'s ....

The Geneva convention and applying our own bill of rights actually works out pretty well.

[mike777]

Al_U_Card, on Jun 29 2008, 06:38 PM, said:

When they handle them badly, as they did with the prisoner transfers in Afghanistan, they are taken to task and made to change their methods.

We are hardly without blame as we ruined our good rep. as a peace-keeper to suck "W"'s ....

The Geneva convention and applying our own bill of rights actually works out pretty well.

I would be shocked if detainees by Canadian troops are covered by your Bill of Rights such as you are. But if you give them the same Bill of Rights then perhaps we should give our detainees those same rights. But I have my doubts they all get laywers and shipped back to Canada to stand trial with the same Bill of Rights as you.

[Al_U_Card]

Well, getting what is left of your bill of rights might not be that much of an improvement.....

Remember the old adage ... Truth, justice and the American way? Its been a while, hasn't it....

[helene_t]

kenberg, on Jun 29 2008, 05:26 PM, said:

Debating our policies is of course sensible but bringing up the fact that we are not loved is pretty irrelevant. It's been a constant for my 69 years and I don't expect it to change.

Here is what you have to do to become a loved country:

- Split up into 50 countries (well CA, NY and TX would have to be subdivided)
- Sell Microsoft, Exxon etc to the Chinese.
- Convert your economy to one of providing Country&Western workshops for the tourists.

You see, the problem is jealousy. As long as you are the World's leading country in so many areas we will hate you.

[luke warm]

helene_t, on Jun 30 2008, 04:41 AM, said:

kenberg, on Jun 29 2008, 05:26 PM, said:

Debating our policies is of course sensible but bringing up the fact that we are not loved is pretty irrelevant. It's been a constant for my 69 years and I don't expect it to change.

Here is what you have to do to become a loved country:

- Split up into 50 countries (well CA, NY and TX would have to be subdivided)
- Sell Microsoft, Exxon etc to the Chinese.
- Convert your economy to one of providing Country&Western workshops for the tourists.

You see, the problem is jealousy. As long as you are the World's leading country in so many areas we will hate you.

the trouble is, there are americans who feel the same way you do... it's my opinion that this present generation (or maybe even mine) could never have fought or won WWII

[Gerben42]

Quote

Here is what you have to do to become a loved country:

- Split up into 50 countries (well CA, NY and TX would have to be subdivided)
- Sell Microsoft, Exxon etc to the Chinese.
- Convert your economy to one of providing Country&Western workshops for the tourists.

You see, the problem is jealousy. As long as you are the World's leading country in so many areas we will hate you.

I thought you were going to suggest what I'm going to suggest now: How about giving up independence and return power to the lawful rulers, the great empires of England, France, Netherlands and Spain Oh and give Alaska back to the Russians. Then everyone is happy *g

[Gerben42]

Quote

Yes I know they are part of NATO but I guess they can go to war without a declaration of war also, even years later. Perhaps the USA is not the only country who has not sorted out Winston's question of the "third state"

There is no doubt that war is seen differently in the USA compared to Europe. When was the last time the American mainland has seen a war from nearby? 1865. Since then, the American public has only known war and tyranny from the newspapers, except perhaps for those in Hawaii.

In Europe it was 1995. And only 20 years ago, there was an iron curtain running through the middle of the continent. And behind that iron curtain, socialist dictatorships suppressed the people.

In this historic standpoint, European leaders will think twice, three times and then reconsider again before starting an armed conflict of any kind. I'm sure the American government does the same, but not on the same level. It is not by accident that the USA were the front runner to go into Iraq. No European leader could do so, given the history of the continent.

When Germany reunited, there was a big scare in neighboring countries that the at that point friendly ally West-Germany would turn into a dangerous dominating state again. Before the 2006 World Cup, Germans were very reluctant to show any nationalistic signs like waving flags, such was the memory of the 2nd World War. Even for youngsters whose parents had not experienced this war.

As you can see, the European relationship with war is quite a different one as that in the United States.

[Al_U_Card]

Karma is a bitch and the US is making up for lost time in a big way.

What goes around....comes around.

[Al_U_Card]

Vietnam = Iraq

Cheney, Rumsfeld et al = Cheney, Rumsfeld et al

Gulf of Tonkin = WMD

Draft = "volunteer" army with 'extended" tours of duty

Media coverage = media complicity or silence

Body count and funeral services = funereal interdiction

Public outrage = public fear

Demonstrations and resistance = Patriot act etc.

Corporate profits = corporate profits


Well, it looks like the "good ol' boys" learned from their mistakes and may well be ready for the next step...