is not fair for our troops

[brakada]

ONce again...Pearl Harbor and 9/11 was ALLOWED to happen in order to justify WAR.

Hmm, an interesting theory, you've got there, but it SUCKS! Were you even alive when it happened to know what the circumstances were back then? Or have we been reading too much of conspiracy theories?

Just like how the US gives Apache GUnships and F-16s to Isreal in thier defense against Palestinian villages and refugee camps.

But that's a funny one...

But US atrocities are acceptable...despite ALL major cities of Japan firebombed to the ground...US decides to drop 2 atomic bombs anyway.

I still think that the only 2 dropped nukes saved a couple of lives: I presume that definitely more people would have died (American and Japanese) if Americans had to conquer Japan with ground troops... It's sad, but IMHO true. And since then Japanese seem to be one of the most peaceful nations on the globe.

what is the use of turning back a clock? Will dead AMericans come back?
People must stand up and end this madness of thinking that military power is the only SAFETY for the world! In the name of MUSIC, PEACE!
-Jun_K

No matter how I dislike the US foreign policy and military, I don't even dare to think what would happen if (in theory) the USA decided to destroy their weapons and abolish the military forces...

[evangelion]

What's NOT cool is that US attacked itself on 9/11 in order to justify its 'war on terror' Until people admit to that possibility...all discussions are pointless.

-Jun_K

How lame it must be to live in your world of deceit and conspiracy theories. Let me guess...Elvis is still alive, you know who shot JFK and there is an alien at Area 51?? You must be a Jadakiss fan, he and you are the old people stupid enough to believe that the President of the United States of America would knowing and willfully kill over 3,000 fellow Americans.

You are a truly sad person.

[Balanc3]

Re: is not fair for our troops

I'm back!

Sortin' through lots of trash since the debates. These F&%@!N liberals really know how to post some garbage. I blame the media and Michael Moore for WTC... fat fuckin wanker. Hollywood and the pathetic journalism that exploits our vulnerabilities in the world news market are the ones to blame.

btw some crazy xfiles shit--- CLICK ME

this guys is serious!

:WTF:

[Jun_K]

How lame it must be to live in your world of deceit and conspiracy theories. Let me guess...Elvis is still alive, you know who shot JFK and there is an alien at Area 51?? You must be a Jadakiss fan, he and you are the old people stupid enough to believe that the President of the United States of America would knowing and willfully kill over 3,000 fellow Americans. You are a truly sad person.

Deceit is when majority of Americans still do not know the fact that 'president' G.W. Bush NEVER won the popular vote in 2000. He became president when his father's SUpreme Court Appointees decided to stop the recount to avoid the 'embarrassment'.

Why was "emergency broadcast system" not activated on 9/11 in New York and Washington D.C.? Why were planes not scrambled from Andrews Air Force Base(Washington D.C.) but from Langley(Virginia)? Cheney told NBC's "Meet the Press" the following: "The secret service has an arrangement with the FAA. They had open lines after the World Trade Center was...." He didn't finish the sentence. Why are some of the hijackers still alive? No ONe's mentioning NORAD's failure that day...I know countless facts still would not convince you so I'll just finish with this: PNAC(Project for the New American Century)...here's a link to help you:

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/nightline/DailyNews/pnac_030310.html

Just more coincidence theories for the non-believers...

-Jun_K

[Jenks]

i usually try to keep personal attacks out of my debating, because it really has no place, but i'm making a special case here...

you sir, are an asshat.

[factorg]

-Jun_K

WoW thats lots of interesting stuff you have stated there. Now how about you remove your head from your ass

[evangelion]

Deceit is when majority of Americans still do not know the fact that 'president' G.W. Bush NEVER won the popular vote in 2000. He became president when his father's SUpreme Court Appointees decided to stop the recount to avoid the 'embarrassment'.

Why was "emergency broadcast system" not activated on 9/11 in New York and Washington D.C.? Why were planes not scrambled from Andrews Air Force Base(Washington D.C.) but from Langley(Virginia)? Cheney told NBC's "Meet the Press" the following: "The secret service has an arrangement with the FAA. They had open lines after the World Trade Center was...." He didn't finish the sentence. Why are some of the hijackers still alive? No ONe's mentioning NORAD's failure that day...I know countless facts still would not convince you so I'll just finish with this: PNAC(Project for the New American Century)...here's a link to help you:

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/nightline/DailyNews/pnac_030310.html

Just more coincidence theories for the non-believers...

-Jun_K

I rest my case.

[evangelion]

Double post.

Damn Debug mode.

[BSully828]

Deceit is when majority of Americans still do not know the fact that 'president' G.W. Bush NEVER won the popular vote in 2000.

Too bad the president isn't elected by the popular vote, it's the electoral vote that decides the winner.

[Yao]

Re: is not fair for our troops

W. is acting like a puppet more and more. I can't stop thinking that
his foreign policy has always been dictated by Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld,
and the likes of them.
He doesn't seem to know what the fuck politics is about: keeping all
people satisfied.

So for his foreign policy he's relying on those 'hawks Wolfie and
Rumble, and they leave him on his own on domestic policy, which he
fcukz up even more without anyone guiding him on that.

Maybe the president should have less power, and parliament should have
more. This can only work with equal representation from all political
parties, meaning: no winner-takes-all elections, but representation in
parliament according to the votes you get. That gives the opposition
the chance to participate in policy and law making, and to pull on the
brakes when the ruling party is becoming to dominant in applying it's
policies. Any law will have to be approved of by a representation of
all political colours, not just the president's friends. This would
give the policies a broader base off acceptance among the people also.

This is how we do it in my country, and although it is not by far the
best democracy around, politics are less polarized than in the US, and
the country is usually governed by a coalition of political parties
which have a broad support base amongst the people. You won't get any prime minister here saying we'll go to war even though half of the country
is against it.

In fact: the US president has so much power that I'm a bit hesitant of
calling the US a real democracy. It's not a dictatorship by far, but
the power in the hands of not many, which makes it very dangerous
IMHO: a small group deciding for the rest, which is a lot in the US.
As long as the president has enough allies in the senate and
parliament he can do pretty much what he wants. Scary.

To all US board-roamers: no offense meant my friends, just expressing
some of my thoughts. :wink:

[BSully828]

Re: is not fair for our troops

But Yao - that's exactly how our government works.

The President cannot make one law on his own - it has to pass through the House and the Senate. The President cannot spend one dime on his own - the House and the Senate have to agree on the appropriations. The President cannot institute any sweeping policy on his own - the House and the Senate have to approve it. That's the separation of power we have to ensure that it doesn't become a dictatorship. I get the sense from what you wrote that the Netherlands have a similar setup, just with different titles. The US has three branches of government: The Judicial, the Legislative and the Executive. All three work in tandem and no one branch has more power than the other. To say that laws are approved by "just the president's friends" is ignoring the 400+ other members of government that have to approve that law as well.

But I think our disagreement is a philosophical one - you say that politics is about keeping all people satisfied, I have to disagree. Politics is about doing what is best for your country. I feel you are elected to be a leader not a buddy, if you are elected to keep everybody happy nothing gets done. Imagine if a president in the US had the mindset of making everyone satisfied, how would he deal with the KKK and the NAACP? The religious right and GLAAD? I don't think politics is meant to keep all satisfied but to keep all safe, prosperous and equal. Now do those elected always live up to this standard? Obviously no, but I'm speaking on the principle of politics (at least how I look at it). But like I said, this is a philosophical difference you and I share. I can completely understand your side of it, but I just see it a little differently.

[fluxus]

Re: is not fair for our troops

There is going to be a draft. There's already a backdoor draft. It's simply a matter of numbers. We need more troops to fight 2 wars. We don't have them and we pissed the whole world off so getting foreign troops with a Bush admin is out of the question.

go to Operation Truth...it's a page put together by the veterans of both wars. And they tell it like it is ~ because our media won't cover it.

[Yao]

Re: is not fair for our troops

Well Bsully,

Thanx for your comments on my thoughts. All that you said was right, except for the fact that:
maybe the president does need consent of the senate and parliament, but if more than half of parliament is conservative, and so is the senate, he is likely to be supported on very much of his propositions. I do know that the conservatives have a majority in the senate, I don't know if this is the same in parliament at this time.

I wasn't referring to the Trias Politica as you may have thought, but I'll try and point out a difference which may explain what I meant:
In my country any law has to pass through the 1st and 2nd chamber, which consist of the chosen representatives (by popular vote you would say I guess) of all political parties that got enough votes (there is a minimum required). There must be more than 6 or 7 parties represented in those chambers at present I think, including the opposition. The ruling coalition parties do have a majority in there, but they are 3 at this moment, which means moderation even without the opposition. Take the opposition in, and you'll see that the power of the ruling parties is not by far as great as in the US.
The only difference between them is that the 1st chamber members have less authority towards the ministers: they cannot alter any proposed law, only reject or approve it. The 2nd chamber can also propose modifications, and ask any minister to explain (right of enquete/interview) his/her point of view or give an explanation when his/her department has fucked things up. And they?ve done that on several occasions the past few years, in some cases the minister has been politely asked to go home and let somebody with real brains do the job. So they can be removed through a procedure like your impeachment procedure.
Those two chambers have more power than the government or the prime-minister, and keep a close eye on them.

As I?ve seen in that irritating Moore movie (but this I do believe to be true), some of your senators that have to decide wether a law-proposition is rejected or approved do not even read them. This is unthinkable over here. In fact, every law is thouroughly examined before approving it, and most of the time it will be criticized, too.
Any minister/president here calling the members of parliament asking for their support...unthinkable. ?Just make sure you hand me a decent and well-thought-over proposal mate.? There is no such thing as having the majority in either parliament or the senate here because of this coalition system.

The key issue here is the spread of legislative and controlling power over more than just one party.
The ministers are chosen from all the coalition parties, not just the winning one. Another spread of risk. It is NOT the prime-minister that chooses them, but a ?formateur?, appointed by our queen. He is supposed to be unbiased and only look for the best possible candidates for the job within those coalition partners.
We always have a coalition here, because the government needs at least 51% of the votes to get into office. As no party even gets 51% (last election one got 28%, which was astonishingly high), the biggest party will have to look for partners to get the 51% majority in parliament (2nd chamber). You have a winner-takes-all system, that is why we have a coalition administration, and you do not. That is why our winning party doesn?t have as much power as your winning party, which is mostly represented by the president. We have a prime-minister, who has not the power that Bush has. He?s more like a primus inter pares (first among equals).
As for the queen: the merely fulfills a ceremonial role and is vitrually abundant. She has no role in our politics whatsoever, unlike the British queen...

In a democracy, politics is about keeping people happy. Not in the sense of just giving in to every whim, but making a policy that takes every civil group into consideration, and tries to uphold a certain acceptable standard of living for everybody. And that is about the same as keeping all safe, prosperous and equal IMO.

I?m not discarding what you said, but I think this should make clear some of the key differences between Holland and the US. I know there is 400 people checking on the president, but if 51% of them is republican (and in the senate this is so), they?ll be likely to back up the president, because there will be less differentiation in thoughts among them.

Damn...I could write an essay on this....

Greetz,

Yao