• @DarthMaximus:

    You notice how funny the other side of that sword is?
    What if one these “liberal - commie - whatever” groups claims it would be good to have GWB removed … ?

    Yes, true.
    Which is why, the Pres can’t simply tell Govenors what to do. There are laws, which Bush followed for the Katrina response.
    You (I don’t mean you personally) must seperate Iraq from Katrina response. You simply can’t say “hey bush invaded Iraq, now do the same in NO”.
    I believe he was justified in Iraq

    I think you missed my point.
    If a few USamerican groups say that GWB should be removed … is that a valid context for … say the chinese … to invade the US ?
    If it is not there, then it was not for SH and Iraq.

    After 9/11 you can that was extra ordinary, BUT people still get mad about the Patriot Act.

    Because there is a difference between “tradition” -expecially when it is on formalities- and “values a country is and society is based upon”. Patriot Act is a perversion of what it claims to defend. If you have abandon principles likehabeas corpus, what kind of system are you defending with such a law? …

    I’m only trying to point out it you have to very careful about letting the Pres (or any leader) get away with saying we must do this because of these extreme circumstances.

    Oh, i do agree with that sentence, but your examples were a bit counterproductive for that :)

    What about now with Rita (another Cat 5 Hurricane). Now Bush takes control of Texas as well??? Both Katrina and Rita hit FL, should Bush have taken power from his brother???

    No, but here the state of emergency was proclaimed in advance. … something that could have been done for Katrina as well.

    You must see how this could develop into a slippery slope. Every Hurricane season the Pres could send “aid” (read troops) to the effected area, for the greater good of course. Yet what if they don’t want to leave???

    You ask me ?
    A german ???
    We still have your troops :).
    So, it’s not that bad, as long as they behave and are able to keep their children well behaving as well (difficult if a child is raised very “patriotic” but not in its fatherland … i remember a few years where they dropped stones/rocks from autobahn-crossing-pedestrian-bridges onto the cars below them) … and they do leave money in the local economy (not too much, but a bit).

  • Moderator

    I think you missed my point.
    If a few USamerican groups say that GWB should be removed … is that a valid context for … say the chinese … to invade the US ?
    If it is not there, then it was not for SH and Iraq.

    Oh.

    Sure. But why would the Chinese not just wait for Bush’s term to be up?
    They’d get a new leader with no blood shed.

    That is a big difference. Worst case you live with a Pres for 8 years, Dictators are in for life. Since you can’t vote them out, sometimes that only leaves military action.

    China (or someother country) could very much listen to some far out people and declare Bush a war criminal and try to forcible remove him. BUT…are you willing to accept the US counter strike, or are you willing to bite your tongue and hope a more favorable leader gets elected?
    With the US you have over 200 years of Presidents leaving office and having elections. With Iraq that was simply not an option. And the failed attempt at removing Saddam after the First Gulf War was a sad reminder that Saddam would not share power or step down gracefully.

    No, but here the state of emergency was proclaimed in advance. … something that could have been done for Katrina as well.

    But it was declared before Katrina hit. I believe 2 days prior. This was done precisely to give the Gov “extra powers” in a time of emergency. The Gov failed to act as forcefully as she probably should have.

    In hindsight, yes the Pres should have pushed the issue more, but at the time the Govenor had all the authority and ability to do whatever the heck she wanted (due to the State of Emergency).

    We still have your troops

    Yes, well sometimes rebuilding can take 60 years. :D
    So judging Iraq on 2 years isn’t really fair. :D


  • You made some reasonable points earlier that i don’t think necessary to address here (i like the way you suggested that the president “learned” after Iraq to go by the letter of the law :D)
    @DarthMaximus:

    I think you’ll appreciate this CC, Say you have have a patient that has cancer. The answer, they need surgery.
    They don’t feel any pain but untreated they will die.
    So they have surgery. Now how do they feel a day or a week after surgery? They feel like crap. Now how about after 6 months to a year of radiation and Chemo? Still like crap.
    But hey after 2 years they are getting back to normal and are cured. They feel better, and can appreciate the hellish process they went through, since the final results were good.

    But again what would that patient have said if you asked them how they feel imediately after surgery, with IV’s plugged in, tubes up their nose, etc.?

    1. i am not a surgeon :D
    2. seriously tho’ let’s say you are describing patient Joe.
      Now i explain to Joe the nature of the “cancer”, the prognosis and treatment as well as the risks and benefits of the proceedure/treatment. Now let’s say that Joe says “i’ll go for radiation and chemo, but i don’t want you to open me up”. If i say “well, screw you” and knock him out, perform the surgery, extracting the tumor against his will - then what does that make me? In this country - guilty of assault-and-battery, and a non-doctor after my license gets taken away from me.
      The thing is that SH relented on every request of the UN/US except to step down.
      The fact is that some tumors regress without surgery, and many tumors recur with surgery. We could not have predicted what would have happened if SH remained in power, however i am fairly certain that it would have been a much more stable environment, and likely more docile.
  • Moderator

    i like the way you suggested that the president “learned” after Iraq to go by the letter of the law

    I liked that one too. :D

    We could not have predicted what would have happened if SH remained in power, however i am fairly certain that it would have been a much more stable environment, and likely more docile.

    I think he would’ve played similar games to what he did in the past and what NK and Iran are doing now. One day inspectors can come in the next day they can’t.


  • @DarthMaximus:

    We could not have predicted what would have happened if SH remained in power, however i am fairly certain that it would have been a much more stable environment, and likely more docile.

    I think he would’ve played similar games to what he did in the past and what NK and Iran are doing now. One day inspectors can come in the next day they can’t.

    I respectfully disagree.
    I remember the whole scenario quite vividly (sadly i must relate that i was feeling somewhat pro-Bush at the time until the day before invasion), and i saw a very desparate SH willing to do anything to keep from being invaded.

    Anyway, this is not the point of this thread, but rather that Iraq and NO are linked in many of our minds. Clearly the “Dems” believe that there was no mandate to send forces into Iraq to invade it, but they believe that there was a mandate to send whatever help was at its avail into NO to help.
    As a Canadian (and obviously i do not speak for the majority of my countrymen) i can not understand this bizaare interplay between federalism and what-ever-you-call-it. I suppose i am a bit of a federalist, mind you (not all of us are “this way” here - particularly many of the traitors living in Quebec). If the federal gov’t saw a need for troops in MB or ON or even PQ, then troops would be directly dispatched there, with co-ordinated efforts between that provinces forces and the fed’s forces. There would be no negotiations.


  • i can not understand this bizaare interplay between federalism and what-ever-you-call-it.

    Part of this interplay is that the United States was never intended, by design 200+ year ago, to be a single nation. Rather, 13 seperate nations which are independent, but still loosely joined together. For this reason, the constitution does restrict the federal government in many ways - the use of resources being one of the ways.

    After 200 years, it almost never appears that way to outsiders or citizens since the federal gevernment has found ways to impose its desire upon the states. The primary way it does this is through the money - the federal funding for many things such as roads, are tied to specific policies. The state legislatures then decide they want (or need) the money more than NOT having a matching policy. Additionally, the federal courts haven’t always respected states rights, using a very liberal (no politics are intended with the word “liberal” here) interpretation of the powers the constitution does give the federal government.


  • Maybe if the Democratic Leadership in LA wasn’t so incompetent they actually would have evacuated the populace.

    (see Hurricane Rita preperation)

    The Dems can mobilize buses to get people to vote, but apparently they can’t mobilise people to get out of dodge.

    I think what gets the Dems so mad is that NO was such a bastion of Liberalism, that this hurricane stripped away all the walls and showed the world what an utter failure Liberalism is. NO has been run by Dems for 60 years, yet it many of its people were poor and left behind by the very Democrats that they elected into office.

    Rita hasn’t even hit Texas yet… and they already screwed up with the evacuations. No gas. Clogged freeways. Stalled vehicles. No supplies. Already there have been deaths and crimes being committed.

    Yeah… I guess that they have a decent excuse?? Cough it up, DM. You know in a time of potential disaster, THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT NEEDS TO STEP IN AND NOT WAIT FOR SOME PAPER WORK REQUEST. They are more “on the ball” in this case (due to the results of Rita) but still have FAILED on multiple levels in the evac.


  • no, baker, you are thinking of the AOC. the constitution very much intended for this country to be one nation, rather than states loosely tied together


  • Janus,

    Certainly, the current system is structured for a more centralized government than the AOC, of that there is no doubt. But it is my opinion that the system was still intended to have a very weak federal government. For example, see Amendment X of the constitution “The powers not delgated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Of course this is a matter of opinion.


  • certainly. its entirely a matter of interpretation, so fair enough. but clearly, we disagree

Suggested Topics

Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

110

Online

17.1k

Users

39.4k

Topics

1.7m

Posts