Americans: are you scared yet?

[Trajan12]

Indeed as said, when the rebels declared a war against England in the war of independance weren't you rogues and militants fighting against an unfair government? It's not always that simple, I can provide plenty of examples of militants fighting against government the US or the West supported, and a load more they didn't but won anyway, are the Mexicans or the Chileans not rightfully governed by rebels?

Ok this has gon to far first of all the revolution was fought before there were any Geneva conventions so that dosent count. Then the US backed revolutions were just wars against opression not "hey lets walk on a bus and blow ourselves up" wars. I fail to see why they would even need to fight us in Iraq, its not like we are annexing them. Whod want that place anyway? Id rather buy my oil than have to deal with ungrateful people to get it.

 

[FriendlyFire]

EDIT: For the record, I'm for this if it allows the CIA to perform waterboarding and other "aggressive" techniques. If they aren't allowed to do those things, though, it should be shot down. Fortunately, they used such vague language that McCain can claim that it outlaws waterboarding, but President Bush can claim that it doesn't, and get away with it. Everyone wins! (Except the terrorists, of course.)

As long as they dont start sewping a bunch of crap about links between Osama and Saddam when being buried up to there necks and left for hours.

Ironicly the founder of Militaint Islam terrorism was Tortured to death in Egypt. EDIT: Where he devleloped and wrote the text and philosphy embraced by Jihardies such as Osama.
But hey everyone wins.

 

[HawkeyeGS]

I would have to say I am rather scared. Not just of the potential but what is already happening. People being sent to Gitmo without trial or charge? It reaks of totalitarianism to me.

 

[BasketCase]

Unlike Democrats, Republicans march in lock step. Except of course in election years when their president is bipedal toxic waste.

Disagree. Both parties march in lock-step when they're the minority. Political differences are put aside, because it's far more important to regain control of the White House and Congress. After all, if you don't control those, it's impossible to implement your agenda, whether that agenda is gun control, banning abortion, environmentalism, religious fundamentalism, or whatever else.

Hate to break it to ya Bozo, but Democrats do the goose step too.

 

[King Flevance]

I will quit worrying about the future of our country possibly in 2008. Anyone heard any word as to who the next presidential candidates will be?

 

[BasketCase]

The minute you find out, there's a good chance you'll start worrying again.

Worrying about the direction of one's nation is an ongoing deal that has no cure. When Bush leaves office, you will find yourself worrying whether or not somebody even worse will get into office.....

Conservatives worry in the same way--they simply have different ideas of who's "worse" than you do.

 

[Chieftess]

I will quit worrying about the future of our country possibly in 2008. Anyone heard any word as to who the next presidential candidates will be?

I think I'd be more scared of Hilary.

I don't think anyone should be worried about these laws unless citizens start turning up missing in the hundreds of thousands. A few hundred, or a few thousand (over several years, of course), ok, that's fine. The US has a prison population in the millions, BTW.

 

[JollyRoger]

Ok this has gon to far first of all the revolution was fought before there were any Geneva conventions so that dosent count. Then the US backed revolutions were just wars against opression not "hey lets walk on a bus and blow ourselves up" wars. I fail to see why they would even need to fight us in Iraq, its not like we are annexing them. Whod want that place anyway? Id rather buy my oil than have to deal with ungrateful people to get it.

So if Iraqis were militarily occupying Texas, but obviously not annexing it, you would see no reason to fight?

 

[mdwh]

There was no such thing as a "Crime Against Humanity" until we made it up to hang Nazi's with - yet no one batted an eye.

It is true that International Law may involve things which aren't previously declared illegal as such - however, the key point here is *international*. My understanding is that the Nuremberg Trials were not just one country deciding the law.

If this was the UN's decision, then that would be one thing, but instead it's the US deciding on its own.

Also, mass murderers are hardly comparable to individual soldiers. If the allies had decided to put every German soldier on trial, then I think people would have objected.

And just for the record, the US Constitution applies to US citizens within US borders. It's protections do not extend to anyone else, be they British or Afghani. We treat others nicely so that they will treat our citizens nicely, we just don't like torturing people, and because of some federal laws - not because we are required to by the Constitution.

The US federal government has laws and treaties signed outlawing torturing prisoners, such as the Geneva Convention - that is what makes torture by US servicemen illegal, not the US Constitution.

Whilst the US constitution is great in many ways, this is one thing that I find very bad about it: many people seem to have this notion that if something is not covered by the constitution, it must be okay to do it (restrict rights, imprison/torture people or whatever). Indeed, I believe that the constitution explicitly says that this is not the case.

EDIT: For the record, I'm for this if it allows the CIA to perform waterboarding and other "aggressive" techniques.

Can we perform them on you? If you've got nothing to hide, you've nothing to fear, after all.

 

[mdwh]

Ok this has gon to far first of all the revolution was fought before there were any Geneva conventions so that dosent count.

Wait a minute, the Geneva conventions gives rights to POWs, so I'm not sure what you're saying here. That the Geneva covention wasn't around is even more argument that it would be okay to have considered the US rebels as terrorists.

Nowhere in the Geneva convention does it say that "unarmed combatants" can be locked up without trial. That's a load of dangerous nonsense that Bush and co made up.

 

[JollyRoger]

For the record, I'm for this if it allows the CIA to perform waterboarding and other "aggressive" techniques. If they aren't allowed to do those things, though, it should be shot down. Fortunately, they used such vague language that McCain can claim that it outlaws waterboarding, but President Bush can claim that it doesn't, and get away with it. Everyone wins! (Except the terrorists, of course.)

I am for waterboarding also. Obviously, the interrogation techniques that the Senate has used when questioning members of the Bush administration have not been effective since they are skilled at dodging the questions. I think by waterboarding Gonzales, Rice, and Rumsfeld during their hearings, this country would start getting some more straightforward answers.

 

[King Flevance]

I think I'd be more scared of Hilary.

I hope the Democrats don't plan on trying to run her yet. With the current situations I think we need a new face on the Democratic side. A new jack ass. I liked Clinton. It honestly surprises me when people don't like Clinton. But that is why we all have opinions or something I guess. I would say that Hillary would be more able to maneuver quickly through the system trying to regain control for the Democrats if she followed Bush into office. Mainly due to the fact that her husband's time gives her eight years experience. (Not meant as a joke and please don't quote it. That isn't the point and you know it. )

The main reason she shouldn't attempt to run though is the state the country is in right now. We need someone new that we have to dig up new dirt on to keep our minds distracted in the media for a bit. Handing Hillary the office now just sets up the media to pull out "last week's" notes and bring in more controversy on unimportant matters.

After a few years pass though, I would probably vote for Hillary. I want to know the Republican Party's new candidate more though. I think the democrats have a plan and that Kerry was just dead weight flung at a pointless crowd. The man had no personality and almost won. I don't even think the Democrats were trying. Throwing Hillary in then would have ruined her chances for life. Hopefully wewill see two great men show up and ush in a new Era for America. We could use it. I hope someone brings something to the table...

I know Off Topic but the subject of Hillary does fascinate me. I think the democrats could pull it off if they manage to do it right.

 

[zulu9812]

Hilary Clinton being elected president would be the worst possible thing that could happen to America and the World (well, apart from another Bush). For some reason, perhaps due to the absence of a monarchy, America likes to build up dynasties - the Kennedys, the Bushs, the Clintons, the Herbert-Walkers, the Rockefellers, etc. America is billed as a place where anyone can become president, so having 4 presidents in a row all from 2 families would be an unmitigated disaster.

 

[King Flevance]

Hilary Clinton being elected president would be the worst possible thing that could happen to America and the World (well, apart from another Bush). For soem reason, perhaps due to the absence of a monarchy, America likes to build up dynasties - the Kennedys, the Bushs, the Clintons, the Herbert-Walkers, the Rockefellers, etc. America is billed as a place where anyone can become president, so having 4 presidents in a row all from 2 families would be an unmitigated disaster.

It depends on if they are qualified or not. I think that Clinton left the office in pretty good shape if you ignore any pointless BS scandal that was thrown at him. Bush has since screwed that all up. Our foreign relations are now right back in the toilet. I wouldn't mind having Hillary cme in because she is familiar with the policies currently active. Her experience in dealing with the nation as I believe she held herself very highly under the circumstances. She is being blamed for being married to Bill Clinton is all it really boils down to. If she went into office all those same scandals we already know about would just rise to the surface again. So she would be doomed the minute she stepped in office.

I don't think it would be wise for Hillary to go back in until she is ready to take on hellfire. But I do believe it is possible and I don't see her as a simple puppet president for the democrat party. I think alot of democrats would like to see her go in because it would not only make a landslide event in American history marked as a democrat's achievement, but also it would be like the Clinton administration stepping in for the democrats again. I for one would be happy to see that administration come back in for another once over on our government. But now isn't the time to go for it. Right now we need a fresh face as I said. Someone new that no one has dirt on - yet. Then after some of the turmoil has settled down, I think Hillary would make a good candidate.

 

[Cuttergap]

Its not really war though. They are not an opposing country, they are a rogue force who target civilian and military targets.

Do you think it would be acceptable for me to start my own militia and attack a military base where i live?

well, i guess the american war of independance was just a rogue uprising.

Spoiler :

It was the Boston Committee of Correspondence that directed the Boston Tea Party action of December 16, 1773.1 Upset with the lack of redress concerning the new tax on tea established by the British government for importation of tea to Boston, a small band of the Boston Committee of Correspondence members (approximately fifty in number) lead by Samuel Adams, proceeded to empty three ships worth and 342 chests of tea into Boston Harbor in protest.

Noun 1. terrorism - the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimindation or coercion or instilling fear.

 

[Lotus49]

Dumping tea overboard = use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians. I learn something new every time I come here.

 

[Captain Planet]

Apparently few people in the United States read the book The Crucible.

 

[Steph]

Ok this has gon to far first of all the revolution was fought before there were any Geneva conventions so that dosent count.

Then, what about French resistance or Russian partisan fighting German forces in WWII? The Geneva convetion existed at the time.

 

[Xanikk999]

well, i guess the american war of independance was just a rogue uprising.

Spoiler :

Yep i agree with you! However the britishs reason for controlling america was very different i might add.

 

[dutchfire]

Do you think it would be acceptable for me to start my own militia and attack a military base where i live?

Yes, I think it would, you would be killed within an hour though, and you wouldn't find anyone stupid enough to join your militia, but if you want to challenge the governement, go ahead.