|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 20 new of 44 responses total. |
rcurl
|
|
response 25 of 44:
| 
Jul 30 19:33 UTC 2003 |
Re #20: we were attacked first in the case of Japan, and an ally was under
attack in the case of Germany. Iraq was attacking no one when we most recently
invaded. (How quickly - or conveniently - people forget there is a
difference.)
|
cross
|
|
response 26 of 44:
|
Jul 30 20:02 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
tod
|
|
response 27 of 44:
|
Jul 30 20:03 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 28 of 44:
|
Jul 30 23:23 UTC 2003 |
Note that I wrote "when we most recently invaded". Iraq has not *invaded*
Israel - or do you consider Clinton's tomahawking of Iraq an "invasion"
too? That would mean we "invaded" Iraq twice without provocation.
|
tod
|
|
response 29 of 44:
|
Jul 30 23:27 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 30 of 44:
|
Jul 30 23:35 UTC 2003 |
So, where they an "invasion" of Iraq (as tod is claiming for Iraq's scuds)?
|
cross
|
|
response 31 of 44:
|
Jul 30 23:39 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
tod
|
|
response 32 of 44:
|
Jul 31 00:02 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
sj2
|
|
response 33 of 44:
|
Jul 31 05:26 UTC 2003 |
Whats to gain from attacking N. Korea? Millions of impoverished and
hungry civilians!!!
|
other
|
|
response 34 of 44:
|
Jul 31 07:10 UTC 2003 |
Really! We'd have to accidentally extend the invasion into Russia or
China to get enough oil out of it to actually justify the expense.
|
sj2
|
|
response 35 of 44:
|
Jul 31 08:25 UTC 2003 |
I think the whole thing boils down to business. If you need your
corporations to have access to bigger markets and make more money, you
would've to sacrifice more lives, civilian and military.
When the British went about fighting Indian (as in South Asia) kings,
were they protecting Britain from some threat of being invaded? Or
were they liberating people? No!! They were paving way for British
companies to get into India and make money. The same's the story here.
Ofcourse, in the process lots of British soldiers fought and lost
their lives. What were they told?? That they were patriots fighting to
defend the Union Jack?
|
janc
|
|
response 36 of 44:
|
Jul 31 13:17 UTC 2003 |
I don't actually know why Bush invaded Iraq. His stated reasons were bogus.
The theory that it was to open opportunities for American corporations is
certainly plausible. The general nastiness of the government there would
have been a real factor - as it ensured that they didn't have a lot of allies.
It also explains why Bush wants to keep the UN out. We went to all this
trouble to open opportunities for American corporations, not German and
Indian ones. I'm not sure I entirely buy that explanation, but it almost
has to have been at least a significant plus factor.
|
tod
|
|
response 37 of 44:
|
Jul 31 16:26 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
pvn
|
|
response 38 of 44:
|
Aug 9 07:42 UTC 2003 |
re#1: Where in the US Constitution does it suggest that the federal
government can even think about surrendering sovereign rights that are
only loaned to it in the first place by the individual citizens?
The federal government doesn't have the authority to enter into such an
agreement in the first place.
|
sj2
|
|
response 39 of 44:
|
Aug 9 10:30 UTC 2003 |
That is why you get national legislatures to ratify a treat/accord.
Well ... mostly, unless the executive can find a loophole in the law
that gives it unilateral rights to sign treaty/accord without getting
approval from the house of representatives like the recent UK-US
extradition treaty??
|
sj2
|
|
response 40 of 44:
|
Aug 9 10:32 UTC 2003 |
Btw, the loaned-the-rights-to-the-government thing sounds good in
theory. If you went to contest a law/regulation on that basis, I am
sure you can dispute almost every law and end up being an outcast?
|
pvn
|
|
response 41 of 44:
|
Aug 10 05:10 UTC 2003 |
re#39: Or have it overturned. It only took one tired old lady who
refused to move to the back of the bus...
|
gelinas
|
|
response 42 of 44:
|
Aug 10 13:21 UTC 2003 |
(A minor quibble to #39: The Senate ratifies treaties; the House of
Representatives has no role in treating wwith foreign powers.)
|
sj2
|
|
response 43 of 44:
|
Aug 13 16:53 UTC 2003 |
Re #42, By House of Representatives, I did not mean the US HoR but
generically the HoR of a country.
In India, the parliament ratifies a treaty. It consists of an publicly
elected lower house, the Lok Sabha and an upper house, the Rajya Sabha,
that is elected by an electoral college.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 44 of 44:
|
Aug 13 17:36 UTC 2003 |
Ah. It's different in the US. There are two chambers, but only one ratifies
treaties. That chamber, the United States Senate, also approves appointments
made by the President.
Originally, Senators were elected by the State legislatures. Now, they are
elected by direct vote.
|