U.S. Politics Thread

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by kyp275

I'm sure the evil empire will find a way

Why hasn't this thread been renamed to "Bash the U.S. thread" yet again?

I am not sure what your response is suppose to mean.

You are rejecting something from my post, but I am not sure which. Is it that America won't invade Iran, or that America can make up an excuse for Iran like what was done 10 years ago?

[Haak]

Originally Posted by ogon_bat

Up to this day it baffles me that U.S. citizens do not see how Saddam was played. He might have killed people on cold blood, but he stayed in power because he knew when to attack and when not to "Battles are decided by the quartermasters before the first shot is fired". US diplomacy deceived Saddam into thinking the USA would not support kuwait once it was invaded. Late 20th century was a time of satellite photographs on schedule and transatlantic telephone calls, there is no way the USA would not have known about saddam's plan (I read about Saddam tanks on the border in a local newspaper before the invasion) and warn him of the consequences. Bush needed Saddam to invade kuwait just like Roosevelt needed the japs to invade hawaii..

According to Lawrence Freedman (A Choice of Enemies), the US did actually know that Iraq was showing considerable signs of invading Kuwait and were actually worried about it. The reason they didn't act was because Egypt (Mubarak) and Saudi Arabia (King Hussain) were reassuring the US through regular phone conversations that Saddam was just bluffing.

He then goes on about a miscommunication between the US and Saddam that could've possibly been a factor into Saddam believing the US would not be harsh on Iraq if they invaded, but it's not the one Ledgem describes. It's the meeting between April Glaspie and Saddam that Lawrence talks about. He describes it as a communication error brought about due to knowledge of particular developments, not because of any cultural miscommunication.

[Ithekro]

I think someone once said that diplomacy, on occasion, becomes a comedy of error that can get people killed. It can be funny to see and read about, but people are still dead.

[Dhomochevsky]

The U.S. should have attached clear instructions to the presentbox of weapons they gave to Saddam.

Instead, it must have been something more like
'Dear Saddam,
Please accept this small token of friendship and go have some fun.

P.S.
We really don't like Iran.'

He even did them that favor. Not his fault it didn't work out so well. They got help, which is unfair. And then the remaining weapons were just sitting there... to not use them would have been impolite.
I bet he was pretty surprised when the U.S. suddenly went all TsunTsun on him after all his efforts.

[ArchmageXin]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

I think someone once said that diplomacy, on occasion, becomes a comedy of error that can get people killed. It can be funny to see and read about, but people are still dead.

May I present: The man who killed the chance Chinese Democracy. I don't think anyone can justify your quote better.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/anale...president-life

-He lost Korea to the Japanese (In the sense of influence)
-Betrayed reformers within the Qing Government.
-Trigger the Qing's collapse
-Failed to suppress the boxer rebellion, triggered an massive foreign invasion.
-Murdered first and last democratic elected president.
-And the army he created degenerate into warlord ism after his death.

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by ogon_bat

@Ledgem I have no doubt said incident was true, that is how deception thru mass media works. Please do remember that there was a huge window of opportunity to prevent the invasion, we aren't talking about a situation where Saddam's cousin grabbed a cell phone to tell what he saw to Iraq's dictator and then Saddam pressed a button, launched a missile and boom, end of story. Moving all of your tanks from the border with Iran takes time and can't be done without all of the world noticing. The USA has air bases all over the world and can deploy fully armed long range bombers in a jiffy, obtaining permission from the Saudi's to fly over their territory would be a given (since once Saddam had Kuwait his next target would be the whole peninsula). So maybe a pre-emptive carpet bombing would not have destroyed all of the tanks, but would have sent a clear message that would not be "lost in translation". To complete the message the US would only need to send some air carrier navy vessels to Kuwait (that would no doubt pay all the expenses to prevent an invasion). Saddam would not invade Kuwait if he could not keep it, but once he invaded he could not just leave since that would be akin to admitting he had become weak on his old age.

That would have made the US the clear aggressor, which is its own can of worms.

Frankly, when you talk like that, you don't sound pissed that the heads of the USA act like the Lords and Masters of the world, answering to no one - you sound like you completely accept them as such, but are pissed that they don't use their totalitarian powers the way you want them to.

[MrTerrorist]

[willx]

Originally Posted by ArchmageXin

May I present: The man who killed the chance Chinese Democracy. I don't think anyone can justify your quote better.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/anale...president-life

-He lost Korea to the Japanese (In the sense of influence)
-Betrayed reformers within the Qing Government.
-Trigger the Qing's collapse
-Failed to suppress the boxer rebellion, triggered an massive foreign invasion.
-Murdered first and last democratic elected president.
-And the army he created degenerate into warlord ism after his death.

It's good to be reminded of the comedy of errors that happens in real life. Fact is stranger than fiction sometimes..

[Xacual]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...han-i-thought/

I wish I could say I was surprised how some of the conservative justices are handling this case but I really can't.

[james0246]

Whatever happened with those 10,000 broken bridges? Any news on that random issue?

[Kyuu]

Yea, yea. Gun issue...

But I have a question:

What is the big deal behind opposing universal criminal background checks? Most people support it - across the board: by party, by ownership (or lack of), by anyone. Sure, many of the other proposed measures -- such as limits on gun ammunition clips and bans on "assault rifles" -- are being views are deemed as unpalatable. But universal criminal background checks -- this measure is a no-brainer.

All it is -- just a few minutes of a gun buyer's time to fill in information that can be checked later on. An extremely minor inconvenience.

Yet, it is still not done.

Anyone opposing universal criminal background checks -- I accuse them of wanting criminals and the mentally ill to have access to guns in the first place.

[Ithekro]

Some people just don't like the idea of having a paper trail for their guns.

[Vexx]

background checks are a mix of potential good and potential evil.

good: IF PROPERLY IMPLEMENTED WITH A GOOD DATABASE ... you can circumvent illegal purchases of weapons by domestically violent, felons, mental patients, etc. It is easier to track gun history as part of criminal investigations.

bad: The decisions on who should not have a gun can get "1984ish". What if you have a spouse who is lying that you are abusing her? Divorces can get ugly. What if you're ADHD? What if your political or religious beliefs seem crazy to the deciders?

I'm fine with moderate reasoned gun regulation that has actual results (feel-good laws are not only ineffective but actually often create more havoc) - but for every "gun nut" out there who wants to own weapons they could take on a pack of terrorists with, there's an extremist on the other side who DOES want to take every gun away from everyone known to have one. They're there. It's disingenuous to claim otherwise. We have Senators, Reps, and city officials who say it out loud.

In a way, they have parallels to officials who carve out little squares under the freeway as the only place they will let you can protest, miles from where you need to protest. They prefer "harmony" over freedom - just like the folks who are "harmonizing" Tibet and any part of China where people get pissed off when schools collapse or food is made of poison.

[ganbaru]

Roe v. Everyone: States take on abortion
http://blogs.reuters.com/events/2013...e-on-abortion/

[Badkarma 1]

Just to chime in on the gun thing.
Here in Illinois, we've had background checks since the Brady thing, and yous get chafed a $2 fee for a phone call to da State Police and they do the check. Then wait 72 hours fer a handgun or 24 for a l

[Badkarma 1]

Long gun.
Plus your required to have a state ID to purchase called a FOID. So Lincoln's home state has enough checks in its systems.
As for a national background thing, why not let the states do it themselves, no need for Zippy and his minions to get involved.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

Some people just don't like the idea of having a paper trail for their guns.

I would like to hear their explanations on why that is the case without any mentioning of either "breaking the law" or "want to start a rebellion".

[Badkarma 1]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

I would like to hear their explanations on why that is the case without any mentioning of either "breaking the law" or "want to start a rebellion".

Simple, nobody needs to know your business. Your gonna fill out a Federal Form 4473, regardless, witch stay active for 10 years, and are periodically checked by the minions at BATFE.
Dis whole hoopla over "national background checks" is redundant nonsense! There's plenty of laws on da books already that need enforcin.
And why is it nobody is asking said alphabet outfit why they didn't catch these mental misfits befores the heinous acts were done?
We don't need more laws, we needs to have a gov't that will enforce dose on the books already!

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by Badkarma 1

Simple, nobody needs to know your business. Your gonna fill out a Federal Form 4473, regardless, witch stay active for 10 years, and are periodically checked by the minions at BATFE.
Dis whole hoopla over "national background checks" is redundant nonsense! There's plenty of laws on da books already that need enforcin.
And why is it nobody is asking said alphabet outfit why they didn't catch these mental misfits befores the heinous acts were done?
We don't need more laws, we needs to have a gov't that will enforce dose on the books already!

Catching people before they did anything is called "locking up innocent people". We are not suppose to do that deliberately, last I checked.

[Badkarma 1]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

Catching people before they did anything is called "locking up innocent people". We are not suppose to do that deliberately, last I checked.

And you missed the point entirely. On da form it asks if your a mental case, of course you say no. With a state background check they could see if your dine time for being mental unless your files are sealed by doctor patient whatchamacallit.
So lets make all mental cases a a part if the NCIS database and we can keep the weapons out of there hands.
Why we coddle dese people is beyond me, if they're a danger to society they needs to be "in the system". We do the same wit convicted pedophiles, sexual predators and such, so why not the mental ones to?