2012-03-17, 02:13 | Link #20221 | ||||
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2009
Location: classified
|
You are free to feel that way.
Quote:
If he was unaware of the operation, it doesn't matter, it's still his responsibility as President, and now he will bear whatever consequences come of this screw up (one of a long line of many) on the part of BATF. If he did know about it, then he will be in even hotter water due to the obvious connection between his call for a renewed assault weapon ban, and selling guns to Mexican drug lords makes it look like a scandalous attempt to justify such a ban was underway. Whether true or not is irrelelvent, the facts are simple. Holder knew what was going on and Obama is protecting Holder. Obama should have cut Holder loose to save his own political behind. Protecting Holder only makes Obama look either complicit or incompetent. Quote:
There is no probably about it. He caved to the military industrial complex's wishes, which shows he's weak. Quote:
You have heard of the 4th Amendment, about how American citizens shall not be subject to "searches..." without a warrant. Flying a drone with weapons (like the Shadowhawk) and/or cameras that can see into private areas of a person's home or yard is a direct violation of the 4th Amendment. Even the ACLU understands this. Quote:
Leon Penetta is continuing the exact same policy under Obama as Bush. How is that any different from Bush with the same Secretary of Defense in charge? Bush actually did go to the UN to get their permission, even though it was rejected. Who do think told his administration there were WMDs? My problem with Obama is that he is supposed to go to congress, NOT the UN, to get permission to wage war. However, Obama has simply followed Bush's bad example and used the UN as an excuse to engage in military combat operations without congressional approval. Maybe I'm not being fair, but sometimes the truth isn't.
__________________
|
||||
2012-03-17, 02:22 | Link #20223 |
Gamilas Falls
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Republic of California
Age: 46
|
The provision that keeps getting talked about in the NDAA...the military doesn't want it. Nor does it seem like it is a viable threat, as US Citizens are excempt from it.
Quite simply put, if that clause is ever used (and proven to have been used) against a US Citizen, it would be classified as an illegal order under the US Constitution (which the NDAA does not override in any way). It could get the soldiers and officers that follow those orders court marshalled, and if the President gives those order, could get him impeached. It seems like just something some doofus in Congress cooked up to get others in trouble.
__________________
|
2012-03-17, 05:08 | Link #20225 |
Gamilas Falls
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Republic of California
Age: 46
|
Potentially getting someone else in power in trouble can benefit one seeking power.
Also it can keep someone in a supposedly higher position under a lower position's thumb. Recall that the Congress under President Andrew Johnson crafted some legislation to prevent Johnson from doing something he was already doing (Tenure of Office Act), and impeached him for it. They also managed the votes so he would remain in office by only one vote...thus a threat to him directly from Congress.
__________________
|
2012-03-17, 07:24 | Link #20226 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2007
|
Quote:
Seriously though, yes, China's stance on the issue of peninsula is very relevant. But unfortunately for us, it is hard to tell between the officials being serious and they releasing a statement for statement's sake. Reading the words is one way to tell. ------------------------------------------ As for the satellite, I doubt anyone is really concerned about whether it will be highly sophisticated or simple, the point is that there not much difference of launching a satellite and a missile carrying a war head, and this will be seen as an experiment on their payload abilities.
__________________
Last edited by Tom Bombadil; 2012-03-17 at 07:52. |
|
2012-03-17, 10:32 | Link #20227 | |
Love Yourself
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Northeast USA
Age: 38
|
Quote:
The act of "gunwalking" (allowing the purchases to be made, and then following it) took place over the course of about five years, and actually started under President Bush. The idea behind it was solid: no matter how hard we try, we haven't been able to cut off the supply of weapons to the cartels as we have been operating. By allowing a cartel purchaser to make the purchase, and then following him, we could nab two birds with one net: having direct proof of involvement in arms trafficking, we would arrest the purchaser (my understanding is that, at present, we can only deny a sale to them because of suspicion) and arrest their cartel contact. The weapons would then be retrieved. If it worked as planned, there would be no issue of weapons getting away, and the cartel's weapons trafficking network would actually be losing members. The problem is that our surveillance and tracking isn't perfect. Under Bush, no arrests were made because even though we tracked the traffickers to the border and informed the Mexican police about it, they were unable to continue tracking where we left off. Even though we began to make arrests under Obama, we could not track everyone, and a number of weapons slipped through the cracks. That's where the anger came from. I'll reiterate again that this was not the difference between the cartels having no guns, or even significantly fewer guns. It's obvious that our attempts to control gun sales aren't preventing the cartels from obtaining weapons. The ideas behind these operations were to be a bit more proactive, removing the cartel's purchasing network. Solid in theory, but as far as short-term thinking goes, it's a terrible idea. But all of this talk about focusing on the weapons is really rather ridiculous. Declawing the cartels from our end won't fix anything. Seeing how militarized they've become, they could probably create their own weapons. Where is the source of their power and influence coming from? Money. Where are they getting their money from? Illegal drug sales. What happens if the drugs aren't illegal anymore? The money flow dries up, and with it, the cartels. History has already shown that this is the outcome: see the mafia and the ban on alcohol, the Prohibition of the 1920's. I don't do drugs, never have and intend not to, but I think this entire thing is utterly foolish. Just legalize the damn things already.
__________________
|
|
2012-03-17, 11:54 | Link #20228 | ||||
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2009
Location: classified
|
Quote:
What most are arguing is that it is pure hypocrisy for Obama and/or Holder to call for an "assault weapon" ban if they knew the BATF was selling fully auto weapons to drug dealers. Having been a gunsmith and thus required to have an FFL, let me assure you Ledgem that you cannot buy a .30 caliber, tripod mounted machine gun over-the-counter at a gun shop. The procedure requires filling out a Form-4, going through a long waiting period for a Class III license transfer (1-6 months), and an intrusive FBI background check. Only ATF can sell such a weapon (or authorize the sale of such a weapon) in a short period of time at point of sale. Quote:
Sell guns to drug lords, bust the drug lords with American guns, blame "lax" gun-laws for them getting them and then push for more gun control. The proverbial "Genie is out of the bottle" on this issue and there is no putting it back in. The only question now is how much did Obama know? The supply of actual assault weapons used by the drug cartels is coming from Central and South American sources. Therefore, with that information at hand it becomes obvious that "Gunwalker," "Fast and Furious," and "Castaway" were all part of another screw up gun control scheme cooked up by the BATF. There is no doubt about this anymore. Quote:
Closing the border and stopping all illegal crossing will stem the flow of weapons considerably; though not stop it entirely. Quote:
Legalize the drugs and you end the power of the drug gangs. Colorado might be the first state to legalize Marijuana. Wish us luck!
__________________
|
||||
2012-03-17, 12:51 | Link #20229 | |||
Shadow of Effilisi
Join Date: Oct 2011
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
1) First of all, you are too vague about what is the "exact same policy". I don't know which policy you are referring to. 2) Donald Rumsfeld and Robert Gates were the Secretary of Defense under Bush. Obama continued with Robert Gates for until 2011. Leon Penetta was not Secretary of Defense under Bush at any point. 3) I know very well that Bush did go to the UN and failed to get a resolution. The problem is that he started the war anyways. Obama did wait to get support from all parties before acting. 4) Bush ignored UN's decision when he started the Iraq War. So I don't know where you get "used the UN as an excuse" part from. 5) So basically, you want the president to not go to the UN, but to seek support in Congress. Well, that is exactly what Bush did. The Congress authorized military actions against Iraq. The UN did not. Obama did the opposite, but somehow you still spinned his policies to be "same as Bush". 6) That said, it would have been better if Obama seeked support in Congress as well, but I can understand why he did not. When airstrikes began, Qaddafi's forces were closing in on the last rebel stronghold of Benghazi. Time was running out. |
|||
2012-03-17, 12:55 | Link #20230 | |||||
Love Yourself
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Northeast USA
Age: 38
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
My guess is that you think that the whole gunwalking operation was a setup to get legislation like this put through. I disagree, and think that the idea for the legislation came afterward. It honestly doesn't matter, though, because there's no proof to show that the intent was one way or another. Quote:
Good luck with the marijuana legalization.
__________________
|
|||||
2012-03-17, 14:23 | Link #20231 | |||||||||
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2009
Location: classified
|
Quote:
Justice O'Connor's opinion: "it is not conclusive to observe, as the plurality does, that "[a]ny member of the public could legally have been flying over Riley's property in a helicopter at the altitude of 400 feet and could have observed Riley's greenhouse." Nor is it conclusive that police helicopters may often fly at 400 feet. If the public rarely, if ever, travels overhead at such altitudes, the observation cannot be said to be from a vantage point generally used by the public and Riley cannot be said to have "knowingly expose[d]" his greenhouse to public view. Nevertheless, O'Connor concurred with the plurality opinion because she thought the defendant still needed to show that public use of the relevant airspace was uncommon. The Justice closed by saying flights less than 400 feet (120 m) in altitude "may be sufficiently rare that police surveillance from such altitudes would violate reasonable expectations of privacy." A drone helicopter, such as the Shadowhawk, is not a public vehicle (since it can be armed with a 40 mm grenade launcher or shotgun), has nightvision thermal-imaging, motion detectors, etc.; and therefore would violate reasonable expectations of privacy and security under the 4th Amendment. Quote:
Obama said he wouldn't sign the damn thing with the Indefinite detention provision and then reversed himself on it. He caved into pressure from the MIC, that is an excellent point and an incontrovertable one. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Glad you concede that point. Quote:
Quote:
The foreign polices with regard to Iraq and Afghanistan were the same, as is the idea that the US needs to police the world. Quote:
__________________
|
|||||||||
2012-03-17, 16:26 | Link #20232 | |||||||
Shadow of Effilisi
Join Date: Oct 2011
|
Quote:
If the UAV has a mean to penetrate your roof and look at places that you don't expect people to see from outside, and does so without a warrant, then it is a violation of your Constitutional rights. But it does not violate if it is just flying overhead and look down. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Obama looks very reluctant to go to war. For one, oil price will skyrocket if the war begins, and that is bad for the still vulnerable economy and consequently his chance at re-election. He has been trying to hold Israel back from starting their own airstrikes, preferring to impose tough economic sanctions to force Iran to back down. It may still come to war, but to claim Obama is hawkish like Bush is pretty ridiculous. Quote:
Regarding US policing the world, well, it is a long-standing US foreign and military strategy. One can hardly expect Obama to abandon it. These are rather weak and overly broad examples to demonstrate Obama's policies being same as Bush's. Quote:
Last edited by Kokukirin; 2012-03-17 at 16:39. |
|||||||
2012-03-17, 17:20 | Link #20233 | |||||||
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2009
Location: classified
|
Quote:
Quote:
That's akin (though not exactly the same) as the Ted Haggard scandal. He was preaching against homosexuality, demanding gay marriage be banned, and yet at the same time was engaged in sex with a gay male prostitute. Quote:
I was pointing out that the machine guns in the hands of the drug cartels are not coming from FFL holders in the US unless ATF is authorizing the straw purchases. The laws on machine guns and actual assault rifles in the US are very strict and covered under both the NFA of 1934 and the GCA of 1968. Therefore, all this talk of banning "assault weapons" is nonsense since what was banned in 1994 were actually semi-automatic civilian firearms not "assault weapons". No ban on guns will stop the flow of military style weapons into the hands of drug cartels. Quote:
Why should law abiding Americans have to go through more hassle when they are not the party responsible for arming the drug gangs? Quote:
My feeling is that this operation was ordered in an honest attempt to try and track guns back to the drug cartels. It was the ATF that used it to their advantage in order to try and expand their authority and justify the existence of their agency. Ultimately, the BATFE is responsible for this which is why it transcends Presidential administrations and even congresses over at least a decade if not more. Quote:
Without getting into the Mérida Initiative , I think a stronger border policy would make a considerable difference in the flow of drugs and money across the border. As would ending "Fast and Furious" or any other operation akin to it. Quote:
__________________
|
|||||||
2012-03-17, 18:13 | Link #20234 | |||||||||
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2009
Location: classified
|
Quote:
The point of linking to what the ShadowHawk can do is to illustrate to you Kukukirin that the drones are capable of seeing into homes, killing people, and doing what is beyond a reasonable use of public airspace. Quote:
Quote:
Who cares about Rumsfeld? I was referring to Robert Gates. Obama continued the foreign policy of Bush, that being intervention into other countries by the US. Their policies are nearly identical, and you just admitted that, so it shows you know I'm correct on this. Quote:
However, both do need congressional approval to declare/wage war. So if approval it what is bothering you, then Obama is the one who didn't get it for Libya and for a President that has sworn to uphold the US constitution, that actually does matter. Quote:
And yes Bush and Blair jumped the gun and attacked without any real cause. Quote:
It's an election year and Obama knows that any significant spike in fuel prices means he's out of the job. However, another major reason why Obama hasn't gone to war with Iran is because Russia will not tolerate it. Quote:
Whether cautious or reactionary is moot to my point. My point is that Obama is acting in the same way Bush did with regard to the US being the World's police. Quote:
Romney, Gingrich, and Santorum would push the same foreign policy as Obama if elected, and that was my original point wasn't it? Quote:
It doesn't matter whether Qaddafi's force was closing in or not. Obama had no business getting the US involved in the internal affairs of Libya. Just as Bush and Blair had no business rushing into Iraq with military force because they feared Saddam was making a nuke. In other words, both Presidents used military force in situations they had no right to use them in. Saddam didn't attack the US, and Qaddafi didn't attack the US. The only time the US is supposed to attack another country is in defense of itself or its allies.
__________________
|
|||||||||
2012-03-17, 22:05 | Link #20235 |
books-eater youkai
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Betweem wisdom and insanity
|
Iraq militia frees U.S. hostage after 9 months
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...82G0AM20120317
__________________
|
2012-03-17, 23:28 | Link #20236 | |
Shougi Génération
Graphic Designer
|
Quote:
Please redirect your ire to your member of Congress, tyvm.
__________________
|
|
2012-03-18, 00:27 | Link #20237 |
Juanita/Kiteless
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: New England
Age: 40
|
From what I can judge in this thread, it seems like GundamFan could cut Obama a bit of slack, but for a guy who is not an Obama fan, well, it is just great to see one like him. One that is intelligent and backs his views with lots of details (whether they be spot on or inaccurate) and isn't just spouting BS for most of the time they complain about him, and one that isn't, well, a racist.
__________________
|
2012-03-18, 00:34 | Link #20238 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2009
Location: classified
|
Quote:
Thank you Urzu 7. For the record, if that jackass Santorum gets the GOP nomination, I may actually vote for Obama just to make sure Tricky-Rick doesn't get the Presidency. Santorum is a nutjob that really must be stopped.
__________________
|
|
2012-03-18, 01:33 | Link #20239 |
Juanita/Kiteless
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: New England
Age: 40
|
Haha, if Santorum gets the nomination, I think even JustinStrife would vote for Obama...maybe not, but I doubt he'd vote for Santorum.
If it was Santorum vs. Obama, I think Obama would win by a lot, but still, I wouldn't want it to come to Santorum getting the nomination. I'd be scared shitless of Santorum winning, just because the chance is there.
__________________
|
2012-03-18, 02:15 | Link #20240 | |
Gamilas Falls
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Republic of California
Age: 46
|
Just for giggles, and because no one talks about them at all, how about I list the non-Republican and non-Democractic choices for President in this election year:
Quote:
__________________
|
|
Tags |
current affairs, discussion, international |
Thread Tools | |
|
|