You are not logged in. Login - Sign Up
1...171819
New Thread
Edgeworks Forums   »   General   »   Off Topic   »   Politics Thread
Aglor Mar 26 2011, 2:26pm


Joined: Jan 31st, 2006
Location: The Twilight Zone
Posts: 7,608
Achievements: 20


I don't know how you can't call it war. If someone fired over a 100 cruise missiles at the United States, or any nation for that matter, it would be an act of war.

It isn't a war, it's an enforcement of Resolution 1973 and the ceasefire that it demands. It would be the same basic idea of, say, police officers enforcing a law against drug use.

And I don't find it amusing at all that U.S resources are being used, but the U.S is not in command. Our military does not belong to NATO. If U.S forces are going into battle, it should be under U.S command and I think its remarkable that the President wants to defer that authority of the U.N and foreign nations. I commend the French (I can't believe I'm saying this) for taking a strong, solid stance against Gadaffi but AMERICAN jets launched from AMERICAN aircraft carriers are bombing Libya. Our forces, our command.

So you're upset that a NATO operation is being commanded by someone who isn't from the US, even though they are clearly considered capable enough by the nations involved? Your argument could be used by Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands, and everyone else taking part.

My objection to this war, and it is a war when you bomb people, is that there is no clear goal. One second the President tells us he wants Gadaffi out, the next he says that's not the mission. Well, which is it? Frankly, if you're going to devote the forces to protecting a rebellion (that we know nothing about) then you might as well take this opportunity to remove a foreign dictator that's hostile to the U.S. There's no point if this doesn't benefit us somehow. Along with that, there was NO congressional approval, which is unconstitutional, and the President decided to vacation (again) while ordering the attack. Sorry, but war is important enough a reason for the President to be in the White House.


The mission isn't to get Gaddafi out, the mission is to enforce the UN Resolution. The mission to maintain a no-fly zone and enforce the ceasefire that Gaddafi agreed to, but continued to ignore. As for the congressional approval argument, the War Powers Resolution, passed by Congress in 1973, allows the President to commit forces to military action, but Congress must be notified within 48 hours. In addition, the forces may not remain for more than 60 days without Congressional approval. It is perfectly legal.

Your comment on the President going to vacation is irrelevant.

-------------------------------
6-2-2010- Last day at the station. It's all over now.

"You go Aglor! Get dat b-day humping!"
-floodrock

"If you get blown up, I don't care"
-General William Sherman

"Only two things are ever constant. Human stupidity and the Universe. And I'm not too sure about the second."
-Albert Einstein

Euclid's Fifth Postulate: So controversial it's almost a theorem!

"Computer games don't affect kids, I mean if Pac Man affected us as kids, we'd all be running around in darkened rooms, munching pills and listening to repetitive music."
-Marcus Brigstocke

Ask me why I keep on loving you when it's clear that you don't feel the same way for me... the problem is that as much as I can't force you to love me, I can't force myself to stop loving you.
-Author Unknown
   
 
squattingb
Mar 26 2011, 2:27pm


Joined: Apr 15th, 2005
Location: Toronto
Posts: 21,207
Achievements: 24


why aren't the american forces a part of NATO? The United States are a part of NATO... and this is a NATO operation.

-------------------------------
R A W R
~ BEvERages
Kittens!!! More kittens!!!
Fastest 3x3x3 Rubik's Cube solve: 39.70s
Fastest 4x4x4 Rubik's Cube solve: 5m 24.88s


Codex Sponsor
Heretic Sponsor
   
 
Sarge McCla Mar 26 2011, 7:43pm


Joined: Aug 17th, 2005
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 2,112
Achievements: 11


It isn't a war, it's an enforcement of Resolution 1973 and the ceasefire that it demands. It would be the same basic idea of, say, police officers enforcing a law against drug use.


War: an openly declared state of organized violent conflict.

Call it whatever you want, what is happening in Libya is a de facto war. When you bomb a country, you are committing an act of warfare. Enforcing a resolution through the use of Military assets is war.


So you're upset that a NATO operation is being commanded by someone who isn't from the US, even though they are clearly considered capable enough by the nations involved? Your argument could be used by Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands, and everyone else taking part.


I am uneasy whenever Americans are asked to die under foreign command for foreign interests. Yes. A majority of military assets being used for this war (sorry "Resolution") are American. When NATO has to do something, it really means that America is being asked to do something. That's all the alliance is anymore.

The mission isn't to get Gaddafi out, the mission is to enforce the UN Resolution. The mission to maintain a no-fly zone and enforce the ceasefire that Gaddafi agreed to, but continued to ignore. As for the congressional approval argument, the War Powers Resolution, passed by Congress in 1973, allows the President to commit forces to military action, but Congress must be notified within 48 hours. In addition, the forces may not remain for more than 60 days without Congressional approval. It is perfectly legal.


The mission is vague is what it is. The President has gone back and forth on what the U.S's intentions are. If the intention is to prevent Gadaffi from massacring his own citizens, then fighter jets are not going to be enough. A jet can't stop government thugs from blowing people's brains out in alleyways. You'll need to use ground troops. If we're not going to use ground troops, then why bother?

If we're already there, then why not take the s.o.b out? One of the mistakes of the Gulf war was to allow Saddam Hussein to keep breathing after we turned his tanks to slag. It was nothing but trouble after that.

And what about all that stuff about "America not policing the world".


Your comment on the President going to vacation is irrelevant.


No, its pretty damn relevant. It tells me that the president does not take Libya seriously, and it tells me that the president does not take his job as leader of the free world seriously. What? The President could be bothered to stay at his seat of power while ordering the bombardment of another country? I think that at the least taking his nation to war is kinda important enough to merit his presence. The American public is watching him looking for an answer as to what is going on, and instead we see him playing soccer in Brazil.



why aren't the american forces a part of NATO? The United States are a part of NATO... and this is a NATO operation.


NATO is an alliance with the basic premise being that an attack on one is an attack on all. It was meant to protect Europe from a determined Communist threat. If the Soviets invaded France, then it would be treated the same as if they had invaded Maryland. Unfortunately, it has infantilized Europe, allowing them to use the U.S forces as a crutch instead of bolstering their own militaries to deal with threats outside their borders. I personally feel its an outdated alliance, a relic of the cold war that should be evaluated as to wether it is still necessary.

But as I said earlier. I am uneasy of seeing Americans die for foreign interests. Libya appears to be just that.


   
 
squattingb
Mar 27 2011, 1:05am


Joined: Apr 15th, 2005
Location: Toronto
Posts: 21,207
Achievements: 24


You didn't answer my question though, I know full well what NATO is, no need to explain it to me.

You have every right to your opinion on how the United States should operate as a voting citizen but I am just gonna say that you are just so full of yourself and your glorious country. It really just shocks me and makes me speechless to actually know someone who believes so firmly that the entire world revolves around what your country should and should not do and at the same time, get pissed at when the world is actually affecting something your country is doing. I hear about people like that all the time but this is just... wow.

-------------------------------
R A W R
~ BEvERages
Kittens!!! More kittens!!!
Fastest 3x3x3 Rubik's Cube solve: 39.70s
Fastest 4x4x4 Rubik's Cube solve: 5m 24.88s


Codex Sponsor
Heretic Sponsor
   
 
Sarge McCla Mar 27 2011, 3:12am


Joined: Aug 17th, 2005
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 2,112
Achievements: 11


I'm not quite sure what your problem is here, sbear.

If this mission is not in America's interest, then American lives and American money could be better spent elsewhere. I have yet to form a complete opinion on whether this is or not (Gadaffi is a terrorist and has American blood on his hands). I do know that its certainly in Europe's interest, and if Europe feels that it needs to secure Libyan oil fields to protect its national interests then let Europe do just that. I have no love for Gadaffi's regime. If the French want his head on a pike, I have no moral issue with it. My objections are mostly practical.

What I can be certain of is that the President has taken a halfhearted approach to Libya. U.S forces should never be committed to a mission if victory is not the ultimate intention. Cruise missile diplomacy didn't work in the 90's, it won't work now. Commit to a mission, or do not. I'm tired of watching my country's leadership stick its finger in the wind while American pilots are flying into harm's way. If we're in this for the long haul, then I think its totally appropriate to consider the ramifications of opening up a third field of operation.

I never argued that the world revolves around the U.S. I simply argued that I don't feel that it is appropriate for American soldiers to die under foreign command in a war that we have no national interest in. If the left was to be believed in the last eight years, then taking on dictators is none of our business. Am I right, liberals?
   
 
squattingb
Mar 27 2011, 3:18am


Joined: Apr 15th, 2005
Location: Toronto
Posts: 21,207
Achievements: 24


I don't see why you continue to contrast all issues between the left and the right...... that just seems to be instigating for no reason.

You claim that America is the leading nation of the free world, and yet you are unhappy about Europe expecting America to be in charge in difficult situations? You don't want America to do anything that would not be in "America's interest" but how can a country be the leader of a free world if you don't want it to be actually involved in developing/protecting/promoting the free world? If you only want America to protect its own interests and become involved in nothing else then one could argue that that is exactly what China is and has been doing for as long as anyone can remember (whom you hate). Such a country does not deserve to lead the free world.

-------------------------------
R A W R
~ BEvERages
Kittens!!! More kittens!!!
Fastest 3x3x3 Rubik's Cube solve: 39.70s
Fastest 4x4x4 Rubik's Cube solve: 5m 24.88s


Codex Sponsor
Heretic Sponsor
   
 
Sarge McCla Mar 27 2011, 3:57am


Joined: Aug 17th, 2005
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 2,112
Achievements: 11


Because all issues are generally divided by left and right. You cannot escape the fact that the left-wing in the United States is engaging in activity that they would have berated less than four years ago. Had President Bush bombed Libya for the same reasons, liberals would have opposed him. I'm waiting to see those same liberals oppose Obama, but I won't hold my breath.

You misunderstand me. I am unhappy about the President willingly abdicating responsibility for this operation to Europe. If we must deal with Libya, then we should be taking leadership not asking the U.N or the French to come up with a game plan. The U.S is better qualified to handle this. The time for deciding whether to get involved or not has passed, and as I said I have yet to form an opinion on whether or not the U.S should have even gotten involved in the first place. On the one hand, Gadaffi is an enemy and has killed Americans. In my opinion he should have been put six feet under decades ago. On the other, we're mired in Afghanistan at the moment and our forces are under the leadership of a Commander in Chief who is blatantly disinterested. That bothers me.

Its fine for the United States to promote and defend democracies but its also important to realize that democracies are not spontaneous. They don't just magically sprout in nations that have never been free in all of history. Our republic certainly didn't just happen overnight. I think its naive to think that all of a sudden Libya is going to be a free society, just like I thought it was gullible to think the same would happen in Egypt. I think its much better for the U.S to support existing Western Democracies over hypothetical ones.

America's goal should be to defend the world for democracy, but before that America's goal should be to take care of America. I'm skeptical that we can handle military action in Libya. I certainly hope we can, but I'm skeptical.
   
 
Trance Mar 27 2011, 6:50am


Joined: Mar 23rd, 2005
Location: 1, Rotation: 0
Posts: 6,439
Achievements: 14


5 Reasons Humanity Is Terrible At Democracy

This is an awesome article that everyone in America should read. One of the points in it is pretty obvious (about major news networks) but the rest is pretty interesting stuff that you don't realize is happening to you if you get into politics.

It goes well with the concept of the Monkeysphere, in that people you don't know are easy to demonize and caricature, especially if they disagree with you.
   
 
Sarge McCla Mar 27 2011, 12:03pm


Joined: Aug 17th, 2005
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 2,112
Achievements: 11


Read that article. Agree with somethings, disagree with others. Get the communication and wording part, but it isn't particularly insidious. Nobody is lying to you when the described the Public Option as Government Healthcare. That's what it was.

Here's a response to #4. Specifically a critique of the study Cracked used.

   
 
Trance Mar 27 2011, 12:46pm


Joined: Mar 23rd, 2005
Location: 1, Rotation: 0
Posts: 6,439
Achievements: 14


The article never said there was anything insidious about it, and that wasn't the point of that section. Either side used words that tended to trigger an emotional reaction in their constituency. But the responsible party here is the voter who doesn't do their homework to find out what the actual issue is, and protests/votes/etc. on their knee-jerk emotional response to the issue's wording. All the bigshots are doing is capitalizing on it. I mean, if you're after a position of power, why not have uninformed voters vote your way? We make it so easy.
   
 
Sarge McCla Mar 27 2011, 1:12pm


Joined: Aug 17th, 2005
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 2,112
Achievements: 11


Yes, voter apathy sucks.
   
 
Trumpetman09
Mar 6 2012, 4:00pm


Joined: Jan 29th, 2008
Location: Texas
Posts: 695
Achievements: 25


Alright today is Super Tuesday, 10 states are up for grabs in the....honestly, does anyone care? Romney is going to get the nomination, Paul is going to miss out on his last chance to be president, and Obama is holding boring press conferences. Whoooo....... :|

For me, I wish Paul would win. Now what MIGHT make me vote Republican is a Romney/Paul ticket. For me Obama is an okay president, not the best or the worst, just okay. As a centrist, I am always on the fence wanting to analyze both sides of the argument and decide from there. My beliefs are a mixture of both parties. I would honestly rather have a Republican Congress and Republican president than a Republican congress and Democrat president or vis versa. It's always been better for the country when one party has control of both houses. When the democrats took over in 2006 the economy was okay, but then in 2008 the economy crashed. What's funny to me is that George Bush was blamed, when in actuality it was the banks, Clinton/Bush Sr/Reagan/Carter policies that caused the crash. Sure Bush was in office at the time, but let's not forget when Clinton said that everyone should be able to live in a house. Clinton made it so that Banks could give out some of these loans that ultimately led to the crash. Anyways, from my observations: When two parties rule the opposite branches of government, the country always seems to get worse. The democrats were the party of No only a few years ago, let's not forget that.

Now you could argue that Bush taking us to war in Iraq was a huge issue and that having a Republican in office again will cause us to go to war. Well funny thing about that, Iran, to me, is equal to Iraq in the sense that we're probably going to go to war for the same reasoning. Supposed weapons of mass destruction, paying for terrorist cells, etc. No matter who is in office, once Israel starts its attack on Iran, the US will step in and help out. Lapdogs much? Yeah pretty much, because this Israel isn't the Biblical Israel, just so you know.

With a mixed House/Senate/Presidency, unemployment(according to Gallup right now) is at 9 percent, whereas never in history has a president been re-elected when unemployment was above 7.3. Well, this is so long as you don't count the 1930s, but that was also the Great Depression. And even then, the republicans didn't stand a chance since they and the democrats were in the midst of changing parties.

History lesson for you: When FDR became president we had a new type of Democrat and a new type of Republican. Everyone was starting to switch sides, the conservatives were starting to get kicked out of the Democratic party and the progressives were getting kicked out of the Republican party. This trend continued until the Civil Rights movement where we have the modern Republican/Democratic parties. It's always been funny to me to think that Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, etc. would've been Democrats now, yet they are the champions of the Republican parties.

One last note, can we drop the bull crap about how the infighting with the Republicans is really hurting them? Does nobody remember, oh say 3-4 years ago, when Obama and Hillary couldn't be in the same room together without attacking each other?

Wow...so...that was a little bit more lengthy than I thought it would be. Oh well.

-------------------------------
Things I made and am proud of on Edgeworks and other stuff:
-The Norm Meme
-The first time I was mentioned on the Edgeworks News Post, super cool of Nerrolken to have done this
-I was made a mod February 10th, 2011!
   
 
Sarge McCla Mar 6 2012, 4:48pm


Joined: Aug 17th, 2005
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 2,112
Achievements: 11


I threw my hat in for Romney. Can't stand Paul's foreign policy, Newt is self-destructive with way too much baggage, and Santorum is way too easy to bait into saying something that can be used against him.
   
 
Trumpetman09
Mar 6 2012, 5:02pm


Joined: Jan 29th, 2008
Location: Texas
Posts: 695
Achievements: 25


...Newt is self-destructive with way too much baggage...


Is that a fat joke?

-------------------------------
Things I made and am proud of on Edgeworks and other stuff:
-The Norm Meme
-The first time I was mentioned on the Edgeworks News Post, super cool of Nerrolken to have done this
-I was made a mod February 10th, 2011!
   
 
Sarge McCla Mar 7 2012, 1:02am


Joined: Aug 17th, 2005
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 2,112
Achievements: 11


Could be.

No, but really. I like Newt. He's a smart man. Great debater. Pugilistic. Would give the President a run for his money in any national debate. That said, he pisses people off, even his allies.
   
 
Trumpetman09
Nov 2 2012, 1:32am


Joined: Jan 29th, 2008
Location: Texas
Posts: 695
Achievements: 25


*revives old thread to rant a bit*

So there's this election coming up in this country called The United States of America, I am not sure many of you have heard about it. Kind of a small country....mostly fat people, but that's beside the point.

Anyways, I've been thinking long and hard about this whole thing and I gotta say, it sucks. I live in a state where no matter who I vote for, Romney will win that state. So basically I am encouraged to go vote! because somehow my vote is really going to matter in a country where an electoral college actually decides the winner. Yes I know people bring up the Florida thing, however, my state is so red that there's only a few counties that are blue...mostly in the capital area.

For me, I voted for Romney. I am not here to say that I want you all out there voting for Romney, not because I agree with everything that he says(I don't), but because I am fed up with Obama. I can honestly say, I like Obama...I want to like him a lot...I really do and I loved him for a while, then he REALLY started to suck, to me. You can argue that his last two years here haven't been very good because of the political lockup with Congress and the Executive Branch, I would agree it's been dumb. I was standing there in line when I finally decided not to vote for him. I don't regret it one bit. I am fairly liberal mind you, socially at least, maybe a bit more conservative fiscally...but that's beside the point. I figure why should I vote for a guy who is as sleazy as them come? Again, this is in my eyes and maybe not to yours. I can't stress that enough, this is not my statement of fact, but my whole opinion. For me, here are a few reasons why I refuse to vote for Obama again:

*He took his sweet time with DADT
*He had to push a healthcare mandate through congress even if it's unpopular as hell. No matter who was president, everything else in that bill would've passed no problem. But NO he had to stick in a stupid mandate....I could go on for hours about it...but I won't. It's not necessarily the mandate, but the fact that he didn't even try to put in a real public plan so that people who can't afford healthcare could get it. Yes there are some ways to "help" people, even though they actually don't. 2014 is going to be the year of record fines. Wonderful! Let's fine the living crap out of people who are poor, great job there. *applause*
*He didn't even try to pass immigration reform(only just recently did he and I can't give him any credit for it since he did it for political gain)
*He didn't try to pass any gay rights legislation
*He didn't close gitmo like he should've
*Signed the NDAA even though the bill was horrifically flawed
*He gave away billions of dollars(you can argue that we got some of it back, however it was unnecessary given that the companies still went through bankruptcy anyhow)
**Honestly, Romney was right that we should've just given these companies money to back up the pensions, time off from work, etc to help the workers and allow the companies to just go through regular Chapter 11 bankruptcy. It would've been less than what we gave them and we could've saved ourselves a lot of money. This money could've gone to OH I dunno...maybe to people that need it... You can say that Bush started this whole thing with the stimulus package, but again, Romney opposed that as well.

All these reasons and more. Obama sucks to me, maybe not to you. But to me, he has been a terrible president. So I said, f- it, let's give the Republican a chance. Not Republicans, but this one in particular. I still voted mostly Democrat/Libertarian. Maybe Romney will actually do some stuff, maybe I won't agree with it all, but let's be honest...in 4-8 years, a lot of policies are going to change after he's gone anyway. I would rather have someone in office at least trying to do something, at least acting like he cares. So there you go, my rant. Again, this is my own personal opinion, not to change yours. I don't want to instigate a fight, but I figure here you go.

To end this off now with all of that would be bad, so I will leave you with a happy face:

-------------------------------
Things I made and am proud of on Edgeworks and other stuff:
-The Norm Meme
-The first time I was mentioned on the Edgeworks News Post, super cool of Nerrolken to have done this
-I was made a mod February 10th, 2011!
   
 
squattingb
Nov 2 2012, 11:27am


Joined: Apr 15th, 2005
Location: Toronto
Posts: 21,207
Achievements: 24


One thing I've learned about Romney during the debates is that he doesn't seem to hold any personal ideals or goals. He goes along with whatever seems to work at the time and doesn't stick to any principles. That scares me.

-------------------------------
R A W R
~ BEvERages
Kittens!!! More kittens!!!
Fastest 3x3x3 Rubik's Cube solve: 39.70s
Fastest 4x4x4 Rubik's Cube solve: 5m 24.88s


Codex Sponsor
Heretic Sponsor
   
 
Trumpetman09
Nov 2 2012, 11:49am


Joined: Jan 29th, 2008
Location: Texas
Posts: 695
Achievements: 25


See and that brings up an interesting thing to me. I am always interested to see how much other countries pay attention to the US elections. To be honest, the only foreign election that I payed any real attention was the election in Iran. So other people paying attention to the elections here is just so strange to me, but hey maybe I am just secretly an isolationist.

-------------------------------
Things I made and am proud of on Edgeworks and other stuff:
-The Norm Meme
-The first time I was mentioned on the Edgeworks News Post, super cool of Nerrolken to have done this
-I was made a mod February 10th, 2011!
   
 
Aglor Nov 2 2012, 4:31pm


Joined: Jan 31st, 2006
Location: The Twilight Zone
Posts: 7,608
Achievements: 20


I believe the last time I checked, 42% of the world wishes they could vote for US President. The rest of the world cares. A lot.

That all said, I'm voting for Obama. I'm far from his biggest fan, but I get one vote, so I'm using it wisely.

-------------------------------
6-2-2010- Last day at the station. It's all over now.

"You go Aglor! Get dat b-day humping!"
-floodrock

"If you get blown up, I don't care"
-General William Sherman

"Only two things are ever constant. Human stupidity and the Universe. And I'm not too sure about the second."
-Albert Einstein

Euclid's Fifth Postulate: So controversial it's almost a theorem!

"Computer games don't affect kids, I mean if Pac Man affected us as kids, we'd all be running around in darkened rooms, munching pills and listening to repetitive music."
-Marcus Brigstocke

Ask me why I keep on loving you when it's clear that you don't feel the same way for me... the problem is that as much as I can't force you to love me, I can't force myself to stop loving you.
-Author Unknown
   
 
Trumpetman09
Nov 3 2012, 12:42am


Joined: Jan 29th, 2008
Location: Texas
Posts: 695
Achievements: 25


Here's basically what it looks like when voting democrat in my state:



-------------------------------
Things I made and am proud of on Edgeworks and other stuff:
-The Norm Meme
-The first time I was mentioned on the Edgeworks News Post, super cool of Nerrolken to have done this
-I was made a mod February 10th, 2011!
   
 
1...171819
New Thread

Forum Statistics
Members Online (0)
(no users currently online)
Member Birthdays
WaitingForASuperman (26)
Board Statistics
Our members have made a total of 271,794 posts across 6,606 threads
in the 14 years, 0 months, and 13 days since our first post.
We have 3,569 registered members.
The newest member is Kelderic.
- Top Member List
- Search Threads/Posts/Members
- Moderator List
- Achievement List

Powered by Trajan v3.0, © Edgeworks Entertainment, 2019.