Thanks glynch. What? You radical! You call yerself American?! Seriously, God bless Mr. Padilla. That is f***ed up. Scary times.
We the People, must NOT let our President spend 300billion dollars of our money on a war against Sadam, It will ruin the American economy and we wont recover for years. Its better to use the money in a positive way for mankind!
Hypothetical: Tomorrow, China announces that it wants to reclaim it's place in the New World Order, and determines that it will institute "the Great Leap Forward Part III" rapid development program and will double the US military budget. It also announces that it will pre-emptively strike any nation that threatens Chinese security. Would you feel uneasy? Such a determination would be precisely like the current US policy. Except, of course, that China would only have doubled our budget...instead of having a budget something like 7 times larger than our nearest military rival. Now, what would such include? Well, I'd wager quite a bit it would involve the invasion of Taiwan. That's certainly a valid security interest, and would be part of any Bush-like doctrine. So, if we're justified in this policy... why wouldn't China be justified in a like-minded policy?
I definately don't like the strike first ask question's later part of this doctrine. Which basically out of the fear of rouge nation getting weapons and attacking us. People who actually fear that are alarmists in my opinion. I worry about countries like Iraq and N. Korea getting nukes, but they would be stupid to use them because we could wipe their countries off the face of the earth before they knew what happened. What ever happened to negotiation? You know what would make life good for us? If the EU becomes just as powerful or relatively close to us militarily speaking, and if the ass holes in the oil industry tried to help the progress of alternative fuel instead of impeding it, we could just worry about our half of the world and let the EU bother with the middle east. I have a feeling they won't get the same anger from the people there that we do.
F Blade...do you live in the U.S? If so, why? Is it me or do you take issue with every single thing our country does or doesn't do regarding Iraq, Afghanastan or any other terrorist harboring/promoting country these days?
It wouldn't be America if people couldn't take issue with the things the our govt. does. Your un-american if you think we should blindly follow and agree with everything. Jeez, and I thought those new commercials from the Ad Council about "what if America wasn't america?" and the Thought Police keep showing up to drag people away for looking for banned books, talking bad about taxes, and what not. You should pay attention to those NJR.
You dont have to blindly follow and agree with everything....I sure dont. But to take issue and be truly bothered by EVERYTHING is also a bit un-american
I do live in this country, and I love the U.S. I think maybe you've only read certain posts of mine, I don't know. I've never once criticized the action in Afghanistan. I've been behind our military involvement in Afghanistan from the beginning. I've also been against companies like Haliburton under Cheney doing business with countries that sponsor terrorism. Cheney's company did business with Iraq, Iran, Lybia, and spoke out against sanctions. In that respect I think I'm more against terrorism and rogue nations than our country's vice president. I'm also not automatically against an invasion of Iraq, but I do think we need to make sure that it's only as a last resort, and absolutely necessary. I also believe that we shouldn't give up the moral high ground in our efforts. I even praised Bush's speech to the UN. I think it was great, and it got results. The only problem I'm having now is that it looks like he's oblivious to those results and is eager to attack right away. I believe that in order uphold the moral high ground we need to give Saddam enough rope to hang himself with. In other words let the inspectors try and do their job. If they are prevented from that, then I believe most of the UN and our allies will be on our side for an invasion instead of against us. If Saddam doesn't block the inspectors then it will be possible to find the weapon producing locations, and capabilities and destroy them. That way we win too and without an invasion. Saddam called Bush's bluff after the UN speech. I'm not convinced that Saddam is as good as his word, so now Bush can call Saddam's bluff by getting the inspectors in quickly and going first to the most controversial locations. That way we will know almost immediately if Saddam was just bluffing or not. If we was, I will support an invasion, and most likely so will most of the UN. As far as this doctrine goes, I don't believe in dictating to other govts. how they can spend their money. I think MacBeth is right. If China or North Korea declared that it was there intention to become the most powerful nation in the world, and wouldn't rule out Military force to ensure they achieved that goal, the U.S. would come out against it. Well now every other country in the world is in that position. It's Napoleonic, on Bush's part to have written policy saying that U.S. will be the most powerful nation in the world, and that we won't allow ANY country to catch up to us. Trust me any criticism of the U.S. govt. I make is only because I care about the country, and want it to be great, and as just as possible. I want the country to carry out foreign policy with fairness, morality, to be aware of human rights, and act in self defense when necessary. I speak up when I see the govt. taking steps that I feel are contrary to those very American ideals. The American people should keep the govt. on it's toes. That govt. represents the American people, and if they don't like the way they are being represented there is no reason why they shouldn't speak up. On a final note if the President produces proof and makes a case that we are currently under immediate threat of an Iraqi attack and only military invasion will stop that threat then I'll support it the attack no matter what. But so far Bush hasn't presented anything really new that shows we are in more danger now than we were four years ago when the inspectors got kicked out. Maybe once the inspectors go back in, we will all see that proof, but as for now it's lacking. I like the idea of America as a defender against agression, and not the agressor. To me defending ourselves and our allies is more American than initiating a strike and a unilateral invasion.
I'm glad someone is drawing this line for us. I, as a person who loves our country but hates our current direction in international foreign "policy," have been really worried about myself. So now I know what "un-american" is and I can keep my feet on the right side of the line. Whew! I *kind of* see what you mean, NJR, but do you want FB to start threads about "I love the First Lady's library program!" and what-not? FB is very concerned about our foreign policy so that's what he types about. When disagreeing with W. (or more like his masters -- er, advisors) is "un-american," a bunch of proud americans like me are in deep ****. In fact, given the "patriot act," and the ongoing degradation of civil rights, maybe we'll end up in deep **** anyway, a la Mr. Padilla, wherever he is being held now, without legal representation and up to his eyeballs in allegations.
You live in NY right? OK, walk out of your building, look downtown...see anything missing? Iraq is tickled pink that there is something missing. Are we in danger of an Iraqi attack? Probably not. Are we in danger of a terroristic attack? Most definitely. Are there ties between the terrorists and Saddam Hussein? Well, the US govt seems to think so, therefore, I'm damn glad they arent waiting for another 9-11 tragedy to get on the offensive. I feel terrible for that guy. Im sure he wasnt going to blow up anything as big as the trade center...probably just a 75 story building or maybe even a garden apartment Some of you keep bringing up Padilla and say he is stripped of his rights..blah blah blah....well, think of him as a POW because thats what he is right now.
I agree that we are in danger of an attack from terrorists. That's one reason why I would rather finish the job we started against Al Qaeda, and not get sidetracked by an invasion and occupation of Iraq. There isn't really any credible evidence linking what happened on 9/11 and Iraq. The administration would love it if there were, but so far they haven't been able to produce any evidence that there is. If they produce proof that links 9/11 and Iraq, I would be more inclined to support the invasion of Iraq. In fact I would think it more than likely would be required. But that's not the reality of the situation.
Wow, so you're honestly cool with US citizens getting accused of things and then having no legal protection for defense? Accusation=guilt=imprisonment. Uh, I'm not okay with that. I damn well want my right to a lawyer if you accuse me of being un-uhmerican. That's a founding pillar of our nation tossed off because we're supposed to trust people like Ashcroft. Have you ever heard of the salem witch trials? The red scare? Could never happen again, you say? M'kay. If you say so.
Padilla was on an FBI watchlist...stop portraying him as this innocent All-American neighborhood guy...because he wasnt
If you believe that the right to a trial, and other basic rights American citizens get from the Constitution, then maybe I should ask you why you live in the U.S.A. I don't think anyone is saying that a guilty person, shouldn't be punished. If someone committed an act of terrorism, I'm all in favor of throwing the book at them. It worked great after the first trade center attack. We found the people involved, brought them to trial, and they were found guilty and are currently in jail. Another terrorist, Tim McVeigh paid the ultimate price for his terrorism. He also was tried in a civilian court. Why all of a sudden is it necessary to throw out the kinds of trials guaranteed by our constitution despite the fact that they've worked in the past.
Because this time, the people who were directly involved and indirectly involved are either on the run or dead as a result of a suicide mission. Until we get to the root (bin laden et al) of the problem and put the fire out, these people who the govt is suspicious about, will be held as POW's. As an American , I have no problem with that. You really think a jury of their peers would let them walk anyway? Get real. In fact, if 1/2 those 9-11 hijackers( that were on watchlists before 9-11) were dealt with the sme way Padilla has been, perhaps the attack would have been prevented.
All the more reason to have a jury trial. I agree that we have to go after terrorists in this country as well as abroad. I just don't believe that we have to throw out the constitution to do it. I think it was James Madison, one of our nation's founding fathers, who said something to the effect 'He who gives up liberty in exchange for security, ends up having neither.' Certainly James Madison wouldn't be labeled as un-American. I don't have a problem with the govt. picking up Jose Padilla. I think it was the right move. The thing I think was wrong is not bringing him to trial. Let's have a trial, and if the proof is there he'll be found guilty, and he'll be locked up. It sounds good, and it's American. It also follows our constitution.
Just out of curiosity, who should we put on trial for 9-11? Maybe Saddam will take an apartment in the city for a few months while he enjoys due process and a speedy trial. Maybe Bin Laden will hole up at the Bellagio for a few months while we build our case against him. Hell, he could probably even get comped there with all the cash he has. I understand what you are saying about not throwing out the constitution and such...you are 100% correct....but you need to understand that for the people we are fighting with, there are no Rules of engagement....they arent fighting for a cause, defending their rights or anything else like that...they are trying to figure out a way to kill as many Americans as possible in the shortest amount of time and if they have to kill themsleves to do so, then so be it. You cannot take anything for granted with these animals..and if that means that a guy like Padilla (who again, i remind you, is on a terrorist watch list) is stripped of his rights while we get to the bottom of some things...then too bad.
I just want to say that Saddam, and Osama are not U.S. citizens. I just want to say that the UN offers ways which may include invasion of Iraq to deal with Saddam, there are ways of working within the framework of World Organizations to bring down Saddam it doesn't take Unilateral action. I've talked about ways I think we can work with other nations to accomplish the stated gaol of removing Saddam, and taking out his WMD capabilities. But for citizens that are on the FBI watchlist, I'm in favor of arresting them proving the case in court, and locking them up. I guess I don't really have anything more I can add about that. I guess we just disagree on important the Constitution of our country is in these situations.
