chess online
| From | Message | ||
|---|---|---|---|
|
 government decisions |
||
|
kementari 11-Sep-06, 09:59 |
chaos... That's why we elect people, and trust them to make the right decisions while working together. This wouldn't, by any chance, be a thinly veiled reference to the fledgling forum that you're building here now, would it? |
||
|
why kem! actually, this is an issue right now in seattle. we want/need/must have a rapid transit system. plus, we have a viaduct that is unsafe, but important to have for traffic flow. the issue is whether to build a tunnel (sightly, but expensive), a new viaduct (cheaper but ugly), surface streets (cheapest, but not very good at moving traffic). the city council wants to put it to a vote...but many are annoyed, saying that that is the reason we elected a city council...to do the research and make a wise decision! |
||
|
most of our civil servants or spineless, indecisive, pu**ies who are only doing what they do because the perks are bad a**. I'd like to have a fist fight with most of them. I would kick their a**ess. Violence desn't solve anything? I would argue against that, but you might be right in this instance, but *I* would feel better. Ahhhhhhhhhh . . . . |
||
|
kingofpawns 11-Sep-06, 11:14 |
depends on the size and complexity of the society. For example, a club like this can be completely democratic because it is small and not complex. The larger the society and the more complex it becomes, the more important it becomes to have democratically elected officials who make the decisions. However, almost all important decisions should be out in the open with feedback from the public. In cases of national security, decisions cannot be made publically, though policies can and the decisions that are made secretly should have a mechanism of oversight. For example, when Bush issues warrently wiretaps, etc., these have no oversight, they violate the constitution of the US, and they are unnecessary for security since all such wiretaps, etc. can be done with secret warrents (secret oversight) even after the fact. Why Bush really want warrentless wiretaps, searches, etc. is simply that he doesn't now want any oversight of the decisions he makes. Once we give up any oversight, we have given up democracy. |
||
|
The flip side is... |
||
|
kop writes... But I believe they did have oversight. Select members of the House and Senate were briefed regarding the warrantless wire taps. I believe their responce was that even though they recieved those briefings, they claimed not to know the extent. My question is if they knew about it does it really matter then if they tapped 10, 100 or 10,000 phone calls? Saying they didn't know the extent sounds like a cop-out to me. These same people are supposed to be on the lookout for what they believe is inappropriate conduct by government. Did they expose this so called illegal privacy invasion. I think not because they believed the govenment had that right. This is still working its way through the appeals process. . |
||
|
kingofpawns 11-Sep-06, 14:52 |
fircrakers... house and senate can provide appropriate oversight because this is a constitutional issue. Now, even if you believe that a few select members of the house and senate inelligence committees provide appropriate oversight, keep in mind that the majority of those few were republicans and none could reveal publically what top secret information was disclosed. This is not oversight. |
||
|
kop... Question, does the US military operating in a combat theater need warrants to eavesdrop and tap phones or sweep the sky for over-air telephone traffic of suspected terrorists or other enemy combatants or their relatives? And what if some of those calls are made to/from the US? Or do they need to seek out a US judge for authorization? |
||
|
crackers convenient....very convenient.... |
||
|
jeff... This is what the Democrats accused Bush of not doing before 9-11. Now that he's doing it, they still complain. |
||
|
so based on that reasoning, iraq was justified in invading kuwait in 1990 as they believed that kuwait presented an immenent threat to their economic well-being due to kuwait allegedly drilling oil through the Rumaila oil fields of Iraq, which is one of the richest oil reserves in iraq. do you believe they were justified? |
||
|
Actually jeff... But since we are now on this subject, I would say, yea, Saddam had a logical reason for the invasion of Kuwait, but the rest of the world didn't see it that way. If your gonna invade someplace, ya might as well be in it for the long run. You know, stay the course until the objective is achieved. Mission accomplished sort of thing, don't you think? You should be able to back it up, talk is cheap. And speaking of the 7th century, the fundamentalist Islamists are living the 7th century. In fact they think everyone should live like it was the 7th century. I don't know about you but I for one don't wan't to camp out for the rest of my life. The bugs and dirt and having to pray 5 times a day. I mean, really! Also, getting back to that... "did they actually believe that iraq was about to attack us? do you believe that?" You know well why the invasion took place. He didn't want to prove he destroyed his WMD's. (I don't believe he did destroy them.) 12 years of failed UN/US political talks, constantly kicking the WMD inspectors out, a failed embargo of Iraq, which by the way they blame the US for killing/starving 1/2 million Iraqi children. 12 years of Saddam thumbing his nose at UN resolution after resolution, getting around the oil for food program, payoffs. Supporting terroists in other countries. Even the Russians offered intell that Saddam was getting ready to get behind an attackt against the US, offering money, weapons, planning lagistics, but not necessarily taking an active part but more than willing to do all he could. After all, with 12 years of sanctions, almost weekly Allied bombings, US/British fighter aircraft in his airspace and his face, you could see why he would do what he could to get back at us. When Bush gave that speech after 9-11, our enemies were put on notice, that we would no longer wait for an attactk against the US to be imminent, that we will take action first. I stand behind my President. |
||
|
crackers actually, i thought my question was a valid answer...you just need to think about it a bit harder. the answer is, no. in a justified war (ex. fighting the germans or japanese in ww2), you do what you need to do to ensure the survival of the country. no ifs, ands, or buts! however, creating an illegal war to justify eroding the very rights that make america worth saving is not only hypocritical and self-defeating, but also makes america (and the rest of the world) less secure, not moreso! franklin said it years ago, and i stand by it "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." sorry buddy, but i think that ben knew what he was talking about. also, even if i grant you your dubious proposition that saddam was helping to prepare an attack on the us, is that a justification to invade a country. mind experiment - what if noriega had gotten wind of our planned invasion of panama...would that justify an all out attack on the us, killing civilians and bombing cities? |
||
|
Speaking of Noriega... ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ On December 15, 1989, Noriega sought and was given by the legislature the title of chief executive officer of the government. The Noriega-led assembly declared that a state of war with the United States existed. The next day Panamanian soldiers killed an unarmed U.S. Marine officer dressed in civilian clothes. Retaliation by the United States was quick and decisive. On December 17, U.S. President George Bush ordered troops to Panama, with the subsequently announced aims of seizing Noriega to face drug charges in the United States, protecting American lives and property, and restoring Panamanian liberties. The initial attack took place in darkness on the morning of December 20 and was focused primarily on Noriega's headquarters in Panama City. U.S. forces quickly overcame most organized resistance, but in the following days numerous Panamanian soldiers and civilians looted shops in Panama City and Colón, and some 2,000 U.S. reinforcements were flown in to help establish order. The number of Panamanians killed in the operation was estimated at 200-300 combatants (soldiers and paramilitaries) and some 300 civilians; 23 U.S. soldiers also were killed. Hundreds from both nations were wounded. On the first day of the invasion, Endara and his two vice presidents were sworn in to head the government of Panama. Noriega took refuge in the Vatican nunciature (embassy) in Panama, until he surrendered to U.S. authorities on January 3, 1990, and was then transported to Miami, Florida. There he stood trial, was convicted on a host of charges, and was sentenced to a U.S. prison. In Panama and also France, Noriega was charged with various crimes, including murder, but no enduring efforts were made to have him extradited. |
||
|
more on noriega 1967 Finishes courses at School of the Americas including Infantry Officer, Combat Intelligence Officer, Military Intelligence (Counter-Intelligence Officer Course), and Jungle Operations. An instructor calls him "outstanding." John Dinges, Our Man in Panama, 1991 1971 US has "hard evidence" of his heavy involvement in drug trafficking, "sufficient for indictment". Nixon sets in motion initial plans for his assassination. Frontline (PBS), 1/30/90 1970-76 Noriega is in the pay of the CIA and the Pentagon, reportedly receiving more than $100,000 per year. Newsweek, 1/15/90 1976 CIA Director George Bush gives him a VIP tour of CIA headquarters in Washington; he resides with Bush's Deputy Director. Dinges 1977 Carter officials reportedly remove him from the US payroll. New York Times, 10/2/88 1979 Gives haven to the overthrownn Shah of Iran, brutal US-installed dictator. 1981 Becomes part of a ruling military junta after 13-year dictator and SOA graduate General Omar Torrijos dies in a plane crash, later blamed on Noriega and the CIA by other junta members. 1981 Reagan/Bush officials put him back on the US payroll, again reportedly at more than $100,000 per year. San Francisco Chronicle, 6/11/87 1981-83 Extensive drug trafficking and money laundering involving the Medellin, Colombia cocaine cartel. Dinges 8/83 Seizes command of the National Guard (to be renamed "Panama Defense Forces"). He is the effective chief of state. 11/83 Goes to Washington, visits with White House, State Department and Pentagon, including CIA Director William Casey. Newsweek, 1/15/90 1983-86 The US loves him for spying on Fidel Castro and Daniel Ortega; allowing the United States to set up listening posts in Panama, with which they monitor sensitive communications in all of Central America and beyond; aiding the American warfare against the rebels in El Salvador and the government of Nicaragua (facilitating the flow of money and arms to the contras, allowing the US to base spy planes in Panama in clear violation of the canal treaties, giving the US permission to train contras in Panama, and spying in support of American sabotage inside of Nicaragua). Newsweek, 1/15/90 1983-86 The US hates him for helping Cuba circumvent the US economic embargo; helping to get weapons for the Sandinistas and for the guerrillas m El Salvador and Colombia; transferring high technology to Eastern Europe. 1984 The CIA and the Medellin cartel help finance the campaign of Noriega's candidate for President, Nicolas Barletta. Barletta is declared the winner ten days after the election, while the US ambassador hides information that Barletta had been defeated by at least four thousand votes. Political opposition parties demonstrate for weeks against the egregious fraud, to no avail. Reagan welcomes Barletta to the Oval Office, and Secretary of State George Schultz attends the inauguration. 1985 A few enthusiastic Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) agents and US Attorneys, keeping a low profile, begin investigations into his drug activities. 6/86 The New York Times carries a front-page story recounting many of his questionable activities, including his drug trafficking and money laundering operations, and the murder of a political opponent. It is the most detailed and damning report on him to appear in the US media. The Reagan administration reassures him that he need not be overly concerned about the story. 7/86 Oliver North arranges for an American public relations firm to work on improving Panama's and Noriega's image, in return for continued support of the Nicaraguan sabotage campaign. Iran-Contra testimony of PR firm official 1987 Drug Enforcement Agency head John Lawn praises Noriega?s "personal commitment" in helping to solve a major money laundering case. High US law enforcement officials, including Lawn, work alongside Noriega at a meeting of Interpol, even advising him on how to achieve a better public image. Los Angeles Times, 1/16/90 1988 Indictment on Federal drug charges. (His principal protectors in Washington are gone: North had been relieved of his duties in 1986, Casey had died in 1987.) All the charges relate to activities prior to June 1984 (except for one drugs/arms deal in 1986). The DEA is deeply divided between those who investigated him as a criminal and those who swore by the authenticity of his cooperation with their agency. Dinges. 5/89 The CIA provides more than $10 million in aid to Noriega's opposition. When the ballot counting indicated his candidate losing heavily, he stops the electoral process and allows violence against opposition candidates and their supporters. Unlike 1984, Washington expresses its moral indignation about the fraudulent election. US News & World Report, 5/1/89 10/89 Elements of the Panamanian Defense Forces take custody of him for two hours and offer to turn him over to the US military, but are refused (Bush has never clearly explained this decision). They receive no US support, and pro-Noriega forces free him. New York Times, 10/8/90 12/89 The US invades Panama, ostensibly in order to capture Noriega, who is now in a Florida prison serving a forty-year sentence for drug trafficking. The official body count is approximately 500 Panamanians (mainly civilians) dead, but nongovernmental sources with no less evidence count thousands more; there are also over 3,000 wounded, tens of thousands left homeless. Plus 23 American dead, 324 wounded. Reporter: "Was it really worth it to send people to their death for this? To get Noriega?" Bush: "[E]very human life is precious, and yet I have to answer, yes, it has been worth it." ? New York Times, 12/22/89 |
Log in 
