No, we are talking about terrorism, not crime.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vincent Butler
If you want to argue for tight borders because of crime, fine. Go do that. Just don't mix terrorism into it, as it has nothing to do with it.
Printable View
No, we are talking about terrorism, not crime.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vincent Butler
If you want to argue for tight borders because of crime, fine. Go do that. Just don't mix terrorism into it, as it has nothing to do with it.
That particular post, I was not including terrorism as a reason to close the border.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
And I don't really care if you want to close a border or not, because the issue discussed is terrorism and not general border control.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vincent Butler
The only thing I'm interested in pointing out, is that trying to prevent terrorism by closing a border is daft.
"At 5:10 this senior law enforcement official suggests replicating Israeli measures on the southern border." Tunnels? So, USA will bomb Mexico when they will start to dig? Senior Law Enforcement Official lost a good moment to think and shut-up... :laugh4:
It will achieve nothing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
In the winter, when the Colorado river will freeze, you should be prepared for hordes of refugees fleeing from Caliph Attila.
Getting their persons thru via legal channels would be easier than crossing illegally in most cases, yes. But what about if they want to bring something with them that you can't get thru customs?Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
Working for the Tea Party is kind of hard when there is not a party called the Tea Party. The Tea Party is a movement, not a political party, and all they are trying to do is bring America back to the Constitution. What the government calls extreme. Extreme, my foot. Frankly, and I am disappointed in them, the Republican party is trying to distance itself from the Tea Party movement, when the movement is really trying to get the Republican Party back to its platform. Here in Alaska, the Republican party put two more moderate candidates in to run against the conservative, with the intention of preventing him from winning. The Republicans are only hurting themselves. They are trying to do what the Democrats say they need to do in order to win. Taking your opponent's advice is never a good idea (unless it is given in a true sporting spirit). We should pressure Mexico to help stop the flood of illegal immigrants into the country. There are places in America on the border that have practically been taken over by Mexicans, and Americans are advised to stay away. That should not be happening in one's own country.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
Where have they told Americans to stay away?
Why would they do that, when they can get everything they need to make things go boom-boom in America?Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
Because it wasn't mentioned elsewhere...
IS stole some Russian planes and told Putin, he is next, for when they liberate Chechnya and Caucasus. Here is a Russian Today article.
So, when will the US and Russia stop fighting over Ukraine and jump in bed together when dealing with IS?
I am sure Putin is absolutily terrified.
I don't know about the Americans, but Cameron is still sniffy about dealing with Assad.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiaexz
How is trying to get back to our founding document extreme? Now we get to "what is extreme"? Name me instances of bigotism and especially hostility in the tea party, there MIGHT be isolated instances, but by no means exemplary of the movement as a whole. Don't know what you mean by zealotry. The bigot template is a template the media portrays of all conservatives, which is patently false.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
I can't find it now, but I remember hearing that in some of the regions in Arizona and Texas, Americans have been told essentially, "Enter at your own risk". But I guess that is not so much illegal immigration as the drug cartels.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
Name current examples of the Constitution being violated and please provide the actual Constitutional article being infringed upon.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vincent Butler
Take your time. I'm sure if you remember this, it must have been written down somewhere....Quote:
I can't find it now
I've heard of this too, what I remember is that some areas of empty land near the border have signs posted warning people to stay out because of the high volume of drug traffickers passing through.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vincent Butler
I don't remember the signs being directed at anyone in particular.
EDIT: Found a picture
Needing a permit to carry a gun, restrictions on what guns citizens can own, magazine capacity limit, can't carry into a federal installation...infringement of Second Amendment (keep and bear arms). Obama granting waivers to Obamacare...he does not have that power constitutionally to change laws at will. Obama using executive order to get his agenda passed, and threatening to do it more...laws are created by Congress, not the President (Article One). Bakery owners forced to bake cakes for same-sex marriage, schoolchildren not being allowed to talk about Jesus...violation of First Amendment (freedom of free exercise of religion). NSA spying, Pennsylvania police not needing warrants to search vehicles...violation of Fourth Amendment (free from unreasonable search and seizure).Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
Not a comprehensive list, but a good start.
Thanks, Tuuvi, for finding that picture.
Yeah, what a shame, you can't discriminate, humiliate and exclude who you want now. I feel for the homophobes, racists and bullies. The laws protecting minorities and the weakest, what the Congress doing? Put back the blacks at the back of the buses, death for homosexuality and well, shame of the unlucky, the undeserving and the social inept, bad luck, be beggars (and good ones) or die in the streets. But not near my street. And put back these women at their places (Children, Kitchen, Church, the 3 K of AH), teach them decency and to know to submit.
Huh? What are you talking about? Especially the last line, I have no clue what you are saying. May I point out that the Democrats were the ones fighting the civil right movement. It was Republicans who voted to end segregation. Eisenhower is the one who sent the National Guard to make sure a black student got into a regular school. The Tea Party does not support segregation or discrimination against minorities. It is the left who always makes a big deal about minority status, be it female, black, Hispanic, whatever. They need to ensure the existence of victims so they will have a continuous support base. Conservatives just look at the person and what he stands for. And taking a moral stand against something such as homosexuality is NOT discrimination. Our government being based on Christian principles, accepting homosexuality is not according to the teachings of Christ or his followers. Homophobia is a made-up term designed to put a negative connotation on something contrary to the views of the left-wing news media.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
A phobia is an irrational fear, so easily used. So many of them, xenophobia, islamphobia, europhobia, it's a disregard of any discussion and a bit of a rethorical cheap trick that has long outstayed it's welcome, and sustainability. I don't understand why people are so edgy about homosexuality though. But I'll gladly take the honour of being called an islamphobe, xenophobe or europhobe from people I can't take serious despite my best efforts. It's just true that a particular breed of lefties are just in need of a cause to justify their existance. A cause a cause, my kingdom for a cause
Let's just turn it the other way, there is islamphilism, there is xenophilism, europhilism.
Much worse, the craving of being right when everything is crumbling around your reasoning. Egophilism.
This is all Constitutional. Put down the Bible and read some SCOTUS rulings. One TwoQuote:
Originally Posted by Vincent Butler
Quote:
Originally Posted by Justice Scalia
This is an accusation, provide a link (proof) about this. Also Obamacare care does allow for waivers for states that request one, like Vermont which is setting up its own single payer plan. Read the bill yourself. Specifically Section 1332. It specifies that waivers must be sent to the Secretary, by which I assume it means the Secretary of Health and Human Services which is a cabinet member under Obama. So yes, Obama's Administration can approve waivers. Congress passed the law, SCOTUS reviewed it, it is Constitutional.Quote:
Obama granting waivers to Obamacare...he does not have that power constitutionally to change laws at will.
Presidents have the ability to issue executive orders, and every president has used executive orders beginning with George Washington. Executive Orders have been used from the very beginning to promote agendas. Guess what, Andrew Jackson put out an Executive Order back in 1836 that the US government needs to be paid with gold or silver only. Oh I'm sorry, that sounds like a law Congress should have passed. But they didn't pass it, and yet it was treated as law and every President can make executive orders dictating new directives as long as there is sufficient cause from the Constitution to promote this new directive.Quote:
Obama using executive order to get his agenda passed, and threatening to do it more...laws are created by Congress, not the President (Article One).
EDIT: Btw, Obama is still 100 Executive Orders behind Bush's number. And three hundred behind Dwight D. Eisenhower.
You didn't listen to me when I talked about the 14th Amendment. It's a real thing, you should give it a read. Prohibiting store owners from discriminating based on someones background is illegal as it subjects people to an unequal protection under the laws.Quote:
Bakery owners forced to bake cakes for same-sex marriage,
It is not a violation of the First Amendment. The Supreme Court actually stated the opposite. Promotion of Christianity in public schools, even if non-denominational violated the First Amendment as it still promoted a specific sect of Abrahamic religion. Engel v. Vitale. Give that one a read as well.Quote:
schoolchildren not being allowed to talk about Jesus...violation of First Amendment (freedom of free exercise of religion).
That one is legitimate. What? Did you expect me to refute everything you said?Quote:
NSA spying,
The Federal SCOTUS has already ruled that police can search your car if there is probable cause. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling was in the first paragraph stating that they are simply affirming that Pennsylvania constitution does not provide protections greater than the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution, thus it upholds the SCOTUS precedent. Probable cause is specified within the 4th Amendment, so it is completely Constitutional as dictated by the SCOTUS.Quote:
Pennsylvania police not needing warrants to search vehicles...violation of Fourth Amendment (free from unreasonable search and seizure).
Look, if you want to complain about these things. That's ok. But be honest and simply say that you disagree with these decisions on an ideological standpoint and that you want new laws and new Supreme Court justices. Don't try to spin all of this as politicians breaking the law and going against the Constitution. It's embarrassing how fast google just hands me SCOTUS cases that refute what you are saying.
I love you, ACIN.
Also, given that the gay cake affair was a court ruling, I wonder what VB would make of a president who agrees with his opinion and overrules a court to impose that opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
The number of executiv orders only becomes scary when you look at Wilson, Coolidge (hardly heard of him before) and Roosevelt.
I assume Roosevelt has some kind of Hitler-excuse, but their numbers make Obama's pale in comparison.
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/orders.php
I still say ISIS and the splintering of Iraq are not failures but expected outcomes of American policy.
The near term outcome? The US is being asked to intervene by the very forces that were trying to drive them out mere months ago.
With support of these groups, and some thoughtful diplomacy the US could do more than merely "mend fences" in the area; they my even get the reputation as a "champion" that eluded them in Iraq 1.0
Of course the entire thing could just become an unmanageable cluster:daisy:
Southern strategy, remember. Now I've actually red up on how the chain of events was. The Democrats started to accept desegregation, so the "dixicrats" who wanted segregation stopped voting at all. Enter the Republican Barry Goldwater, also known as "mr Conservative" and is credited to be influencial on the libertarian movement (he was certainly for a small goverment). He lost badly 1964, but the interesting part is this: He won the South and (almost) nothing else. He was the anti-Eisenhower in voting patterns. He won states that had been voting only Democrat since 1872. He won the dixicrats.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vincent Butler
The influence of the religious right is later (starts during Regan) and something Goldwater opposed.
Nixon made this shift into something that could win elections and the name comes from his time. After that, the south starts to vote mostly Republican.
That's the link between what happened to the pro-segregation people in US politics, who also like low goverment influence and the Republicans and the Tea Party. Add having influences from the religious right (that isn't libertarian, but are a part of the Tea Party) and the Tea Party got a some wells that taints their libertarianism to draw upon.
And Husar produced the link that illustrates this perfectly with images. Lincon won the states, that are part of today's democratic core
And Christ and his followers said nothing about homosexuality. The Biblical mention is Sodom(y) and Gomorrah, aka the Old Testament.
Why Do They Have to Capitalise It Like That? Fire The Sign Maker!Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuuvi
“A phobia is an irrational fear” So using homophobes is accurate: Irrational fear of gays and lesbians. So irrational that they want to punish a sexual orientation based on fear generated by a book of fiction, that what I call an irrational fear.
“I have no clue what you are saying” Yes you do. And the proof of it is you try to answer it.
“It is the left who always makes a big deal about minority status, be it female, black, Hispanic, whatever. They need to ensure the existence of victims so they will have a continuous support base. Conservatives just look at the person and what he stands for.” Conservatives in the past always backed-up slavery, anti-Semitism, anti-unions and so one. They are still against States and Taxes but are happy to have Police Forces, Justice and Law-enforcement Agencies to protect their properties and businesses, they are happy to use roads to carry their goods, schools to train their workers but not to pay for it etc. They are in favour of stability (meaning them to keep the upper position) and crushed (and crush) any opposition. And to call of a need of victims from the left is denying reality. Minorities need protection from the State in an oppressive majority in order to gain just equality. And your sentence about gay marriage and “Christian based country” (which by the way is utterly wrong and false) proves it.
Lot of things to respond to, I will do it in order. First, put down the Bible? Why? It wasn't even a part of that argument. And it is the basis of everything I believe, and what our country was founded on. Read the words of our founders, we WERE established on Christian principles, here is are two remarks by John Adams.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
Quote:
The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity. John Adams
Here is a link if anyone cares to read more.Quote:
Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. John Adams
http://faithofourfathers.net/
A lot of my arguments here are based on original intent, which I understand is subjective, but we can fairly easily deduce it using the founders' writings.
Second Amendment. Look at the meaning of the word "infringed", especially in an older dictionary. Now certain people such as criminals forfeit those rights by committing crimes, I think everybody agrees that criminals, especially such as murderers, should lose at least their freedom. So some people lose their rights based on their actions; the mentally ill, I am kind of torn on that one. It would not be good for the criminally insane to get their hands on a gun, so my dilemma. Back then, though, the insane were locked up, so I guess that was grounds for losing freedom. But restricting where I can carry a gun is definitely not according to the Second Amendment.
The waivers I am talking about, I did not mean for states, I meant for certain groups, such as the ones who "passed" Obamacare (I know they have their own insurance plans already), and they changed definitionsdefinitions of who qualified for an exemption. Besides, as our illustrious Supreme Court ruled it constitutional, ruling the fine if you don't get coverage as a tax, that makes it a revenue bill, which should have originated in the House of Representatives. It originated in the Senate. Oh, and what about delaying implementation of certain parts of the bill such as the employer mandate? That is changing the law, which Congress alone can do.
Onto executive orders. Yes, the President has executive power for when immediate executive action is needed. Executive orders are never specifically granted, by the way, but are implied. But if Congress is not doing what he wants, he does NOT have the power to create a law by executive order. If he has that power, that makes him a dictator, and Congress is then irrelevant. It is not, "the President wants, the President gets". Obama has stated he will bypass Congress if necessary with executive orders. That is against the Constitution, and if he tries it he will have violated his oath of upholding the Constitution.
14th Amendment. The STATE cannot deny those rights, individuals can refuse service. Many stores say they reserve the right to refuse service to anyone. And homosexuality is not just condemned in the Old Testament. Read Romans 1, homosexuality is still wrong. Read Jude verse 7. Read 1 Corinthians 6. Those are the ones that come to mind off the top of my head.
Schoolchildren being told not to talk about Jesus, or punished for praying over their food. First Amendment guarantees right to FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION. Children being allowed to talk about their faith is not a government promoting any religion. And besides, the context of the First Amendment was the institution of a state religion. While we are on religion in schools, the Supreme Court has ruled Secular Humanism to be a religion as well. Hmm.
NSA spying, um…free from unlawful searches. The founders would turn over in their graves if they found out the government was spying on citizens (and our allies, including Chancellor Merkel's cell phone). Listening to calls going out of country may have some legality, I don't know all the laws associated with that, but on normal citizens? Definitely not. At least not according to original intent, not without probable cause. And the Pennsylvania ruling essentially gives officers carte blanche to search cars at will, all the officer has to do is come up with some reason. And would our founders have consented to allow search without warrants? We are not the founders, but my personal opinion is that they would not, though that is subjective. The warrant would be issued upon probable cause, and then the search.
Pannonian, the President does not have power to overrule a court, so that is a moot point.
Brennus, it is a particular phrase I don't get, I get most of what he is saying, and that is what I am answering.
So why did you point to that as an example of America no longer being democratic? What's a court ruling to do with democracy? Would you prefer your democracy to override your republic, since your republic is coming with stuff you don't like?Quote:
Originally Posted by Vincent Butler
That is why your arguments are terrible. Original Intent is asking for the Constitution to be followed according to the Founding Fathers. Leaving aside the fact that there is never one intent for any part of the Constitution, the Constitution as written does not give the Supreme Court Constitutional Interpretation. The Supreme Court gave themselves that power 14 years after the Constitution was ratified. Asking for original intent is asking for a SCOTUS that does not decide what the Constitution says. Therefore according to original intent, anything is Constitutional as long as it is passed by Congress.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vincent Butler
EDIT: So unless this is not clear, let me explain further. Since Original Intent is referred to as the philosophy for SCOTUS Justices to think of the Constitution as the Founders approved of it, how can a Supreme Court justice apply Original Intent when according to Original Intent he should not be deciding if a law follows the Original Intent of the Constitution?
Not even the Founding Fathers wanted original intent:
Btw, the state is denying rights to homosexuals if they allow for private individuals to exclude from from commerce. Homosexuals have to live in a society which restricts their choices but heterosexuals do not receive the same treatment from homosexuals, so they live in a fundamentally different society and standard of living from homosexuals. That's unequal protection under the law. When you have a society that persecutes a minority group, state inaction is equivalent in practical manners to denying rights through law.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas Jefferson
That is an interesting word, usufruct. I have never heard it before. Your argument by Jefferson is being taken out of context. The next generation can change the law, but the interpretation of the law as written does not change. As long as a bill does not violate the Bill of Rights (which acknowledged, not granted, those rights), yes, passing it would be constitutional if it was in the bounds of what Congress was constitutionally allowed to do. If not specifically granted Congress, and not mentioned in the Bill of Rights, the states or people could decide on it.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
As to denying homosexuals services, remember our founding fathers deemed homosexuality a crime, and thus their rights would have been forfeit. In fact, Jefferson advocated dismemberment as a punishment for sodomy. Several states had the death penalty for it. Therefore, homosexuals would not have been defended. And homosexuals are welcome to deny service to heterosexuals, have you heard of a gay bar? I saw an article not long ago that one just refused a man for being dressed like a woman, not that that is really relevant to this conversation, just something I found amusing.
You did not respond to my argument and you did not read the Jefferson quote entirely.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vincent Butler
Let me point out the last two sentences of what Jefferson said to make it clear:
"Every constitution, then, and every law,naturally expires at the end of 19. years. If it be enforced longer,it is an act of force and not of right."
Jefferson is explicitly saying, the Constitution should not apply after 19 years. That it should be completely scrapped for the next generation to rewrite. So why are you arguing about the interpretation of the law when Jefferson clearly states that the Bill of Rights and the Constitution should have been done away with completely 206 years ago?
Secondly, let me point out my argument again, and tell me if you don't understand it:
Since Original Intent is referred to as the philosophy for SCOTUS Justices to think of the Constitution as the Founders approved of it, how can a Supreme Court justice apply Original Intent when according to Original Intent he should not be deciding if a law follows the Original Intent of the Constitution?
Yet Jefferson was also the primary voice of the following:Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
He was not saying that any Constitution must be discarded, only that it's continuance should be based on the sufferance of the polity -- that any Constitution, as a mutually agreed upon social contract -- did not somehow thereby gain a life of its own superseding the agreement of polity. Jefferson was by no means an ardent opponent of the Constitution, though he disagreed with some of it, and his discussion of its ratification suggests that he thought the Constitution would hold sway for more than a single generation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Declaration of Independence
I did too go over the entire article, specifically that section, and I stand by what I said, it appears the difference is in our interpretation. I responded by giving my interpretation, showing why I believed yours to be incorrect. Anyway, back to Original Intent, a law is to be interpreted based on how it lines up with the Constitution. If it is not specifically mentioned in the Bill of Rights, and not specifically a power given to Congress, the states and people have power to decide. Original intent says that the states and people get to decide, see Tenth Amendment. Congress gets certain powers. If they pass a law that they do not have given jurisdiction to pass, and it does not relate to things in the Bill of Rights, the Supreme Court should strike it down as unconstitutional. The goal of the Constitution was limited government, especially limited federal government.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
Pannonian, sorry, I forgot to reply to your last post. The people get their will passed through the legislature and the ballot box. A court overruling a law that the state legislature passed or the people voted on, if that issue was not mentioned in the Constitution, the court cannot say it is unconstitutional. No, I would not like a democracy overruling a republic just because I don't like what is wrong with the republic. No law will make everybody happy, just take the bad with the good, and vote how you want things. Just don't start rioting when things don't go your way, not saying that is what is causing riots, just noticing that riots are becoming the fashion lately.
In any case, AFAIK when amendments supersede items of the constitution, the amendments hold sway. Unless VB still holds by the old reckonings of representation of the inhabitants of the US.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
It does not deter the bigger point that I make which is that Jefferson would not be a fan of original intent. In fact that even makes my point. I'm mistaken about the US Constitution in particular, but Jefferson was a person who felt that governments should be approved by its current inhabitants, or reformed at their whim.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
One last time, the Supreme Court under original intent can't strike down laws because the constitution doesn't give them the power under original intent. Original intent is impossible to implement. Under original intent, there is no interpretation to be made.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vincent Butler
Pannonian, the Constitution was called the Great Compromise, not everybody was happy. Until they started their sessions with prayer, for the first five weeks, nothing was getting done. And still not everybody got what they wanted, Patrick Henry did not even want a federal government. And yes, the new amendments hold sway. Else why make the provision for new amendments, I guess if new things come up.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
ACIN, the Constitution was allowed to be changed, that is why there are amendments. But if the law keeps changing, your country has issues. And Jefferson was considered a liberal for his day, too.
EDIT: ACIN, I see what you mean, the Supreme Court is never given the power to rule on constitutionality, I just looked in my Constitution. Interesting point, I will have to study that one. I do know that the Constitution says that it is the rule by which all laws in the country must be judged (not quite in that wording). The point is, who judges if a law follows the Constitution? That warrants looking into. Interesting.
Agreed, I think this topic has been beaten to death. Besides, my homework beckons.Quote:
One last time
Well done, ACIN, well done. You have pushed him to embrace the first step to wisdom.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vincent Butler
Take THAT all of you who say internet forums are nothing but intellectual Onanism.
I believe I have resolved the issue. It was a valid point, and needed to be resolved, partly for my own curiosity. I remember this actually coming up a while back in a conversation I had with my somebody, I think my mother, and I had forgotten about it. The Constitution is the guideline for the law. If a law is deemed unconstitutional by a court, or any body, really, it cannot strike it down, it is up to Congress to change the law if indeed it is unconstitutional. Indeed, if it is against the Constitution, it is not a law. I just saw a quote by William Jasper, a Revolutionary War hero, stating that a Supreme Court decision is not a law. Now I know he is not a founding father, but he is right, judges cannot legislate from the bench, the Constitution clearly gives Congress and Congress alone power to make law. As resolution, here are some statements from America's early history regarding the supremacy of the Constitution. Oh, and Seamus, the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, so I am still struggling with that first step. I am done on this topic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
Now can somebody please return this thread to topic? ISIS needs their tails kicked, preferably by Iraqis, but anyone is fine. It'll be funny if they pick on Russia. (Russian Accent) Boris, I hear ISIS is attacking us.
Hang on, Ivan, I am almost done with this nuke.
It's already happened.
As for a nuke in the Middle-East: yeah, that's hilarious, I'm sure they can handle one devastating act of war more.
EDIT: lrn2url
He's coloring the discussion for his agenda, but his points cannot be dismissed outright -- there is an element of truth to his take.Quote:
Originally Posted by HopAlongBunny
Coloring?
The US did create the context.
The terror prisons did create a core of jihadis and radicalized the population.
The imposed regime certainly did not act to "win friends and influence people"; it was more narrowly focused than Saddam's old gov't.
And, finally the West did ignore the terror being perpetrated against the local populations until ISIS went on a land grab.
All good points he made. He is glossing over the common tendency for all nation-states to pursue their interests somewhat haphazardly in response to shifting public opinion and perceived saliency. He's calling for a consistency that never really happens.Quote:
Originally Posted by HopAlongBunny
This doesn't undercut his point, I am just offering a comment.
I liked the article for its concise summation of the situation.
The failing it has...like almost all opinion on the matter...is the complete lack of a discussion on the way forward.
Removal of ISIS is a distraction; it won't "solve Iraq!"; I would like to see something coherent about how to chip the way forward to a solution.
For borders to be "solved" in the middle east would require the countries in the middle east to put what the people want in front of their own wants - and that would mean we'd see a couple of new states and Turkey, amongst others, loosing a large amount of land.
I very much doubt this is going to happen - and external players will only make things worse by becoming hated by everyone.
Africa is another land mass that needs to redraw borders from the arbitary colonial ones which replaced the arbitary ones that preceeded them.
ISIS is the latest and nastiest creation from this area. Not the last and as long as the loonies from elsewhere decide to fight (and hopefully die) there they'll not be here.
~:smoking:
The gift that keeps on giving, indeed :creep:
Redrawing borders isn't always going to cut it. Centuries, or even just decades under centralizing states has meant that populations that were once geographically divided are now relatively intermixed. Without resorting to ethnic cleansing, people are going to have to learn to live with each other.
But indulging in ethnic / religious genocide / mass exodous oes appear to be the preferred approach with several minorities being displaced or culled.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
~:smoking:
How many years have those minorities lived there without any of that happening?Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
Don't make the mistake of assuming that the current state of affairs is the natural state of affairs.
But once they're gone, often they're gone. Given that Sunnis view at least two groups in the area as Devil worshipers or Apostates it doesn't really fill me with hope.
The locals might still be getting on with each other as well as they ever had, and it is persons from elsewhere in the world coming into the area that are doing these things - with modern communication making this so much easier.
Alexandria was a centre of Christianity for a long time - then was razed to the ground in a very short time.
~:smoking:
Wouldn't call it a natural state of afairs, insanity would be a better word, but IS is just doing what their holy book tells them to do. That there are some disputes on how and what doesn't change that. I doubt the Shia's would be any less barbaric.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
But now you have people with plans for the population/area and the people with plans have guns.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
So...ya fer us or ag'in us!
Think carefully.
Mao had some appropo comments about this.
If they are, the middle east christians would have been wiped out 1500 years ago.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Mao is actually relevant(for once). A hundred years ago, who would've thought China would be this unified?
I have to say, while not the greatest student of Chinese history, I cannot recall reading about ANY other period where they were both this unified and had this degree of personal freedom and prosperity at the same time. I realize they are not free in the sense that Europe is, but it is pretty impressive how far they have come. I might not concur about Mao's role....but that would be for the Monastery.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Deng Xiaoping was probably the most effective and liberal ruler they've had since Kang Xi. His technocratic dynasty has been changing chairmen with hardly any noticeable differences.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
"So long as it hunts mice" eh? Strikes me as he, more than Mao, may have helped engender the shift away from peasant communism.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
That's why I think Deng Xiaoping has been incredibly liberal by Chinese standards, even with the Tiananmen Square massacre on his record. Chinese dynasties have tended to start with mass bloodshed followed by a period of stability while the memory of said bloodshed was still fresh in everyone's mind, with periodic upheavals with each succession. Deng managed to recover from the poverty and stagnation of the Mao period (probably as low as China had ever been without being at war), and lift the country to a level where, for the individual Chinese who doesn't aspire to electing the national government, life is comparable with that of westerners in liberal democracies. And what's more, most of this was achieved long after he was dead, whilst following the direction he'd set. A quite remarkable administrator.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
I read an American paper a while back (I found it whilst looking for Glantz's study of the Soviet offensive in Manchuria) examining the Sino-Vietnamese war, where PLA traditionalists wanted to demonstrate the validity of their ideas. Deng's faction disagreed and favoured a more slimline, modernised army, but gave the traditionalists their way against the Vietnamese. The PLA got thrashed by the Vietnamese reservists, without ever achieving their tactical aim of forcing the regular Vietnamese army regiments to commit and get pinned down. A regular unit did get involved late on because they got bored and wanted some of the action before it was over. In the end, the Chinese did reach their objectives and declared victory, the Vietnamese inflicted punishing losses on the Chinese with minimal losses and minimal risk without risking any of their regular army and declared victory, while Deng achieved complete political victory over his dissidents but didn't bother declaring it. As a point of interest, the Chinese declared their objectives beforehand, together with their intention not to use their air force, so as to reassure everyone (not least the Vietnamese) that this was to be a limited operation. Basically they stated their objective and their intention to use land forces only, pushed forward with exorbitant losses until they reached the objectives, declared victory and returned home, all for the purpose of settling an internal debate in the Chinese government. Hilariously incomprehensible to our western perspectives.
Obama had the chance to force the Republican hawks in Congress to put up/shut up on extended action against ISIS and he either blew it or just doesn't want to give up his ill-gotten extended executive powers. Fails as both a Chicago politician and a Constitutional scholar. :no:
Relevant thread ambience.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7KdSSfYG7M
Deng Xiaoping a liberal...? He was anything but.
Deng Xiaoping was the kind of man who accepted no opinion but his own, and eradicated all dissent. I still like him, but that's purely because I'm not one of the dissenting voices.
I am amazed at how quickly American conservatives become apologists for communist hardliners.
Still, Deng had little to do with unification, nationalism and the end of the fractionalism. That was Mao and the revolution, I'm afraid. You would have to look very hard to find sectarian interests in 1971. Credit Deng with calming the majority, but silencing the minority was all Mao.
Deng Xiaoping was liberal by Chinese standards. I challenge you to find a Chinese ruler/government more liberal than his since Kang Xi that was also successful. That's 300 years of Chinese government for you to look at to find one that was more liberal.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
And when I talked about chaos, I was referring to the Cultural Revolution, which was as bad as any of Stalin's crackdowns, with the possible exception of the Holodomor. The very top of the elite remaining in place is not stability when you have millions being purged. As far as internal repression goes, Deng's biggest purge was the several thousand (upper limit) who were offed in the Tiananmen affair, either during the initial massacre or afterwards. That's small fry by Chinese standards.
"I was referring to the Cultural Revolution, which was as bad as any of Stalin's crackdowns, with the possible exception of the Holodomor." Excepted of course there is no evidence that the "holodomor" was political and not a bad political decision based on political/economical prejudices/pre-conceptions (as in the Indian and Irish Famines where "the free market economy" should have auto-regulated. Well, technically, it did in killing millions).
However, the Cultural Revolution was clearly a political crack-down.
The Uyghurs don't think China is that terribly united.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
I am sure dictator powers can help a country become de-facto united, but once the dictatorship ends, it may all come apart (think Soviet Union).
The creation of separate states can encourage a (relatively) peaceful disentanglement. Typically, there are border areas where the mixing is fairly even, but beyond those there is typically one group that dominates.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
I am not sure how viable Sunni-Iraq and Shia-Iraq are as separate states, but I think any attempt at a united Iraq runs the risk of becoming another Somalia. In the recent decade, Iraq has at times not been too terribly far away from this scenario, anyway - the status quo is just a new record.
My prediction at this moment, is that without foreign ground-intervention, IS will not be defeated. It may gradually warp into something else (which would be a pretty natural development, should it survive for a longer period of time), or split into smaller groups; but it will not be defeated. Neither the Iraqi nor the Syrian state is strong enough.
IS and the areas under its control will probably turn into some sort of miniature Taliban-Afghanistan, and once there are no minorities left - either because they're fled or dead - the world will stop caring as much as it does now. In this scenario, the de facto, if not de jure, Shia-Iraq may be relatively stable, depending on how much split there is among the Shiites in this part of Iraq.
There is no natural state of affairs for any place. As time passes, the mechanisms and order of things constantly change.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
And when I look at history, I sure see a lot of slaughter - modern history or old.
While Iraq and Syria might not be strong enough to take out IS, Iran probably could help them enough to eventually kick them out. That and the Syrian and Iraqi Kurdistans. And if they ever did take out Syria, they would border Israel which probably wouldn't suffer that sort of state to sit on their borders for very long.Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
There is a problem with motivation. AFAIK, the Iraqi forces could have held their ground in Mosul if they had wanted to.Quote:
Originally Posted by Noncommunist
The Shias want to protect their turf, and the Kurds their - but to go beyond those areas? It's not their land, after all; and they may even meet fierce local resistance some places if they do.
Well they better not mess with Texas!:
http://wonkette.com/560381/crazy-fox...hemselves-ayup
Looks like even Al Quaida has kinda had it with the bloodlust of these guys.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...p-9734598.html
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Seems to me that they were more concerned with making a point about Sharia then about Hennings per se or the violence of ISIS. Much as John Adams defended the Brit soldiers involved in the Boston Massacre -- there was a principle involved that superseded the individual.
Still, glad the chap is alright -- others have been less fortunate.
Don't know if it is true but this sounds a bit bad. Kobane? Drag me to hell, must be a pretty cozy place as all evil is already here.
It's not a coincidence that the Kobane faction of the Syrian Kurds is threatened the most.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
They managed to ruin any diplomatic relations they had, by actively fighting Assad and the Islamists, while Turkey and the West (at least, on papaer) they consider them terrorists, as a part of the PKK, and therefore unacceptable for military aid.
Their only "ally" was the Free Syrian Army and now, with the fall of the Syrian airbase, they are an easy target for ISIS.
No updates in 4 days? I should probably stop getting my news about the situation from this thread.
Dunno if it's news to you, but Tony Blair is a gobshite.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
I don't think much has really happened. A few bombs dropped here and a few bombs dropped there is called tickling in my vocabulary.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
I keep having this stray thought that ISIS is a Kurdish plot.
I know this is NOT the case....such things are the silly plots of barely plausible novels.
But ISIS must be met by boots on the ground and the only force, so far, that seems to be willing, positioned, and disciplined enough to do so are the peshmurgah chaps.
All of which earns the Kurds hero points....exactly at a time when Iraq seems too fragmented to work anyway.
It almost seems like ISIS was tailor-made as a way for Kurds to "prove" themselves on an international stage and beget greater autonomy, or even independence if this latest Iraqi coalition government degenerates.
Or maybe those that said that the arab spring would be an islamist winter were right from the go.
Can't say we weren't warned
Strategic bombings are like Christmas morning. I hope that we do it right and target Assad, al-Nusra, and IS. There is no reason that a moderate islamist or secular front feels that it is a good idea to align with any of those three. The only reason that it has gotten this bad is because we had refused to act for so long. We can make up for it, but we need boots on the ground to help with discernment and really get things moving back into the direction that we need it to move in.
Not sure that I am happy with your choice of metaphors. I tend to be more of a sit around and sing carols sort, at least for Christmas....Quote:
Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg
Its like presents in a way. A whole cascade of them.
We should have become involved earlier - when the "red line" was crossed, we would have a much stronger secular resistance than we have today and we would have had clearance to attack Assad as well.
Hundreds of thousands are dead, millions are refugees. Countless others are casualties. This is as bad as it is because people didn't listen and needed to ensure that the price tag was higher before they became involved.
The world needs war. It seems to need huge amounts of killing. Its like a fever that we need in order to break the backs of tyrants. Tyrants on the medium scale like Assad, on the small scale like leaders in the IS and al-nusra movements, and maybe even on the large scale like Putin. We are humans, we are meant for freedom and war. We should harness this need to attack anyone anywhere who uses force to curtail choice or expression. Maybe one day we will get tired of it. Nobody is tired of it yet.