 |
| Register | Login | |||||
 |
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| Calendar
| Chat
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | ACS | Stats | Color Chart | Search | Photo album |
|
| | ||
|
| Register | Login | |||||
|
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| Calendar
| Chat
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | ACS | Stats | Color Chart | Search | Photo album |
|
| | ||
| 0 users currently in World Affairs/Debate. |
| User | Post |
| Xeon Posts: 21/70 |
Yeah, that patriot act is a just a way for the FBI and CIA to spy on you without a warrant just by claiming your a terriost. |
| Skydude Posts: 862/2607 |
Originally posted by Snow Tomato Perhaps you misunderstood. When I say cutting off the base, I mean the main support within the country, as from the government. And that has been cut off. For the past year or two the forces in Iraq have not been supported by Iraqis, but rather by Iranian forces. Originally posted by Snow Tomato Vietnam was a French democracy, not an American one, that fell. Weimar is the same, actually, as the British and Americans would have preferred a different system. That was also not imposing democracy on a country not ready for it. The government was weak, yes, but the main problem there was a very shaky economy. Hitler would not have risen to power if not for the collapse of the German economy, which itself occurred largely because of the world international crisis of the time. Originally posted by Snow Tomato One thing that seems to be at odds here is who the terrorists are. Most of the people in these countries are not terrorists, and most do not actually support the government so much as fear it, and even those that support are largely doing so under the heavily antiamerican propaganda fed to them from birth. The ones being fought are a small minority who fear democracy because, well, the oppressors tend to. I'm not really going to get into the politics of the USA PATRIOT Act and the intricacies of international law, as that could occupy a whole treatise right there. With your note about McCarthyism, one thing that I think is very important to note and is almost always looked over: he was right. The facts have vindicated McCarthy to a large extent, in that most of the people who were brought up on charges of communism were, in fact, communists, and a lot of them were actively passing information to the soviet government, as seen in recently opened to the public soviet files. Just an interesting little note that you're not usually going to hear mentioned, but is rather crucial to the story. |
| Snow Tomato Posts: 555/798 |
You can't leap to say that Iraq is a good example of cutting off a terrorist base... because I believe there's a larger more active insurgency (terrorists) there now than before we ever got involved in that mess. There's also an impending civil war. I'm not saying that all democracies we set up.. fail. I'm just saying that it's basically 50/50 with that. (It failed in Vietnam, and the Weimar Republic in Germany ((a weak democracy)) fell to Hitler. Imposing democracy on a country that's not ready for democracy is very very tricky)
It is a tad different, I understand... but the terrorists prefer the way of life that their countries advocate moreso then ours. They stand for theocracy and totalitarianism... and it completely contradicts with democracy. And that's why our heads are butting so hard. The USA Patriot Act is good in the fact that it targets individuals instead of whole countries for the seditious acts of a few. I give it points there. However... the criteria for being put under survailence is very very undefined and open. I'm not going to just trust the governments instincts... especially when there's been such a large amount of miscommunications between the FBI, the CIA and the White House. The amount of errors and mistakes this administration has made is absolutely astounding.. so I'm not too keen in giving them the power to put anyone under survailance for basically.. any reason they see fit. If the President wasn't violating international law and placing wiretaps on domestic and international phone lines... I might say the Patriot Act wasn't that bad. Given the circumstances and the abuses of power I've seen.... I say no to the Patriot Act. It's very much like the black list in the 50's (the one of suspected communists)... people were alienated because of it. It's just striking how similar the red scare is to the current day situation of terrorism. And I wouldn't be surprised if politicians today didn't even care about terrorism. They have to look like they're doing their job. And what are the odds that terrorism actually affects any politician? There's just so much to consider when you're trying to evaluate government policies. Who's really benefitting... and statistics and propaganda.. and scare tactics they use to get what they want. We must stop terrorism! Terrorists! Terrorists! Oh, and while we're at it... barrels and tons of oil. I don't know exactly. It's just hard to know what their goals are... because everything is sugar coated and pre-prepared for consumption. Americans need things that are easy to understand... and we have very short attention spans. We'll forget yesterdays news overnight. Wow, went on a rant. I hope that had some sort of point to it. |
| Skydude Posts: 858/2607 |
In some ways it is an old concept, and there are parallels to be drawn to the Cold War. Still, it differs largely because there, it WAS fighting against nation states. The war on terror, on the other hand, involves largely fighting against small groups within states, which aside from cutting off the base of support (successful in Iraq & Afganistan, but Iran is still supporting the groups currently fighting in Iraq) involves a lot more subtlety. Setting up democracy may be the answer in each case. Germany and Japan represent huge successes in setting up democracies; both are great, peaceful economic powers.
As for the collapse of the soviet union, that wasn't a political or ideological victory chiefly. That was important, mind you, but primarily, it broke down economically. At war actively or passively, a breakdown of the economic system heralds swift collapse of the old order. |
| Snow Tomato Posts: 553/798 |
Originally posted by Skydude The cold war? Exporting democracy as the only means to ensure our safety? Sounds very cold-war-esque to me. (Vietnam, Korean War). They're instances of two competing ideologies butting heads. Communism Vs. Democracy... and Theocracy (Totalitarianism?) vs. Democracy. Both polar opposites of Democracy. And we've come to believe that to secure ourselves from attack... and to create peace.. that every single country must become democratic. It started with the "Iron Curtain" in Europe. We tried to ensure that Greece became a democracy.. and we exported democracy to Germany after WWII.. eventually Russia was forced to succumb to democracy. This is and old concept. |
| Skydude Posts: 839/2607 |
Kind of ironic that you say that, considering where the 'from' thing for you says, as there was a story a few weeks ago about a large terrorist attack planned against L.A. that was stopped.
Often, though, the job of Homeland Security, and the CIA, and FBI, and similar organizations, is among the most thankless. We almost never hear about what successes they have, since advertising that lets those being watched what we are able to see (why spend money on intelligence networks if all the info is on ABC?). But if they fail, even once, no matter how successful they may or may not have been, boy, does THAT get a lot of press. |
| Deleted User Posts: 33/-7750 |
If you provide me with an address, sure |
| Deleted User Posts: 8/-7750 |
So some terrorists were recently arrested due to this dictator-like act. I would like you all to write and/or phone the targets of these individuals and tell them that you believe your civil rights are more important than their lives. They eagerly await! |
| Sinfjotle Posts: 583/1697 |
Yeah, it's pretty much like the SAFE ACT. |
| Schweiz oder etwas Posts: 770/2046 |
So has anyone actually read this thing yet? |
| Sabishii Posts: 14/60 |
Mattp - I realize it's not the people voting on it, however, if you take to the streets and ask, you'll find that a number of Americans don't know their rights and would hand them over for "security" and that a number don't know what the Patriot Act does and therefore approve of it by default. I've come across people that have never heard of it This is particularly true in our state 
I disagree with the idea of restrictions being stict during war times, however, that's what leads to stuff like the "Sedition" Acts in the 1700's and 1800's. The limitations should be stricter, but not very strict. The first they always crack down on is the first ammendment (speech, press, petition, religion, etc) which pretty much your ability to voice an opinion. That goes against the ideas on which the country was founded. That does bring up the question of whether or not we're at war though. We're at an awkward time as far as warefare goes, somewhat as Skydude said. It's somewhat like the American Civil War in which the technology had advanced and the war tactics had not. Napoleonic warfare was too outdated for the technology, which is where we had the birth of what became trench warfare. It's possible that, as Skydude stated, was as we knew it is over. Maybe this is the new face, I really don't know. I feel the way Jomb does though, I would rather risk some danger than lose my rights. Anti-Federalists fought like hell to get the Bill of Rights and the ability to amend the Constitution in there, and I have full intention of making use of every single right I have. I'm also willing to fight for that. The Declaration of Independence and the Consitution practucally mirror John Locke's Two Treatises on Government. One of the Treatises states that we have a responsibility, not a right, as citzens, to overthrow a government that does not please us or protect us as we wish it to. Such extreme measures are not yet needed, but If the invasion of privacy continues, I can easily see it leading to that. We didn't have the Revolutionary War and the Civil War for nothing, you know. |
| Jomb Posts: 117/448 |
I'd rather live alittle dangerously than be secure, and am not willing to give up a single freedom.. so what country should i move to?  |
| Wurl Posts: 610/842 |
My main problem is this: Bush and his administration say this is a measure only for war time. However, they constantly refer to this as an "constant" war. |
| SamuraiX Posts: 21/302 |
You can stop terrorism as much as you can stop of all the drug trade, human trafficking, et al. And what excactly do you call terrorism? By definition, terrorism is violence--or the threat of--on the citizens to achieve political, ideological, or religious goals. How is the US not a terrorist country, despite tortorous imprisonment of citizens and non-citizens, without charge or trial? I will tell you. It is because the US is the strongest nation militarily and economically speaking. And by making a war on "terror", the government can extend it to just about anything they want. |
| Skydude Posts: 754/2607 |
But I think that may be where you differ with the opinions of a lot of people. In a sense, this is certainly a time of peace. Bush may not be perfect, but he was certainly right in saying that it is a war on terror...it's a new kind of warfare, and not really the same as anything we've seen in the past. In fact, conventional wars may be all but over due to nuclear weapons and the fact that most of the powerful states understand the futility of them...so it's really only acts of 'terrorism' that will constitute warfare, and trying to prevent them.
Are we at war? I'm not sure. |
| mattp Posts: 37/174 |
Depends on the situation. In times of peace ( IE Now ), there should be no or close to no limitations. In times of war, there should be strict limitations. |
| Skydude Posts: 744/2607 |
I'd really rather not get into the politics discussion at the moment, I'll just clarify something. If you're going to be technical, it's the USA PATRIOT Act.
Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism The one thing I'll say is that there is most certainly a trade-off between freedom and security. In a totalitarian state, we could be extremely secure. But then, why would we care about the security of such an awful place to live? On the other extreme, complete freedom of about everything with no restrictions cripples the effectiveness of the police and other defensive forces. Where's the right place somewhere between those two to be? I don't know. |
| SamuraiX Posts: 20/302 |
It it not democratic to not complain when you think something is completely messed up, and violating your Constitutional rights. . .except, a certain administration defiled, burned, and declared it communist. |
| mattp Posts: 24/174 |
Des/Sabishii- it's not the whole country, just the people in power who decide who's going to get elected. |
| Wurl Posts: 603/842 |
Sounds like certain people hate freedom. |
| This is a long thread. Click here to view it. | |
