This just in: Bush doesn't believe in the fourth amendment

[Padres67]

Boooooooooooring.

[krawhitham]

Thank You el_jefe061, you saved me a lot of typing

[meteamo]

agreed Sean O, abc006, el_jefe061

abc006, you should change your avatar to read Sean O, el_jefe 08 but yours is nice too

They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security. - Benjamin Franklin

The video on youtube was stupid, had no point and wasn't funny at all if was intended to be funny. Thank you for letting me know that this guy isn't that funny. He sir is no Leno or O'Brien.

Since this topic is supposed to be about the 4th amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

- usinfo.state.gov

And here's an article wrote on May 16, 2006 (a little over a year ago) that reads Bush Stomps on Fourth Amendment from the Boston Globe.

Knowledge talks, wisdom listens. - Jimi Hendrix

[HardcoreLegend]

I have to agree with Sean O, and completely disagree with you. The war has killed relations with major military powers like Great Britain (They're never helping us again), France, and Germany. No military power will help us next time around. Not to mention it has cost so much money. Money that could help us for a real threat, like Iran or North Korea. Our troops are thin and overextended, leaving us bare for a real threat.

Like France, who is currently working with the Bush Adminstration in ramping up for war with Iran?

Anywho: Does anyone think that Democracy can actually work in the Middle East? Personally, I believe it can't. The cultural divisions in some places are too much, and full democracy just doesn't seem like it has a chance. I don't think it can work in Iraq unless it's divided up into 3 separate states. This is a place that has been around thousands of years (I'm not talking about the "state" Iraq, but Persia and Mesopotamia, the culture and etc), we're not going to get them to change right away.

Democracy has worked in the Middle East. What is lacked in Iraq is infrastructure. A major failure in the post-war stabilization was not adequately rebuilding the infrastructure in Iraq, giving the new leadership a legitimate chance of controlling the country.

The war was executed flawlessly. The country was taken control of faster than in any other US major operation. There was a total lack of planning on what to do next.

The talk of 'wasting money' is accurate but in reality, the US government will never run out of money at the expense of trying to run a war. They will raise taxes, sell bonds, etc.

I always find it interesting that people talk about how we've 'wasted our time and money that could be focused on real threats like Iran' and then any talk of ACTUALLY doing something about Iran is considered war mongering or just furthering the neo-con's blood thirst. Or we get the 'I'd send forces into Pakistan to find OBL', as if that wouldn't be another instance of invading a soveirgn nation just to get one man.

[Rome-o-phobe]

I do belive what I am saying, and I aint cussing out The Constitution and the Bill of rights, I'm just saying its data mining, they are not spying on us.

[TheFallenPhoenix]

...I just want to bash my head on all my IR books and the dozen or so issues of Foreign Affairs I have.

That's all.

[el_jefe061]

Like France, who is currently working with the Bush Adminstration in ramping up for war with Iran?

Ramping up how? Are they going to send more than 10,000 troops? Are they going to pay for it?

Democracy has worked in the Middle East. What is lacked in Iraq is infrastructure. A major failure in the post-war stabilization was not adequately rebuilding the infrastructure in Iraq, giving the new leadership a legitimate chance of controlling the country.

Where? Iran? Pakistan? Iraq is one of the most volatile countries in the world. If there's any place where there should be some form of monarchy or oligarchy, it should be there.

The war was executed flawlessly. The country was taken control of faster than in any other US major operation. There was a total lack of planning on what to do next.

I agree with you, the major combat was executed flawlessly. The occupation we're in now, however, would never work with less than 300K. We're under 150K.

The talk of 'wasting money' is accurate but in reality, the US government will never run out of money at the expense of trying to run a war. They will raise taxes, sell bonds, etc.

This will never happen without taking money from somewhere else. No President, Republican or Democrat, will ever raise taxes enough for us to not feel the effects of a trillion dollar war. Education will get cut. Health care will never be around. Social Security will be gone. When we feel the effects of education getting cut and no universal healthcare, the rest of the world will be laughing at how far behind we are from them. Just wait for the Chinese to pass us.

As for spending, deficit spending has never worked. Never will, at least not in the long term. You want to know the one benefit of a balanced budget? Low interest rates, which spur things like the housing market. Like the housing market during 2000, which was a product of the Clinton presidency.

I always find it interesting that people talk about how we've 'wasted our time and money that could be focused on real threats like Iran' and then any talk of ACTUALLY doing something about Iran is considered war mongering or just furthering the neo-con's blood thirst. Or we get the 'I'd send forces into Pakistan to find OBL', as if that wouldn't be another instance of invading a soveirgn nation just to get one man.

The problem with going into a place like Iran, Pakistan, or North Korea, is that we no longer have the resources or international support to go into any of those countries. We don't have the support at home.Our troops are already overextended and there's no way we're slipping deeper into debt.

[Sean O]

The question remains, who is going to fight in this hypothetical war? We currently can't support two theatres, and unless I'm tremendously mistaken, do we really think the French are the army who's going to bail us out? Have they completely changed their tune and now love America?

Are we hoping the Iraqis will finally "get it" and want to reprise their role of getting slaughtered en masse by the Iranians for our sake? Is starting an Islamic civil war the best way to ensure future peace in the middle east? And, if we attack Iran, are we prepared to take on Syria, the shiite half of Iraq, along with the entire mujahideen force of the islamic world?

Personally, I'm shocked we were never able to institute successful diplomatic relations with a nation branded as "evil."

[el_jefe061]

The question remains, who is going to fight in this hypothetical war? We currently can't support two theatres, and unless I'm tremendously mistaken, do we really think the French are the army who's going to bail us out? Have they completely changed their tune and now love America?

Three, we're still in Afghanistan. With some Conservative reasoning, we need to stay in Iraq and attack Iran. There's another problem with the Iraq war; it has completely neglected the fight in Afghanistan. We're not done in Afghanistan. The Taliban has come back and we don't have the control we did, and we blew our chance at what should be our number one target: Osama Bin Laden. In Pakistan or not, we should have gotten him while he was in Afghanistan.

[Jerryluo]

The ends justify the means, don't worry about it. Bush can violate all the laws he wants if it means they work. If they don't, then he better hope it's when the Democrats are in office.

[Guildster]

The ends justify the means, don't worry about it. Bush can violate all the laws he wants if it means they work. If they don't, then he better hope it's when the Democrats are in office.

Is that you, Cheney?

[HardcoreLegend]

In Pakistan or not, we should have gotten him while he was in Afghanistan.

No argument there, however that has nothing to do with the Iraq War. He had already fled into Pakistan by that point. The last two times we actually knew were Bin Laden was at were December 2001 and August 1998. Other than that, everything has been conflicting reports.

[el_jefe061]

No argument there, however that has nothing to do with the Iraq War. He had already fled into Pakistan by that point. The last two times we actually knew were Bin Laden was at were December 2001 and August 1998. Other than that, everything has been conflicting reports.

He should have never even made it into Pakistan. Here's an open question to anyone: Is Afghanistan a failure if the Taliban come back, not necessarily take over the country, and we don't catch Bin Laden?

The Taliban have made a recent resurgence, and Osama is in Pakistan.

[abc006]

The question remains, who is going to fight in this hypothetical war? We currently can't support two theatres, and unless I'm tremendously mistaken, do we really think the French are the army who's going to bail us out? Have they completely changed their tune and now love America?

France's sudden support of the US (if it exists) is probably Sarkozy's doing.

[TheFallenPhoenix]

For the record...it's the Iranian leadership which is the significant problem vis-a-vis Iran. The Iranian people themselves actually don't look all that dis-favorably on American people.

Case in point? A lot Iranians held vigils after the September 11th terrorist attacks. Contrast that with some of the Palestinian reaction, for example.

In any event, there's been a lot of great ink spilled on the subject of what to do with Iran, and one of my favorites is a book that came out just two years ago on the relationship between stability and openness in a state society. One of the central theses of the book is that increased openness, while it may harm the stability of a closed/authoritarian regime in the short-term, is actually the best way to facilitate internal reforms, since it puts pressure on the ruling class and disrupts the monopoly of information that is so crucial to authoritarian regimes.

Moral of the story being, even if the United States weren't over-extended and could conceivably launch a successful military campaign against Iran, it would likely be a pretty bad idea, and not just for diplomatic reasons. As we've seen here in Iraq (and as any serious student of political theory or state-building could attest), democratic forms of government are nearly impossible without some basic form of infrastructure, the type of infrastructure that's typically lacking in authoritarian regimes (the stirrings of an independent media, political organization, just to name a few preconditions). The best way to approach Iran is not to further isolate it from the international community, which would increase the political capital of the Iranian leadership (allowing them to shift the blame for the average Iranian's problems to the United States-led embargoes), but rather to engage Iran and work on supporting the moderate grassroots organizations.

Notice how, after four decades of attempting to isolate Cuba, and even after the collapse of its patron state, the Soviet Union, authoritarian communism is still running pretty strong in that country, even after Castro's passing/losing power. It's not a coincidence; the United States has just approached opening Cuba the wrong way.

Not every case can be like post-World War II Japan, and it's high time the American political leadership understood this.

[Padres67]

Everyone is forgetting the Iranian desire to eliminate Israel-that will never happen. Israel will take care of Iran for us.

[abc006]

Everyone is forgetting the Iranian desire to eliminate Israel-that will never happen. Israel will take care of Iran for us.

And what's that supposed to mean?

[Kccitystar]

Everyone is forgetting the Iranian desire to eliminate Israel-that will never happen. Israel will take care of Iran for us with our weapons

Fixed

[Padres67]

Is the leader of Iran joking-not, Israel will not be wiped off the face of the earth. They will defeat Iran in any war.

[abc006]

Is the leader of Iran joking-not, Israel will not be wiped off the face of the earth. They will defeat Iran in any war.

Yeah, and why?

[Friedman]

The ends justify the means, don't worry about it. Bush can violate all the laws he wants if it means they work. If they don't, then he better hope it's when the Democrats are in office.

That's probably the stupidest thing I have ever heard. Sure, we can go kill as many people as we need to, as long as it works in the end. You're statement makes just about as much sense as if I decided to kill all people in the middle east, so we can get rid of the Islamic terrorist organizations.

And by the way, it's never going to work. Bin Laden is going to die never being captured by the U.S. or any of its allies. The day Bin Laden is captured is the day I become a Red Sox fan. Both presidents (Clinton and Bush) screwed up in their attempts to get Bin Laden, and to counter terrorism. But at least Clinton didn't get America involved in some stupid-*** war and mess that makes absolutely no sense.

[Hory]

Yeah, and why?

Er, Israel has nuclear weapons, is armed to the teeth and has the USA as it's #1 ally?

For the record...it's the Iranian leadership which is the significant problem vis-a-vis Iran.

The "problem" with Iran is that it is geographically located between Iraq & Afghanistan.

[nutts55]

The only thing I'm going to say is this: The other day I was driving and saw a car w/ multiple bumper stickers. Most flaming the President and the war on Iraq. One bumper sticker did say Free the Opressed. Wether you think the war is wrong or right, that is what this war is trying to do. Free the IRaqis from oppression. Saddam was pure evil and ruled with fear. no matter what you say this world is safer w/o him in power.

Pulling our forces out immediately would only allow the terrorists to flock to the region. A free Iraq is what the world needs.

For two forum members to believe they now everything and call BS is a sure sign of ignorance. I have differing viewpoints, but I can listen and hear valid points without namecalling.

[Hory]

no matter what you say this world is safer w/o him in power.

No it is not safer, removing Hussein's government, which was hostile towards Iran & groups like Al Queda, and replacing it with an unstable government allied to Iran and with ties to all sorts of "terrorist" groups and militias within the region has made the world far less safe.

Pulling our forces out immediately would only allow the terrorists to flock to the region.

Because of course there are no "terrorists" in the region now.

[Sean O]

One bumper sticker did say Free the Opressed. Wether you think the war is wrong or right, that is what this war is trying to do. Free the IRaqis from oppression. Saddam was pure evil and ruled with fear. no matter what you say this world is safer w/o him in power.

You cannot possibly think that this administration cared about the Iraqi citizens for a second. What are we doing in Darfur?

The only recent incursions into a non-strategically important theatre were Somalia in 1993 and to stop Milosevic in the 90s. We ignored the Rwandan genocide, the Khmer Rouge, and the countless American-supported governments of South America that routinely tortured and mass-murdered their citizens.

Bush, like most recent American presidents, never gave a damn about a people unless it directly benefits him somehow.