Discussion in 'Wikileaks' started by LastOneStanding, Apr 24, 2011.
update under the cut
And Obama is supposed do represent the left? Is there any thing like a left in the US?
I think he's trying to be seen as more of a moderate than a leftist. Though, for the US, he's pretty far to the left. Don't know about global standards, though.
war knows no party but power
in usa you think abortion is not killing a human, you are left.
Not since 1992.
Bill Clinton slaughtered the "left" under the rubric that- only a dramatic shift to the "center" could preserve liberal values in an increasingly conservative national environment.
After GWB and 9/11, what remained of the "left" hid in the closet while "centrist" and "conservative" democrats did everything they could to sever all ties with their former 'fellow travelers', now hiding out the storm.
Come 2008, the last former "left" survivor still standing was on the verge of capturing the Democratic nomination, until she saw a new "centrist" insurgent who threatened to steal her base. Rather than feint left, she went full-bore to the right- sacrificing any remaining shred of liberal values in a desperate gambit to defeat BHO.
It failed, obviously.
The biggest problem I have with BHO isn't his "treason" or lack of loyalty to a political caucus that was never really his;
its that he's a "pragmatist" with no real experience in the long, drawn-out fights he's tilting at. He still doesn't seem to understand that ever time he offers concessions to the Republicans and those concessions fall through, that the goalposts have just shifted and the new "middle ground" has moved farther right than it was before he made the offer. Its not that he isn't a fighter, so much as its that he doesn't know how to fight. He may be negotiating in good faith, but he's inept enough that he never gets what he seeks, but inevitably something much worse.
However, if he didn't do any negotiating with the republicunts, nothing would get done, as they control congress.
tl;dr for the above shitpost:
Bill C. was a centrist, but a pretty good fighter. He learned how from years and years in corrupt-as-fuck Arkansas politics.
Hillary C. was a liberal, but drifted over toward "bits of left, bits of right, floating in a democratic wonk soup". She learned
from watching Bill.
Obama was and is a centrist, who learned a bit about rhetoric, teaching law school. He learned a bit about political infighting, from a few years as a Chicago pol, but not enough to be of much help.
Before these three? Jimmy Carter. Liberal, but didn't have the heart for mortal kombat
Before him? LBJ, JFK.
Its been awhile since the US has had anything much resembling a Left.
(despite the fact that whosit will probably tell you the Left is still ruining our country....)
I'd like to think there are more options out there, than "do nothing" and:
It is not left versus right. It is statism versus freedom. Left, right or the middle, once a government gains a power, it will keep it, no matter which party is in power. It is accumulative. And War always adds more tools to the statist toolkit faster than anything else, except maybe economic collapse, or threatened collapse.
Now we can have it all, three wars, or more if you count the Noun wars (Poverty, Drugs, Terror), plus economic disruption, monetary problems, looming fiscal disasters.
Is there really any doubt in people's minds that governments only want power, nothing more, nothing less? The people can go to hell in a hand basket as long as the senators have their Cuban cigars and life long pension plans.
OP's article is nice.
Far to the left?
Lets get this straight, this pile of shit now want's to talk about the rule of law???
Violations of Article 2 in relation to libya.
Continuing illegal wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Still committing war crimes.
Human rights abuses at Guantanamo.
Allowing BP off the criminal hook for the deaths of the workers on that rig.
All of that and more and now he wants to talk about the rule of law?
Bradley Manning if responsible for the leaks is a national hero for being the only one who took action to expose criminal behavior.
War Powers Resolution permits 60 days of military operations without Congressional approval. When Libya operations hit the 60 day mark, we have to cease all operations unless Congress gives formal approval. Otherwise, it's backed by the Arab League and the United Nations. Curious where the Article 2 violation is.
Iraq was UN sanctioned, as was Afghanistan. Both were approved by Congress in a very broad piece of legislation that pretty much gave the President carte blanche approval to do any kind of military operation without asking Congress for permission so long as he hollered "TERRORISM!" Subsequent phases of those wars have been conducted with the tacit approval of the governments of Afghanistan and Iraq in the forms of security arrangements between us and them. Yes, approval for Iraq involved lying, deception, and all sorts of blatant unpleasantness on the part of the Bush Admin, but once everyone was tricked into giving approval it became legal.
The war crimes issue, particularly as it relates to senior ranking Bush officials, I'd be very very inclined to agree with you on. The rest, I absolutely agree with you on.
You clearly have not read Article 2 and no the UN did not sanction Iraq or Afghanistan, though the US has tried to convince us otherwise. Sorry try again.
Also try reading the War Powers Act. It was designed as a tool for UNPROVOKED ATTACKS ON THE US. Libya dose not fall under it and the Wap Powers Act was not even invoked by the current War Cranial. Even if he invoked it, it is seen as universally unconstitutional.
Also try reading the War Powers Act. It was designed as a tool for UNPROVOKED ATTACKS ON THE US. Libya dose not fall under it and the Wap Powers Act was not even invoked by the current War Cranial. Even if he invoked it, it is seen as universally unconstitutonal.
The ISAF is mandated by UN resolution 1386
If the US engaged in illegal war, then the UN is complicit in legalizing it after the fact.
This is both correct and incorrect. The US approached the UN for the resolution, this does not negate US law and the constitution though. It sill violates US law. As far as the UN goes, look at the 1990's when the US openly stated they would oust any UN Secretary that opposed their war efforts. The US also has a history of bullying other countries that oppose the US. Remember this:
The only two countries that voted against the 1990 resolution authorizing a war against Iraq were Cuba and Yemen.
But minutes after Yemen said "no," the U.S. ambassador turned to the Yemeni diplomat in the Security Council chamber, and said: "That will be the most expensive vote you would ever cast."
The question you ask is relevant and the answer is yes, the UN is complicit in war crimes and it is not the first time. One only need to go back to Korea. The UN has a history of intervention on the behalf of western powers. There are all sorts of starving people around the world and wars that the UN cares nothing about. Their UN War Crimes Court will never see George Bush or Dick Chainy standing before it. Even though those two are now bragging about how they lied us in to a war of aggression and crimes against peace. The UN court only convicts those that Imperial powers tell it too and the record on that matter is absolute and without exception. Will Gaddfi stand before that court? You bet your ass he will, no matter how many thousands people the US has to kill or laws it has to brake to make it happen. Further to your point there is nothing in the UN charter that says the UN can farm out its responsibility to NATO, in fact just the opposite, all UN resolutions fall under the jurisdiction and review of the UN. But by passing this to NATO they can always say they did not see war crimes because they had no observers. Already the US is in violation of the No Fly Zone by attacking tanks and infantry. When did tanks start fly? The US in a mocking of the UN resolution has stated it is trying to oust the leader of Libya but the UN did not authorize that and the UN will do nothing about it.
NATO is an illegitimate organization that should have been disbanded after the fall of the Soviet Union. But like all Mob organizations it got stronger and more greedy once it rubbed out the competition. NATO existed for the sole reason of countering the Warsaw Pact forces, not as a peace keeping force. It is a perversion of realty people swallow this carp so readily but they do
Yes, Obama's base are progressive/liberals & he dishes out some crumbs once in awhile to appease his base. Sadly, he's a corporate dem & the military machine has him by his balls.
No, by American standards he is far to the left. That is what I'm pointing out. I have no idea where he stands on the spectrum globally, I was just saying that he was relatively to the left here in the states.
We don't have left and right in the US. We have slightly left of center Democrats, slightly right of center Republicans, and Glenn Beck. There isn't a particularly well-known far left politician at the moment because it's an unpopular stance to have, so they tone it down for the elections to not lose the moderate vote.
That lady is absolutely right... and she's hot too.
No he's not, expecially to progressives liberal! Its because the GOP has become extreme far right crazy Obama appears to be far left.
Well, yeah, that's sorta what I was trying to point out. The GOP has shaped the country so that he appears to be leftist in America.
I don't get this. Ideas like asking for tax loopholes for corporations to be closed are almost considered crazy in the US right now, or so the perception seems. But when these types of ideas are polled (remember the support for a public option?) the US populace falls on the ‘left’ on these issues. So to claim these ideas are unpopular simply isn’t true. But, and this is the really peculiar part, policies and media coverage seem to be ignoring this.
I don’t get it.
This countries political machine is limping and slumped to a gimpy deformed right. It looks like a monster. In fact it is gotten confusing when it shouldn't be.
With the way the economy is these days, typically leftist ideas have gotten kneejerk rejections, because a fair number of them by necessity require tax increases. On top of that, the classic idea of an anti-war political stance gets viewed as being anti-American and not supporting our troops etc etc. It's left over from the obsessive hyper-patriotism from 9/11, where if you didn't want to swim over to insert generic arabic country here and personally strangle insert generic arabic people here with your bare hands you were a horrible person.
So yeah, they're popular, or at least not unpopular. But for the politicians themselves, they and the media have managed to convince themselves it's career suicide...so of course when it happens they go absolutely batshit and jump on it like it was just discovered the politician enjoys raping babies.
If Manning is ever charged, can Obama's statement actually help his case?
I mean Obama is already convicting someone before they were charged with anything. A statement by the Predisent saying a man is guilty?
How would he ever get a fair trial after that? Not that there has been anything fair or correct about this whole mess to begin with or that he should go to trial in the first place of course.
Do you mean theoretically or in real life?
I think the fact you responded with tax increase talking point, even though nowhere was it mentioned in my post, sort of illustrates what I was trying to say. Why do people reach for such right-wing-talking points (not saying you are right-wing) even when they simply do not apply???
Yes. Establishing a prejudicial prosecution would indeed help the defence in certain legal scenarios, especially when they try to argue that what Manning did was in the public interest.
Because with the economy the way it is, that's what people are most concerned with: whether or not their taxes will go up.
I want to know what they have on Obama...
It’s mathematically very simple:
1) Figure in the entire # of eligible voters in the U.S.
2) Subtract # voters who didn’t vote in last national and state elections.
3) Subtract # voters who Did vote, but with little to no actual study and research.
4) Subtract # of voters who blindly voted for a “party” on all choices.
5) Subtract # of voters who are mentally challenged via birth defects, low intelligence,
And/or medications that affect judgment and other critical decision making critera.
6) Subtract # of voters who have never voted for local city or county offices or Issues.
Political consultants spend a lot of $ contributions to polling down to the wire who will be voting and likely how they will be voting. These days, easy as pie to know everything about each voter: age, religion, shopping sites and financial health and behaviors, and just about everything from there on in. Voters seem to conveniently forget the above when their voting/not voting consequences hit their city, county, state and/or country.
The ring wing nut jobs last election were very well funded by Kochs and that ilk and there must have been a good chunk of change paid for organization and those skilled in political organizing and getting voters motivated and if need be, literally driven, to the voting booth. Don’t know what more it will take for American citizens to get real, do their damn homework and not just vote, but vote damn smart and responsibly.
Sorry for rant. I’m from Florida and still in shock about the election win of obvious criminal sociopaths now destroying what little’s left here. When they get done with their present plans, there will likely emerge an entirely new label for far far far to the right of right, although IMO there’s already a name for it.
By global standards, we are either center-right or conservative, and that's the Democrats. The Republicans and Libertarians are considered reactionary/far right in that same frame of reference.
It's times like this I wish we were part of the Commonwealth and had a parliamentary democracy instead of this clusterfuck... and that I had a fifth of Patron next to me.
Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!