NationStates Jolt Archive

I've heard several stories lately about Republican Congressmen trying to pass a federal law which would overturn a law which about a third of US states have regarding credit freezes.

From what I've heard, about a third of US states have a law where if you call the credit card company and tell them to freeze your credit then they can't allow any activity on your credit card and no one can get your credit report. The federal bill, if it becomes law, would overturn this protection on the grounds that it could disrupt economic activity.

I've been trying to find a written source for this story, but all I can find is sites explaining what the consumer credit protection act is, or once, a Greek videogame website.

Has anyone else heard anything about an ID credit protection act?

I've heard several stories lately about Republican Congressmen trying to pass a federal law which would overturn a law which about a third of US states have regarding credit freezes.

From what I've heard, about a third of US states have a law where if you call the credit card company and tell them to freeze your credit then they can't allow any activity on your credit card and no one can get your credit report. The federal bill, if it becomes law, would overturn this protection on the grounds that it could disrupt economic activity.

I've been trying to find a written source for this story, but all I can find is sites explaining what the consumer credit protection act is, or once, a Greek videogame website.

Has anyone else heard anything about an ID credit protection act?Other than blog sources? I'm not much help at the moment, but it wouldn't surprise me if this turns up shortly.

This sort of thing certainly wouldn't surprise me. It's a long established fact that the current crop of Republicans only support states' rights when it's convenient. Bastards.

Wait, so it disrupts economic activity to not allow people to use stolen credit cards?

I haven't read the text of the proposed law yet, but it's HR 3997, and you can look at it here (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h109-3997).

There's also an article about it in the San Francisco Chronicle (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/06/18/BUG08JF4HC1.DTL&hw=freeze&sn=001&sc=1000) which says the following about the bill:
The so-called Financial Data Protection Act of 2006 (HR3997) would also weaken state laws requiring disclosure of security breaches. In California, businesses must notify people if their personal info "was, or is reasonably believed to have been, acquired by an unauthorized person."

Under the proposed federal legislation, such disclosure would have to be made only if a company determines that a security breach "is reasonably likely to result in harm or inconvenience" to individual consumers.

"Basically, the company would have to know that you're a victim of identity theft before it needs to tell you that you could be a victim of identity theft," said Ed Mierzwinski, director of the U.S. Public Interest Group's consumer program in Washington.

"This is the worst data bill ever," he said. "It's truly a bad bill."

That is, if you're an ordinary person who cares about privacy. If you happen to own a bank, this is the sort of legislation you've been seeking for years.

"The financial services industry has really been pushing for this," Mierzwinski said. "They don't like that states now can have their attorneys general come after them. HR3997 is a dream for them."

The American Bankers Association was one of nearly a dozen powerhouse financial trade groups that wrote a letter to congressional leaders in November expressing support for HR3997.

"HR 3997 is intended to create a strong national standard for data security and breach notification, ensuring that consumers are well protected from fraud and identity theft," the groups said.

"In light of the continuing wave of legislation in the states creating a patchwork of standards with which our companies must comply, the need for comprehensive federal legislation in this area is vital," they said.

California Attorney General Bill Lockyer told me that HR3997 represents a significant weakening of privacy protections for state citizens.

"This bill would wipe out our strong state laws," he said. "In the process, it would make California consumers more vulnerable to I.D. theft and put them at the mercy of banks and credit card companies when those institutions lose personal identifying information.

"This measure, like so many others in this Congress, is written to protect corporate interests, not consumers," Lockyer said. "And like so many others, it violates federalist principles and long-standing authority held by states."

At this point, I'm considering having a popular vote to fire every god damn person that has been a Congressmen longer than 5 years as well as bar their reelection ever again and having a special election to elect their replacements. And then forcing a popular vote on limitations of lobbyists, as in, they can go fuck themselves and arn't allowed within 100 yards of a Congressman.

Oh yes, and introducing a term limit.

Mob rule looks pretty damn good when you sit there and watch helplessly as "your" elected representatives sit around and play to lobbyists.

At this point, I'm considering having a popular vote to fire every god damn person that has been a Congressmen longer than 5 years as well as bar their reelection ever again and having a special election to elect their replacements. And then forcing a popular vote on limitations of lobbyists, as in, they can go fuck themselves and arn't allowed within 100 yards of a Congressman.

Oh yes, and introducing a term limit.

Mob rule looks pretty damn good when you sit there and watch helplessly as "your" elected representatives sit around and play to lobbyists.
I'm with you on the lobbyists, no question.

If I'm not mistaken (and I could be, willing to be corrected here as long as it doesn't come with those fucking irratating "ums" or smilies...) selling us out to the credit companies last time was a bipartisan effort, so I wouldn't be suprised if this is the same.

I'd write more about this, but it would just be a string of obseinities, and I've only really read the article Nazz posted.

I'm with you on the lobbyists, no question.

I hate lobbyists.

If I'm not mistaken (and I could be, willing to be corrected here as long as it doesn't come with those fucking irratating "ums" or smilies...) selling us out to the credit companies last time was a bipartisan effort, so I wouldn't be suprised if this is the same.

I'd write more about this, but it would just be a string of obseinities, and I've only really read the article Nazz posted.
It was--Joe Biden was one of the co-sponsors of that obscenity of a bankruptcy bill a year or so ago, I believe. The major opposition came from the Democrats, no question, but there were enough who sold us out to get it passed. There was some opposition from inside the Republicans, but not much, and not enough to overcome the defecting Dems.

I hate lobbyists.
I agree. The US would be so much less warlike without them.

I agree. The US would be so much less warlike without them.

I wouldn't say that.

I've heard several stories lately about Republican Congressmen trying to pass a federal law which would overturn a law which about a third of US states have regarding credit freezes.

From what I've heard, about a third of US states have a law where if you call the credit card company and tell them to freeze your credit then they can't allow any activity on your credit card and no one can get your credit report. The federal bill, if it becomes law, would overturn this protection on the grounds that it could disrupt economic activity.

I've been trying to find a written source for this story, but all I can find is sites explaining what the consumer credit protection act is, or once, a Greek videogame website.

Has anyone else heard anything about an ID credit protection act?

http://img206.imageshack.us/img206/4129/communistnazi1tj.gif

pic

I almost fell out of chair laughing at that. Especially the "go back to Canada" part.

I almost fell out of chair laughing at that. Especially the "go back to Canada" part.

that was kinda funny.

I've heard several stories lately about Republican Congressmen trying to pass a federal law which would overturn a law which about a third of US states have regarding credit freezes.

From what I've heard, about a third of US states have a law where if you call the credit card company and tell them to freeze your credit then they can't allow any activity on your credit card and no one can get your credit report. The federal bill, if it becomes law, would overturn this protection on the grounds that it could disrupt economic activity.

I've been trying to find a written source for this story, but all I can find is sites explaining what the consumer credit protection act is, or once, a Greek videogame website.

Has anyone else heard anything about an ID credit protection act?


Interesting. I would like to know more myself. But this anti-credit protection doesn't really get rid of state's rights. I am not a fan of state's rights myself, but this is harmfull to the people.

I wouldn't say that.
No, it's totally true, read Howard Zinn's People's History of the United States. Most wars are encouraged by business lobbyists to governments eager to defend business interests abroad. That's why America's government is relatively warlike. I don't believe that the American people are inherently warmongering.

Next thing you know, they'll be calling for ethics standards and controlled spending! :eek:

No, it's totally true, read Howard Zinn's People's History of the United States. Most wars are encouraged by business lobbyists to governments eager to defend business interests abroad. That's why America's government is relatively warlike. I don't believe that the American people are inherently warmongering.

Well you can believe that if you wish.

Well you can believe that if you wish.


Well, analyse it logically. Who profits from war? (Hint: Not the people being bombed.) With that in mind: in the best interest of whom would it be to incite war? After all, the government is paying for it.

At this point, I'm considering having a popular vote to fire every god damn person that has been a Congressmen longer than 5 years as well as bar their reelection ever again and having a special election to elect their replacements. And then forcing a popular vote on limitations of lobbyists, as in, they can go fuck themselves and arn't allowed within 100 yards of a Congressman.

Oh yes, and introducing a term limit.

Mob rule looks pretty damn good when you sit there and watch helplessly as "your" elected representatives sit around and play to lobbyists.


I am up for sort of revolution against this gov't ;)

Well you can believe that if you wish.
Well think of who benefits most from non-defensive wars. It's not the soldiers, the enemy country, and often not the government (i.e. taxpayers) who have a huge bill to foot.

Well, analyse it logically. Who profits from war? (Hint: Not the people being bombed.) With that in mind: in the best interest of whom would it be to incite war? After all, the government is paying for it.

Well Japan incited World War II in the pacific. Germany incited World War II in Europe. Austria-Hungry incited World War I. US literally started the Spanish-American War (thanks to the Press), The South started the Civil War, Britain instigated 1812, and then there's the revolutionary war......

What do some of these wars have in common? They were started by the losing side in the war.

Well Japan incited World War II in the pacific. Germany incited World War II in Europe. Austria-Hungry incited World War I. US literally started the Spanish-American War (thanks to the Press), The South started the Civil War, Britain instigated 1812, and then there's the revolutionary war......

What do some of these wars have in common? They were started by the losing side in the war.


But before the US was in ww2 it was making profits off the war, selling weapons and all..Lets not forget Desert Storm 1 and 2 was for profit as well.

But before the US was in ww2 it was making profits off the war, selling weapons and all..Lets not forget Desert Storm 1 and 2 was for profit as well.

Desert Storm 1 happened because Hussein invaded Kuwait and would not leave it. They defied the UN and he was expelled from Kuwait by a COALITION of military forces.

In DS 2, he was ousted from power by another COALITION of forces because Hussein was again defying the United Nations Security Council Resolutions.

Now I'm waiting for Conreliu to say "don't forget Poland." Anyone else?

Well Japan incited World War II in the pacific. Germany incited World War II in Europe. Austria-Hungry incited World War I.

In WWII the US was fortunate enough to have a president who saw a bit beyond lobbyists, but business interests were at work. It was better for American business to be able to sell to a deNazified Europe.

US literally started the Spanish-American War (thanks to the Press)
United Fruit Company, anyone?

The South started the Civil War
With all the encouragement from the elite slave-owning minorty.

Desert Storm 1 happened because Hussein invaded Kuwait and would not leave it. They defied the UN and he was expelled from Kuwait by a COALITION of military forces.

In DS 2, he was ousted from power by another COALITION of forces because Hussein was again defying the United Nations Security Council Resolutions.


But if Hussein was such a threat in DS1, why didn't we oust him then? instead we just stopped after he left the oil fields.

In WWII the US was fortunate enough to have a president who saw a bit beyond lobbyists, but business interests were at work. It was better for American business to be able to sell to a deNazified Europe.

And yet, the US was "neutral" in Europe till Nazi Germany declared war on December 10th, 1941.

With all the encouragement from the elite slave-owning minorty.

Actually, no not really.

But if Hussein was such a threat in DS1, why didn't we oust him then? instead we just stopped after he left the oil fields.

Because of the type of coalition we had in DS 1.

Or better yet Corneliu, if hussein was such a threat in the middle east, why didn't we give as much as a rat's ass, and gave him wmds to wage war with Iran? But yet, when he invades the Kuwati Oil Fields, he becomes the EBUL
D1ctat0r!!!!111!!! UBER EBUL!!!

Or better yet Corneliu, if hussein was such a threat in the middle east, why didn't we give as much as a rat's ass, and gave him wmds to wage war with Iran? But yet, when he invades the Kuwati Oil Fields, he becomes the EBUL
D1ctat0r!!!!111!!! UBER EBUL!!!

ya know....there is a chart in one of the very old threads that shows that we were miniscule in that regards. And I mean miniscual.

Also, learn to spell. That type of writing makes you look like an unintelligent human being.

ya know....there is a chart in one of the very old threads that shows that we were miniscule in that regards. And I mean miniscual.

Also, learn to spell. That type of writing makes you look like an unintelligent human being.

Its not very Christian of you to insult others.

And yet, the US was "neutral" in Europe till Nazi Germany declared war on December 10th, 1941.
FDR wanted to get into the war as early as possible. It just took him almost til 1942 to convince everyone else.

Actually, no not really.
You mean slavery wasn't an important reason for the US Civil war?

Its not very Christian of you to insult others.

I didn't insult. It does make you look unintelligent. If I was going to insult you, I would've called you a dumbass for typing like that but I didn't. I kept it clean.

FDR wanted to get into the war as early as possible. It just took him almost til 1942 to convince everyone else.

He didn't have to convince anyone because everyone was pissed after pearl harbor. Even then, our declaration of war was only on Japan and not on the entire axis alliance.

You mean slavery wasn't an important reason for the US Civil war?

It was a reason.

Its not very Christian of you to insult others.
Corneliu's credibility as a Christian is not up for debate here! I know this thread has been hijacked already but don't do so again!

He didn't have to convince anyone because everyone was pissed after pearl harbor. Even then, our declaration of war was only on Japan and not on the entire axis alliance.
Fortunately for FDR, Hitler was stupid enough to declare war on the USA all on his own.

It was a reason.
Yes, it was a reason, thus, slave-owners encouraged their state governments to fight to defend their right to own slaves. Simple enough really.

Well Japan incited World War II in the pacific. Germany incited World War II in Europe. Austria-Hungry incited World War I. US literally started the Spanish-American War (thanks to the Press), The South started the Civil War, Britain instigated 1812, and then there's the revolutionary war......

What do some of these wars have in common? They were started by the losing side in the war.


Rome incited wars; Napoleon incited wars; The US won the Revolution; The Republic of Texas beat Mexico...


Not all wars were started by the losers.


Edit: In fact, here's a great example: Texas. Why was the war started? Land, perhaps? Financial gain?

Rome incited wars; Napoleon incited wars; The US won the Revolution; The Republic of Texas beat Mexico...


Not all wars were started by the losers.

Did you notice I didn't say who started the revolution? No one really knows who really started that war. :P

Fortunately for FDR, Hitler was stupid enough to declare war on the USA all on his own.

That was pretty stupid of him to do that. Him and the Fascist Italian leader as well.

Yes, it was a reason, thus, slave-owners encouraged their state governments to fight to defend their right to own slaves. Simple enough really.

The shots at fort sumter were fired because South Carolina wanted the fort. Problem was it started the War between the States.

Did you notice I didn't say who started the revolution? No one really knows who really started that war. :P


Who was fightifng for independence from whom? :rolleyes:

That was pretty stupid of him to do that. Him and the Fascist Italian leader as well.



The shots at fort sumter were fired because South Carolina wanted the fort. Problem was it started the War between the States.


As the first state to secede, South Carolina wanted the fort, as a tactical manoeuvre.

Who was fightifng for independence from whom? :rolleyes:

Just because there was war for independence doesn't mean the one fighting for it started it.

Incase you haven't noticed, no one knows who fired the first shot. For all we know, it could've been a hunter shooting at his target that started the war.

As the first state to secede, South Carolina wanted the fort, as a tactical manoeuvre.

You are indeed correct but instead, it sparked the bloodiest war on American soil.

Just because there was war for independence doesn't mean the one fighting for it started it.

Incase you haven't noticed, no one knows who fired the first shot. For all we know, it could've been a hunter shooting at his target that started the war.


I look at it as America's war, since they were the ones who were attempting to change the status quo.

I look at it as America's war, since they were the ones who were attempting to change the status quo.

If anything, I blame Britain for starting it because if it weren't for their illegal taxes, we wouldn't have had to launch the tax revolt that ended with American independence :D

Not bad for a minority movement in America :D

If anything, I blame Britain for starting it because if it weren't for their illegal taxes, we wouldn't have had to launch the tax revolt that ended with American independence :D

Not bad for a minority movement in America :D



Since America is such a dickhead abroad, whose fault would it be for attacking us? Just clearing this up.

If anything, I blame Britain for starting it because if it weren't for their illegal taxes, we wouldn't have had to launch the tax revolt that ended with American independence
Britain provoked it, but Americans started the war itself. And that's nothing to be ashamed of. It was a justified war. Britain was stealing Americans' resources and depriving them of the right to self-determination.

Britain provoked it, but Americans started the war itself. And that's nothing to be ashamed of. It was a justified war. Britain was stealing Americans' resources and depriving them of the right to self-determination.

How did we start it? Did we fire the first shot?

Since America is such a dickhead abroad, whose fault would it be for attacking us? Just clearing this up.

:confused:

:confused:

I want to see if your viewpoint is consistent.

I want to see if your viewpoint is consistent.

Which attack are you talking about?

Which attack are you talking about?

You're completely missing the question. I am speaking of the present, as in now. Indicitive of the current foreign policy of the United States, whose war/ fault would it have been if a foreign entity were to attack us, based upon how we treated them?

Well Japan incited World War II in the pacific. Germany incited World War II in Europe. Austria-Hungry incited World War I. US literally started the Spanish-American War (thanks to the Press), The South started the Civil War, Britain instigated 1812, and then there's the revolutionary war......

What do some of these wars have in common? They were started by the losing side in the war.

Well... history is written by the victors. I mean, jeez, have you looked at the difference in how we look at Hitler and his attempted extermination of a people and the settlers of the US and their successful termination of a people. We celebrate people like Davey Crocket and Columbus. When Columbus arrived in the new world he wrote in his journal how kind the Indians were who greeted him and what wonderful slaves they would make.

You're completely missing the question. I am speaking of the present, as in now. Indicitive of the current foreign policy of the United States, whose war/ fault would it have been if a foreign entity were to attack us, based upon how we treated them?

Well it would all depend on the circumstances that you are describing. Right now, you are using so broad a brush that I would blame the nation that attacked us unless you give me specifics. Bad foreign policy is not an excuse to attack another nation.

Well it would all depend on the circumstances that you are describing. Right now, you are using so broad a brush that I would blame the nation that attacked us unless you give me specifics. Bad foreign policy is not an excuse to attack another nation.


How broad is the brush, truly? Let me restate:

A foreign entity attacks the United States, based upon its malignant, at best, foreign ventures. Whose fault/ war would it have been?

The United States, for provoking it, or, said foreign entity for retaliating?

Desert Storm 1 happened because Hussein invaded Kuwait and would not leave it. They defied the UN and he was expelled from Kuwait by a COALITION of military forces.

In DS 2, he was ousted from power by another COALITION of forces because Hussein was again defying the United Nations Security Council Resolutions.

That's a bit revisionist. How does a 'coalition' in violation of the UN resolutions oust a leader for violation of UN resolutions? Good war or bad war, DS2 is and always will be a war WE started.

Well... history is written by the victors. I mean, jeez, have you looked at the difference in how we look at Hitler and his attempted extermination of a people and the settlers of the US and their successful termination of a people. We celebrate people like Davey Crocket and Columbus. When Columbus arrived in the new world he wrote in his journal how kind the Indians were who greeted him and what wonderful slaves they would make.

Hence why I always look at the history from the losing side. What was in it for them. What were they trying to achieve, how did they lose? I wish there was more about that out there. :(

That's a bit revisionist. How does a 'coalition' in violation of the UN resolutions oust a leader for violation of UN resolutions? Good war or bad war, DS2 is and always will be a war WE started.

From whose side? From the Iraqi side, I'll agree with you but then again....enforcing UN resolutions is the UN duty. Since we are part of the UN, we enforced the resolutions.

There are always 2 sides to any debate. Right or wrong, there will be debate about for and against it.

How broad is the brush, truly? Let me restate:

A foreign entity attacks the United States, based upon its malignant, at best, foreign ventures. Whose fault/ war would it have been?

The United States, for provoking it, or, said foreign entity for retaliating?

No. As I said, bad foreign policy is no excuse to attack another nation. I said that already. Now if they attacked us in defense of another nation that was attacked by us then I would blame us for it.

If anything, I blame Britain for starting it because if it weren't for their illegal taxes, we wouldn't have had to launch the tax revolt that ended with American independence :D

Not bad for a minority movement in America :D

Again, revisionist. The tax revolt was an uprising. Justified or not, we started the war. If we word it right we can make every war someone else's fault. "Yes, we were the ones who fired the first shot or were the aggressors, but we had reasons I like and thus it wasn't our fault."

From whose side? From the Iraqi side, I'll agree with you but then again....enforcing UN resolutions is the UN duty. Since we are part of the UN, we enforced the resolutions.

There are always 2 sides to any debate. Right or wrong, there will be debate about for and against it.


Wasn't Iraq part of the Un at the time too?

Again, revisionist. The tax revolt was an uprising. Justified or not, we started the war. If we word it right we can make every war someone else's fault. "Yes, we were the ones who fired the first shot or were the aggressors, but we had reasons I like and thus it wasn't our fault."

Once again, did we fire the first shot or did Britian fire the first shot? Who fired the first shot?

Wasn't Iraw part of the Un at the time too?

Iraq yes and because they are part of the UN they had the obligation to follow through on their promises to the UN. THey didn't.

Iraq yes and because they are part of the UN they had the obligation to follow through on their promises to the UN. THey didn't.


And how many times has the United Stated failed to follow through with suggestions from the UN?

From whose side? From the Iraqi side, I'll agree with you but then again....enforcing UN resolutions is the UN duty. Since we are part of the UN, we enforced the resolutions.

There are always 2 sides to any debate. Right or wrong, there will be debate about for and against it.

You can't enforce UN resolutions against the will of the UN. We did NOT have UN support. To suggest we did it in the interest of the UN is just silly.

A part of the UN does not act independent of the UN and against the will of the UN and claim to be acting on behalf of the UN. There is nothing logical about such a claim.

The US was acting on behalf of the US and the other members of the coalition. Whatever our reasons, you can't defy the UN and claim to be doing so out of respect for their legislation. This is another case of you liked the people doing it so you have to claim they were in the right.

Personally, I believe the UN and some members were behaving quite corruptly toward Iraq, much like could be said about the Sudan and other travesties. However, to act in defiance of the UN is exactly that, a defiance. You try to make it like we were acting in support of the UN. Not only did the UN not ask for said support, but they expressly forbade it.

And how many times has the United Stated failed to follow through with suggestions from the UN?

Suggestions are 1 thing. UNSC Resolutions are totally different.

Once again, did we fire the first shot or did Britian fire the first shot? Who fired the first shot?

We revolted. It doesn't matter who fired the first shot. We were in violation of the law and GB had the right to enforce their laws on their soil. A revolt by its very nature MUST be started by the revolutionaries regardless of how justified it is. You can't actually claim that the government being revolted against actually started a revolution. It doesn't make any sense.

However, if you want to make this about who fired the first shot, who fired the first shot in DS2?

Suggestions are 1 thing. UNSC Resolutions are totally different.


You know what, I had a point, but now I forgot it. When I think of it,I'll be back.

Iraq yes and because they are part of the UN they had the obligation to follow through on their promises to the UN. THey didn't.

So if we don't follow a UN resolution would you support France creating a coalition and attacking the US even though the UN asked them not to? I suspect you wouldn't.

enforcing UN resolutions is the UN duty.

So I'm a part of the US. If a man breaks the law and the goverment either chooses not pursue punishment or pardons him from punishment, am I somehow justified to behave as a vigilante?

Many claim GWB is in violation of the US Constitution. Clinton too. Can we start a seige on the White House? How can you not see that you are totally skewing the facts because you want them to support you.

Make whatever claim you want, but claiming we are permitted to violate UN directives because Iraq violated UN directives first, and all the while claiming that we are doing it on behalf of the UN that is telling us not to do so, is quite simply illogical.

We revolted. It doesn't matter who fired the first shot. We were in violation of the law and GB had the right to enforce their laws on their soil. A revolt by its very nature MUST be started by the revolutionaries regardless of how justified it is. You can't actually claim that the government being revolted against actually started a revolution. It doesn't make any sense.

However, if you want to make this about who fired the first shot, who fired the first shot in DS2?

Rather than focus on who started the Revolutionary War, why don't you focus on actions that have more pertinance to the subject matter. Despite the fact that we've only declared war five times in our nation's history, we've fought an average of one military action per year. What exactly were countries like Nicaraugua, El Salvador, Venezuela, Panama, Indonesia, Afghanistan (circa 1972), Iran, Angola, Zaire, Laos, Cambodia, and the Seychelles doing to incur our military or CIA wrath? In most of the cases, the clearest reason why we fought is because we had vested economic interests in those countries. This is especially true of the Latin American nations.

We revolted. It doesn't matter who fired the first shot. We were in violation of the law and GB had the right to enforce their laws on their soil. A revolt by its very nature MUST be started by the revolutionaries regardless of how justified it is. You can't actually claim that the government being revolted against actually started a revolution. It doesn't make any sense.

However, if you want to make this about who fired the first shot, who fired the first shot in DS2?

When did DS1 end?

ya know....there is a chart in one of the very old threads that shows that we were miniscule in that regards. And I mean miniscual.

Also, learn to spell. That type of writing makes you look like an unintelligent human being.
I'm surprised no one else mentioned this--and I checked the following three pages to make sure.


As to the rest of your argument in those pages, looking at wars in terms of who started them by shooting first is very playground. It neglects the entire background of the buildups to those wars. You mentioned that the taxation issue was part of the buildup to the Revolutionary War--it was businessmen who didn't like those taxes, and who pressured for revolution. A big part of the anger between North and South had to do with the economic fighting between southern agriculture and northern industry. World War I was started because of the pressure between the major European powers over empire building--the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand was just the spark that set it off. World War II was largely over unresolved tensions from World War I.

Deep Kimchi and I talked about this briefly in another thread, and we agreed--wars are almost always over control of resources. All the rest is window dressing.

So I'm a part of the US. If a man breaks the law and the goverment either chooses not pursue punishment or pardons him from punishment, am I somehow justified to behave as a vigilante?

No you are not.

Many claim GWB is in violation of the US Constitution. Clinton too. Can we start a seige on the White House? How can you not see that you are totally skewing the facts because you want them to support you.

Not skewing any facts. Its called devils advocate with different scenerios. I'm asking questions that are simple to answer.

Make whatever claim you want, but claiming we are permitted to violate UN directives because Iraq violated UN directives first, and all the while claiming that we are doing it on behalf of the UN that is telling us not to do so, is quite simply illogical.

Because Iraq violated Security Council Resolutions, we were legal to go in since doing so, violated the cease-fire.

When did DS1 end?

Ah, yes, the desperation argument. Let's imply that it was just a continuation of DS1. However, you sort of shoot yourself in the foot, because you call it DS2. It's not called the DS1 Expansion pack, now with new units on both sides and a special civil war upgrade.

I'll be honest. I supported the war. I think we could have used politics to get UN support as well. But I'm not going to pretend it was not aggressive on our part. It was.

Deep Kimchi and I talked about this briefly in another thread, and we agreed--wars are almost always over control of resources. All the rest is window dressing.

This I can agree with.

Ah, yes, the desperation argument. Let's imply that it was just a continuation of DS1. However, you sort of shoot yourself in the foot, because you call it DS2. It's not called the DS1 Expansion pack, now with new units on both sides and a special civil war upgrade.

I call it DS2 because everyone else does and it makes it easier to differentiate between the two but from an international legal position, they are technically the same war since the 1st war never truly ended.

This I can agree with.
And who gets the primary benefits of those resources that wars are fought over? It's not the guys doing the fighting, that's for sure. Who's getting the greatest benefit from the current Iraq debacle? It's not the soldiers. It's not the middle class in the US. It sure as hell isn't the Iraqis right now.

It's Halliburton and Bechtel, and if the US manages to get a friendly government set up, it'll be Exxon/Mobil and Chevron and a host of other US energy companies. So why is this war being fought again? For whose benefit?

No you are not.

Yes, because it is for the governing body, in this case the UN, to decide what happens when people violate the rules of that governing body. I'm glad we agree.

Not skewing any facts. Its called devils advocate with different scenerios. I'm asking questions that are simple to answer.

It's not being the devil's advocate when you are saying what you actually believe.

Because Iraq violated Security Council Resolutions, we were legal to go in since doing so, violated the cease-fire.

Not according to the UN which is who you claim is the controlling force here. According to them they were in compliance and we had no right to enforce anything.

The first Gulf War was a UN action and as such it was for the UN as a governing body to determine whether or not to continue hostilities.

*snip*

Though we have hijacked the thread, I'm going to say that we can bicker about this all we want so this is my last departing shot.

Under international law, you violate a cease-fire, war picks up where it left off. Hussein violated that cease-fire when he didn't cooperate with the United Nations. By law, we can go back in and take care of business.

I leave you all in peace.

I call it DS2 because everyone else does and it makes it easier to differentiate between the two but from an international legal position, they are technically the same war since the 1st war never truly ended.

It didn't? Then did Bush Sr. lie when he said it had?

EDIT: Interestingly, why did Bush Jr. have to ask for permission for military force if this was the same war? Hmmm... perhaps because it wasn't. I have little respect or tolerance for revisionist history. History should be based on what ACTUALLY happened, not what we wish happened.

Though we have hijacked the thread, I'm going to say that we can bicker about this all we want so this is my last departing shot.

Under international law, you violate a cease-fire, war picks up where it left off. Hussein violated that cease-fire when he didn't cooperate with the United Nations. By law, we can go back in and take care of business.

I leave you all in peace.

It is only for the parties involved, the UN and Iraq to make such decisions. We cannot go in against the will of the UN and claim it is on behalf of the UN. According to the UN, Iraq was compliant. To suggest that we are in a better position to decide what actions should be taken on behalf of the UN than the UN itself is absurd and about as arrogant as everyone claims we are.

It didn't? Then did Bush Sr. lie when he said it had?
No more than Dubya did when he gave that speech under the Mission Accomplished banner. ;)

No more than Dubya did when he gave that speech under the Mission Accomplished banner. ;)

Well, Bush Sr. didn't lie. According to the official US government site and their links the first Gulf War ended in 1991.

http://firstgovsearch.gov/search?input-form=simple-firstgov&v%3Asources=firstgov-search-select&v%3Aproject=firstgov&query=Persian+Gulf+War+Desert+Storm

Look at the time frame on the links. Even the government considers it a new war. Actually, is it even declared yet?

Well, Bush Sr. didn't lie. According to the official US government site and their links the first Gulf War ended in 1991.

http://firstgovsearch.gov/search?input-form=simple-firstgov&v%3Asources=firstgov-search-select&v%3Aproject=firstgov&query=Persian+Gulf+War+Desert+Storm

Look at the time frame on the links. Even the government considers it a new war. Actually, is it even declared yet?I know. I was being a smart ass and didn't think it through first.

Congress obviously considered it a new action since they passed an authorization for it, but in the days leading up to that vote, there was some noise, either from "Shooter" Cheney or from the right-wing noise machine, that even if Congress didn't pass it, they had authorization from the violation of the cease-fire agreement. But it's obvious they wanted the authorization from Congress because they were afraid the other justification wouldn't fly.

I know. I was being a smart ass and didn't think it through first.

Congress obviously considered it a new action since they passed an authorization for it, but in the days leading up to that vote, there was some noise, either from "Shooter" Cheney or from the right-wing noise machine, that even if Congress didn't pass it, they had authorization from the violation of the cease-fire agreement. But it's obvious they wanted the authorization from Congress because they were afraid the other justification wouldn't fly.

It wouldn't fly. They were going against the UN council. Since the original cease-fire and the resulting resolutions are between the UN and Iraq, the President would have very much been putting himself at risk by doing so. Only extreme right-wingers who treat Bush like Tinkerbell and act like Bush will fade away and die if they don't believe in him really, really hard can pretend like a violation to a UN resolution, not an agreement with the US, which is not violated according to the parties assigned to assessing such a thing by the UN, is an action that is justified by our involvement in the previous conflict.

There were justifications for war with Iraq. Hussein was a bad man. He was a dangerous man. I don't deny these things in any way, and personally I supported a conflict in Iraq. However, it should have been handled differently. UN support should have been garnered. We should have leveraged more influence to garner that support.

It amazes me that some people will just charge forward and literally act as if we had UN support for the actions. Because in absense of UN support, we simply cannot claim we were acting on behalf of the UN. It's a complete denial of reality.

EDIT: I wasn't correcting you. I knew you were being a smartass and I giggled. I was just furthering my point using the momentum you helped maintain.

I want to see if your viewpoint is consistent.
I'm reasonably certain you simply don't have that kind of time .. ;)

there is a Maneuver named after Corny, after all ...

If I'm not mistaken (and I could be, willing to be corrected here as long as it doesn't come with those fucking irratating "ums" or smilies...) selling us out to the credit companies last time was a bipartisan effort, so I wouldn't be suprised if this is the same.

Yes. It was bipartisan.

Every single republican without a single dissenter, and 5 democrats.

It wouldn't fly. They were going against the UN council. Since the original cease-fire and the resulting resolutions are between the UN and Iraq, the President would have very much been putting himself at risk by doing so. Only extreme right-wingers who treat Bush like Tinkerbell and act like Bush will fade away and die if they don't believe in him really, really hard can pretend like a violation to a UN resolution, not an agreement with the US, which is not violated according to the parties assigned to assessing such a thing by the UN, is an action that is justified by our involvement in the previous conflict.

There were justifications for war with Iraq. Hussein was a bad man. He was a dangerous man. I don't deny these things in any way, and personally I supported a conflict in Iraq. However, it should have been handled differently. UN support should have been garnered. We should have leveraged more influence to garner that support.

It amazes me that some people will just charge forward and literally act as if we had UN support for the actions. Because in absense of UN support, we simply cannot claim we were acting on behalf of the UN. It's a complete denial of reality.

EDIT: I wasn't correcting you. I knew you were being a smartass and I giggled. I was just furthering my point using the momentum you helped maintain.
It was either in the Downing Street Memos or the Butler Report where it pointed out that they KNEW the populace wouldn't fall for it.

Well you can believe that if you wish.

Well, since you set such great store in what troops say why don't you read US Marine Corp Major General Smedley Butler's book "War is a Racket." (http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?z=y&isbn=0922915865&itm=1) It will tell you the exact same thing about corporate warmongers.

Interesting. I would like to know more myself. But this anti-credit protection doesn't really get rid of state's rights. I am not a fan of state's rights myself, but this is harmfull to the people.

I say that it tramples states' rights because the purpose of the law is to overturn state laws offering their citizens credit protection. It's a bit like how the "Clear Skies" Initiative actually forced some states to allow MORE pollution than they already did.

Desert Storm 1 happened because Hussein invaded Kuwait and would not leave it. They defied the UN and he was expelled from Kuwait by a COALITION of military forces.

In DS 2, he was ousted from power by another COALITION of forces because Hussein was again defying the United Nations Security Council Resolutions.

Our ambassador told Hussein that "we take no position on inter-arab conflicts." If we had just told him "don't do that," he wouldn't have because he knew how much he depended on us. Remember, up until that happened he thought he was our best friend. Just like Noriega.

And yet, the US was "neutral" in Europe till Nazi Germany declared war on December 10th, 1941.

Note the quotes you dropped around that. We were neutral the way China is Communist. We gave Britain warships and weapons, and sold them for a song. Arming one side for free and refusing to sell weapons or supplies to the other is not neutrality.

Actually, no not really.

The slave owners of the south didn't encourage a fight against the North that threatened to undermine their economic system? Riiiiight.

He didn't have to convince anyone because everyone was pissed after pearl harbor. Even then, our declaration of war was only on Japan and not on the entire axis alliance.

We cut off oil supplies to Japan in a deliberate effort to indicate our animosity. We also sabotaged the peace talks with Japan by appointing the 1940's equivalent of John Bolton to take charge of them. Pearl Harbor was not an accident on our part. Not that we knew that was exactly what was going to happen, but "we" (Roosevelt) wanted to provoke them.

We cut off oil supplies to Japan in a deliberate effort to indicate our animosity. We also sabotaged the peace talks with Japan by appointing the 1940's equivalent of John Bolton to take charge of them. Pearl Harbor was not an accident on our part. Not that we knew that was exactly what was going to happen, but "we" (Roosevelt) wanted to provoke them.
Plus, Roosevelt knew that a declaration against Japan would mean Germany would declare on us--Corneliu's inference that we would have fought one but not the other shows an ignorance of the realities at the time.

I haven't read the text of the proposed law yet, but it's HR 3997, and you can look at it here (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h109-3997).

There's also an article about it in the San Francisco Chronicle (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/06/18/BUG08JF4HC1.DTL&hw=freeze&sn=001&sc=1000) which says the following about the bill:

Thanks. I gave up on this thread when I saw that it had fallen to page 3 with no response. Nice to see someone bring it back.

Thanks. I gave up on this thread when I saw that it had fallen to page 3 with no response. Nice to see someone bring it back.http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11189067&postcount=2

The big issue is that Republicans don't care about people, and I don't how they get elected.

Democrats care about people and want to give us free stuff by simply requiring that the rich pay their fair share of profits back to society. In fact, all profits should immediately go to the government. All profit is taken from workers, so to give it to the rich is so wrong.

But if Hussein was such a threat in DS1, why didn't we oust him then? instead we just stopped after he left the oil fields.
We were worried about what the Un would say.

Note the quotes you dropped around that. We were neutral the way China is Communist. We gave Britain warships and weapons, and sold them for a song. Arming one side for free and refusing to sell weapons or supplies to the other is not neutrality.

Thank you. Why do you think I put Neutral in quotes. Anyone who believes were were neutral is only kidding themselves.

The slave owners of the south didn't encourage a fight against the North that threatened to undermine their economic system? Riiiiight.

Did I say they didn't? No. I believe what I said was that it was A REASON!

Plus, Roosevelt knew that a declaration against Japan would mean Germany would declare on us--Corneliu's inference that we would have fought one but not the other shows an ignorance of the realities at the time.

Then why did Germany wait for 3 days before declaring war? Pearl Harbor even caught Hitler off guard.

Then why did Germany wait for 3 days before declaring war? Pearl Harbor even caught Hitler off guard.
Of course Pearl Harbor caught Hitler off guard--it was a surprise attack. It's not like the Japanese and German High Commands were working in concert, after all. 3 days is practically immediate when it comes to declaring war and such, and besides, the US had been increasingly moving toward war with Germany anyway. The ties with Britain were just too strong to forestall it forever.

Of course Pearl Harbor caught Hitler off guard--it was a surprise attack. It's not like the Japanese and German High Commands were working in concert, after all. 3 days is practically immediate when it comes to declaring war and such, and besides, the US had been increasingly moving toward war with Germany anyway. The ties with Britain were just too strong to forestall it forever.

That I will agree with.

The big issue is that Republicans don't care about people, and I don't how they get elected.

Democrats care about people and want to give us free stuff by simply requiring that the rich pay their fair share of profits back to society. In fact, all profits should immediately go to the government. All profit is taken from workers, so to give it to the rich is so wrong.

Because most people don't understand what the parties actually represent. They just believe the lies that they like the most 2 weeks before election time.

e.g. Karl Rove recently gave a speech where he said that "Democrats fall back on that party's old pattern of cutting and running." Really? Roosevelt waged WWII until the day he died, against the wishes of the Republicans. Truman sacrificed his political career fighting Korea. LBJ was only too eager to follow up on Eisenhower's foot in the door in Vietnam, and left office rather than pull out.

Up until Reagan Republicans criticized Democrats as "the War Party" and now Rove can reasonably expect his listening audience to listen and say "yup, those Dems are a bunch of pacifists, especially that Murtha guy from the Marines."

During the last Bush race, someone even told me that a point in Bush's favor was that he was pro "civil union," for gays. I told him that he only said that a week before the election to steal some last minute progressive votes and was met with a "cited source" on Bush's pro-gay union stance. It was dated a week before the election. :rolleyes:

Republicans have betrayed their conservative base. I'm sick of 'em. Democrats too. I'd sooner see the green party in power.

People keep talking about their appeasement of the Right. I'm on the freakin' Right, and they haven't done a dang thing right.

Traitors...:mad:

Reagan is the Jesus of the current Republican party, and until we manage to convince everyone that he was just a fucking actor who became president instead of the American messiah, it will be shoved down our throat.

Reagan is the Jesus of the current Republican party, and until we manage to convince everyone that he was just a fucking actor who became president instead of the American messiah, it will be shoved down our throat.
The reason that will never happen is because Reagan was the first to give the fundies a seat at the table. Sure, they didn't get much in return, and he wasn't one of them, but he recognized them as an electoral force, and for that, they will always revere him. He has become Saint Ronnie to them.

Reagan is the Jesus of the current Republican party, and until we manage to convince everyone that he was just a fucking actor who became president instead of the American messiah, it will be shoved down our throat.

Both Reagan and Jesus were fundies.