EPTThe terrorists were in Afghanistan and we knew that was exactly where we were and we knew they definitely weren't in Iraq because Saddam was running a brutal secular dictatorship that actively repressed Islamic extremism. The 9/11 terrorist war was Afghanistan, the WMD war was Iraq. There wasn't actually ever a link between them.
Is the USA heading towards "Big Brother" Govt? - Page 13
| Forum Index > General Forum |
KwarK
United States41959 Posts
The terrorists were in Afghanistan and we knew that was exactly where we were and we knew they definitely weren't in Iraq because Saddam was running a brutal secular dictatorship that actively repressed Islamic extremism. The 9/11 terrorist war was Afghanistan, the WMD war was Iraq. There wasn't actually ever a link between them. | ||
|
TerribleNoobling
Azerbaijan179 Posts
| ||
|
KwarK
United States41959 Posts
| ||
|
NoobSkills
United States1595 Posts
On February 06 2013 23:08 KwarK wrote: NoobSkills is currently in the process of justifying Iraq because of 9/11. We'll get to the morality of Afghanistan once he finds it on a map. You can't kill Al-Qaeda in Iraq if they weren't there right? Our troops landed there and did nothing during these years. User was temp banned for ruining the topic with consistently incredible levels of ignorance about basic, basic things. In this particular case failing to notice the posts above which explained that Al Qaeda in Iraq was founded after the US invasion and still believing in 2013!!! that we invaded Iraq to get the Taliban. | ||
|
SpeaKEaSY
United States1070 Posts
1) They were very vocal against our actions in Iraq while Bush was president, but strangely silent or dismissive when they hear about what Obama is doing 2) They are very vocal against what Obama is doing, but were strangely silent or supportive of what Bush did as president. I must say, at least this guy is consistent, even if he is consistently on the wrong side lol | ||
|
semantics
10040 Posts
On February 06 2013 18:43 scFoX wrote: The NSA have been monitoring European communications for years and for some reason many Americans are fine with it. Playing Devil's advocate, what would be the difference if the USA treats its citizens the same as they treat their allies (and enemies)? In my opinion, this is a huge breach of privacy and individual liberties, but it hardly qualifies as totalitarianism. This also has little to do with the "small" or "big" state controversy, as I see it, since the use of such methods should be against international law. Not that we can do anything about it. The NSA does monitors traffic going out and into the country by tapping into the transatlantic/pacific cables. But no one cares because unless your a terrorist you're not special, no one is creeping on your traffic, anyways any random admin or whoever is routing your Internet traffic to it's destination could easily tap it as well. Although soldiers have their communications actually listened to by other soldiers which is tons creepier then just a machine that chucks away at key phrases or activity and suggests you may be a concern to someone else. But that comes with the job when you're active rights change. On February 06 2013 21:23 Severedevil wrote: In the US depending on state you have the right to piracy in just about any enclosed space house car room curtain etc. It comes from the ideas of expected privacy if most people expect some level of privacy in an area it actually has to be respected, and then that falls into what kind of privacy is expected and where that line is drawn, such as privacy in a changing room/bathroom vs a living room or street. And then privacy usually falls into recording of video or audio, audio is very tricky more often then recording audio without the consent(wiretapping laws) of all parities involved is illegal but video can be quite legal most of the time.Of course you don't have a right to privacy in the street. However, I'd suggest there's a difference between watching locations with recording devices, and cross-comparing many different recording devices to follow a person throughout their day. | ||
|
cydial
United States750 Posts
On February 05 2013 21:42 TotalNightmare wrote: Well at the moment the USA seem like the only country where 1984 may actually ever happen, possibly even be on the way. While I deem it possible I could not say under any circumstances how high/low the chances of that actually ever happening are, never having been to the states. PS: I would find it hilarious if the US became a dictatorship though, simply due to the fact that some people are so sure that the second amendment will protect them from just that... Uhh, you clearly have never heard of North Korea. It's been a 1984 state since the 60s. | ||
|
cydial
United States750 Posts
On February 06 2013 21:42 KwarK wrote: And where are the constitutional checks on his power? How good does the evidence have to be for the state to murder (for that is what extrajudicial killing is called) someone? Does the system just rely on Obama just being the kind of honourable man who wouldn't murder someone who didn't deserve it? What if the guy giving him the intel is less honourable? What if the probably deserves it guy is standing next to another citizen who probably doesn't deserve it, do you average their guilt out? What if Obama isn't the President forever? How exactly do you see this situation working? What makes you think there aren't checks on his power with drone strikes? There's a lot that we don't know about in regards to the exact chain of command that is involved when ordering a drone strike. Afaik the only "US citizens" were ones involved in terrorist activities in foreign countries. | ||
|
KwarK
United States41959 Posts
On February 07 2013 02:03 cydial wrote: What makes you think there aren't checks on his power with drone strikes? There's a lot that we don't know about in regards to the exact chain of command that is involved when ordering a drone strike. Afaik the only "US citizens" were ones involved in terrorist activities in foreign countries. Isn't it normal to use the word allegedly before the jury returns a guilty verdict. The US citizens were the ones allegedly involved in terrorist activities before they were killed by the state. And I think there aren't checks is because he says there aren't, he claims the right to do it by his own power. | ||
|
radiatoren
Denmark1907 Posts
On February 07 2013 01:55 cydial wrote: Uhh, you clearly have never heard of North Korea. It's been a 1984 state since the 60s. I would argue that North Korea lacks the technology to go all the way, but they are certainly good at "newspeak" and creating enemies when needed. | ||
|
StickyFlower
Sweden68 Posts
On February 06 2013 21:52 naastyOne wrote: + Show Spoiler + On February 06 2013 20:39 StickyFlower wrote: Dont be silly, USA is already a totalitarian state. They reached that state when George W. Bush took office. The ends of power is to enrich the private sector + Show Spoiler + They wage war, not to free people or make the world more safe, but to make money for private companies (read:Halliburton) What a pile of BS. Every country uses it`s power to enrich private sector. Look at your country. The only reason it conducts diplomacy is to enrich it`s private sector. On February 06 2013 20:39 StickyFlower wrote: The corruption is ridiculously high + Show Spoiler + How else can you explain why USA's "professionals" always have a different view of that of the rest of the world? Always different to the rest of the world? What a ridiculous red herring. On February 06 2013 20:39 StickyFlower wrote: The limitation of Pluralism pretty damn high aswell + Show Spoiler + Little rights for gaymovements and other religious believes that are not Christian. By "little" ou abviously mean no right to marry? So what. Marriage is a goverment service. If the majority of population belives gays are not entitled to that service, they do not get it. On February 06 2013 20:39 StickyFlower wrote: The Electoral College is undemocratic + Show Spoiler + It gives monopoly to 2 parties making it impossible for any other party to challenge. The majority doesnt always pick the President. You seem to forget that any "democratic" country requires a rulling coalition of 50+%. to rule. The many parties&majority coalition is not different from 2 party system. EC is a good compromise for when you have a huge country to ensure that all states are reasonably represented and it is impossible to fake elections by voter faud. Sue, today it may be replaced with direct vote, back than, no, and EC sides with the winner of popular vote the vast majority of instances. On February 06 2013 20:39 StickyFlower wrote: The Elected people who are supposed to run the state are highly ignorant, and doesnt believe in Science. + Show Spoiler + Science is fact and its true whether or not you believe in it. Again red herring. Science is just an observation of small sample and extrapolation of results to larger sample. Often the small sample is not good enought to make accuraqte measurments. As for ignorance, the majority of elected officials have had succesfull private sector jobs before being elected, so you`re obviously wrong. Its a sad day when people call things they dont understand for red herrings and BS and doesnt want to have their believes challenged. So what you are saying is: Its ok to wage war as long as a few companies tied to the ruling class makes money off the war. The majority should always decide in every single question, even those who doesnt affect them. The limiting of parties to 2 parties a democratic nessecity. It reasonable that everyones vote isnt counted equaly across the country. Its acceptable that the EC fails from time to time. You find Science false, thus the computer you are using to type here has been created by an almighty being, mostlikely living somewhere in Asia because it says made in China on multiple machines in your household. As for ignorance, the majority of elected officials have had succesfull private sector jobs before being elected. So they realy know how to decieve you. They are not ignorant, they just make more money acting like they are. For anyone wondering, I did use Sondrols chart. I do believe USA could be classified as a authoritarian regime due to how almost every President of the USA have had blood-ties to one another, thus creating a small group of political elite. + Show Spoiler + The term 'an authoritarian regime' denotes a state in which the single power holder - an individual 'dictator', a committee or a junta or an otherwise small group of political elite - monopolizes political power. I was basicly checking if they have reached the totalitarian state. They have, without people realy noticing it. Congratz! | ||
|
TheFrankOne
United States667 Posts
On February 06 2013 23:15 SpeaKEaSY wrote: It's funny, because the majority of people I know who have an opinion on this topic fall into two distinct categories: 1) They were very vocal against our actions in Iraq while Bush was president, but strangely silent or dismissive when they hear about what Obama is doing 2) They are very vocal against what Obama is doing, but were strangely silent or supportive of what Bush did as president. I must say, at least this guy is consistent, even if he is consistently on the wrong side lol I get what you're saying and there's some truth to it. For me though, it's just kind of become normal. A horrible thing to say but this "war on terror" just looks like it has no end and it will keep going until the geopolitical landscape completely changes. That said, I don't support what Obama is doing but to quote Jon Stewart after the foreign policy debate "It looks like Mitt Romney has come around to Obama's policy and it looks like Obama has come around to Bush's policy on foreign intervention." While their social issue and domestic policy platforms might be different, on foreign policy we can have a party who will talk nicely to the rest of the world, or a party who will tell the world it doesn't give a damn, but the same stuff goes on in the background either way. | ||
|
ZealotSensei
Denmark70 Posts
Besides being a breach of the fifth amendment, can we really trust ONE person to be completely incorruptible and all knowing? That he can filter all misinformation from his HUGE information network and never make any mistakes? That he never ever kills (breaches the freedom of) an innocent person? If the president is so sure that this person is a terrorist, why isn't he allowed to defend himself? Do you really feel that preemptive action is the only solution? Kill him, before he presumably kills us? Why is there so little information, when the president is so sure that these people were terrorists? Why has nothing been said regarding the 16 year old boy? Can you really trust a person that publicly kills a 16 year old teenager and when asked about it, basically replies with "I have my justifications." | ||
|
DeepElemBlues
United States5079 Posts
Of course our government is a wannabe Big Brother, it has been for a while. Much earlier than Bush. It goes back to Johnson, who wiretapped everyone from NBC News to the headquarters of both the Humphrey and Nixon campaigns in 1968. Or back to Lincoln. Or back to John Adams. Or you could look at Woodrow Wilson, who instituted basically the only time this country has been ruled by an authoritarian or near-totalitarian government, from 1917-1919. It's just that for fifty years now people haven't pushed back much. Now they're finally realizing that a big government that can poke its nose into every aspect of their lives is a threat to them. stickyflower: For anyone wondering, I did use Sondrols chart. I do believe USA could be classified as a authoritarian regime due to how almost every President of the USA have had blood-ties to one another, thus creating a small group of political elite. Do they shapeshift into reptilians when no one else is around? Dude you're incredibly ignorant about the United States, grow out of your juvenile emotionality about George W. Boooooooooooooooosh. Last I checked he left office over four years ago, despite people like you hysterically wailing about dirty tricks and false flags and martial law and a suspension of elections and all kinds of other bullshit. The US repeatedly ranks near the top for countries of lowest amount of corruption, marriage is just about the only thing gays can't do (only in parts of the country) plus we are the most diverse country ethnically and religiously and ideologically and lifestyle-wise on the planet, what is this shit about a lack of pluralism. The Electoral College is undemocratic? It's supposed to be, so little states don't get screwed. It's about fairness. Also, ignorant about science? That must be why the US government spends billions a year on various kinds of research and the US has the most developed post-secondary education system in the world, much of it thanks to land-grant colleges, universities and institutions get billions in government grants and tax subsidies a year, and the US leads the world by a large margin still in inventions, research papers, technological innovations, etc. You sound like you're just a typical anti-American bigot. | ||
|
3772
Czech Republic434 Posts
User was warned for this post | ||
|
Zahir
United States947 Posts
The simple fact of the matter is that US citizens as a whole enjoy one of the highest degrees of freedom and economic opportunity of any country. We also continue to have one of the highest degrees of political stability of any large country, astounding given our size and diversity. Put those two factors together, and the future for anything like totalitarianism in the US does not seem bright. While I detest the exceptions, such as illegal imprisoning and killing of suspected terrorists, but these are a FAR cry from anything like totalitarianism. The US has leaned towards totalitarianism several times in its history, notably during the world wars and Cold War, and yet it swung back after the crises were over, usually to an even greater degree of freedom and equality than existed before the crises. How do the gaggle of 9-11 conspiracy theorists and hemp defenders quoted in the OP respond to that fact? Because what it really suggests that the symptoms that are being described here as "heading towards big brother" are a lot more complex than a simple devolution towards totalitarianism. Finally, it's a poor argument to talk about whether a country MIGHT be possibly construed as headed towards totalitarianism. Such regimes are a thousand times worse, in terms of, to take just one metric, state sanctioned executions of its own citizens - usually for such light crimes as dissent, vs the awesome crime of conspiring to terrorize and murder ones countrymen. The US is nowhere near close to that, and to prove that, one need only look the dissent and political blowback which are effectively limiting the govt's current deplorable actions overseas, to a much greater extent than in the past - witness the immediacy of protest against the Iraq war and the effect that had in limiting said war. There is basically a storm of protest against every immoral action the US govt takes. Not all of it is necessarily constructive, this thread being a case in point. But it's there, it has an increasing impact, and its not what you'd expect of a nation that's sliding towards 1984. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
SXGCoil
United States341 Posts
On February 07 2013 07:18 3772 wrote: Laws of war? Fuck that. Everyone has a right to due process, despite any bullshit any government might be trying to push. You sound like typical patriotic bigot (yes, I use patriot as an insult, since it's just sugar coated nationalist). Everyone has a right to due process? Alright, every time a soldier wants to shoot the guy pointing a gun at him, we need to gather up all the witnesses, the guns and anyone involved and pack inside a courtroom and review whether or not the man is guilty. Do you see what's wrong with this? | ||
|
starcon
United States3 Posts
"Before our white brothers arrived to make us civilized men, we didn't have any kind of prison. Because of this, we had no delinquents. Without a prison, there can be no delinquents. We had no locks nor keys and therefore among us there were no thieves. When someone was so poor that he couldn't afford a horse, a tent or a blanket, he would, in that case, receive it all as a gift. We were too uncivilized to give great importance to private property. We didn't know any kind of money and consequently, the value of a human being was not determined by his wealth. We had no written laws laid down, no lawyers, no politicians, therefore we were not able to cheat and swindle one another. We were really in bad shape before the white men arrived and I don't know how to explain how we were able to manage without these fundamental things that (so they tell us) are so necessary for a civilized society. " John (Fire) Lame Deer | ||
|
Heouf
Netherlands787 Posts
| ||
| ||
