Politics & Government - 9 December 2006

"The Foreign Ministry on Thursday delivered a note to the U.S. Embassy demanding that the airman’s immunity be lifted. Status of Forces Agreements in many countries where U.S. military personnel are stationed grant them varying levels of legal immunity." http://news.bostonherald.com/international/view.bg?articleid=171104

"Kyrgyz President Kurmanbek Bakiyev said on Thursday U.S. servicemen and women stationed in his Central Asian state should no longer enjoy immunity from prosecution after the fatal shooting of a truck driver." http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061207/ts_nm/kyrgyzstan_usa_dc_3

2006-12-09 09:04:36 · 13 answers · asked by Raptork9 2 in Military

2006-12-09 09:04:10 · 3 answers · asked by Anonymous in Other - Politics & Government

I think its a waste of time and money to rebuild a place that WILL be hit again

2006-12-09 09:02:13 · 18 answers · asked by dondondo 2 in Civic Participation

I mean president Cheney is a very scarey thought!

2006-12-09 09:01:00 · 12 answers · asked by paulisfree2004 6 in Politics

2006-12-09 08:56:56 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Law & Ethics

2006-12-09 08:55:42 · 16 answers · asked by ? 1 in Other - Politics & Government

2006-12-09 08:54:16 · 2 answers · asked by Carolyn J 1 in Law Enforcement & Police

2006-12-09 08:52:16 · 11 answers · asked by paulag 1 in Law Enforcement & Police

2006-12-09 08:51:51 · 20 answers · asked by texascomet 4 in Politics

and how come marines look down on the army. and how come the army is supposed to be land based and hte marines sea based yet it seems like the marines are always on land

2006-12-09 08:50:42 · 16 answers · asked by nigga 3 in Military

2006-12-09 08:49:46 · 11 answers · asked by bettysdad 5 in Other - Politics & Government

2006-12-09 08:49:38 · 17 answers · asked by Red Winged Bandit 4 in Elections

Liberals are like a puzzle, but with missing pieces.

2006-12-09 08:48:42 · 19 answers · asked by Short Haired Sexy-Person 1 in Politics

So President Bush hasn't been the best president the US has ever had, but he's definitely not going to be the worst. We have many many presidents to look foward too, and if people don't get out and vote, then we'll just have a repeat of what we're going through now.

Why hate Bush? He's only doing his job. No doubt it's a hard one. We don't have to agree with him, much less like him, but we should stand by him. After all he is our president. Imagine what it looks like to other counties who see us as Americans hate on our own president....

I am not a Bush supporter, but I'm not a hater either.

2006-12-09 08:48:01 · 19 answers · asked by Yeah. 5 in Other - Politics & Government

2006-12-09 08:47:54 · 9 answers · asked by bettysdad 5 in Other - Politics & Government

2006-12-09 08:46:32 · 3 answers · asked by Petal J 2 in Law & Ethics

Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) has proposed a Constitutional Amendment changing the eligibility requirements for president. He would remove "natural born citizen" and replace it with the requirement that the president be a natural born citizen or a naturalized citizen for at least 20 years.

2006-12-09 08:44:00 · 4 answers · asked by ladysassafras 2 in Other - Politics & Government

If someone were to be charged with making a statement against a minority group, for the sake of this questions, lets use homosexuals. Say someone is sued for making derogatory remarks about homosexuals, and the ACLU is called in as counsel. Does the ACLU, who has advocated free speech in the past, take the side of the homosexual, or the person who made the comments? Since both issues have been argued by the ACLU, is it possible that lawyers from the ACLU could actually end up representing both clients?

2006-12-09 08:42:55 · 14 answers · asked by gtrplayer5555 2 in Law & Ethics

If you listen to leaders in the church and the Republican Party they claim there is nothing they can do because the courts will not allow your views to be addressed. If this is true it is the fault of the republicans. The Supreme Court has 7 republicans and 2 democrats on the bench, 12 out of 13 Circuit Courts have majority republicans; there are a total of 156 republican judges on these courts and only 96 democrats, that is almost 40% more republicans than democrats. The republicans do not want abortion to be outlawed in the US because it keeps the conservative Christians in their party voting for them based on this one issue. Why would they want anything to change? If abortion is removed from the national political debate the Christians might leave the party. Those Christians that choose their candidate based only on abortion need to demand change from their party not rhetorical speech but no action to change the status quo.

2006-12-09 08:41:52 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Law & Ethics

It's the time of year in which we should be loving towards eachother, yet, I see Conservatives talking about how Liberals hate babies or Liberals hate our troops or Liberals want the terrorists to win. Or Liberals who claim Conservatives are fascist or neo-cons or idiots or some such thing.

So those of you who are so hateful towards the other side... when will you realise that they're Americans too? You all claim to love America but seem to hate other Americans. Wasn't America made to be 2 parties? Therefore if you want anyone who isn't on your party to go away aren't you Anti-American?

I guess I just don't understand the hate here on the Y! Answers Political board.

So anyway the question I'm asking is do you feel like you can love America but hate anyone who isn't in your party or part of your thought process? Would you be able to... just for this month be loving towards the other side?

What ya'll say?

2006-12-09 08:39:08 · 22 answers · asked by ? 5 in Politics

Or is there some deeper darker reason why he continues to waste the US taxpayers money.

2006-12-09 08:36:41 · 25 answers · asked by MP 2 in Politics

As a thought experiment, I wonder how the message behind 'brave new world' would change if instead--the follwing happened: a liberal nazi comes to rule the USA--where it depicts a gay nazi ruler of the 'world institution'

The world institution, is a reformed world order after the 'collapse' which woule have happened in 2018, after a skirmish with China over resources and global economic downturn after a nuclear detonation in Washington with no culprit in sight. In the downturn, there is a shortage of water in the midwest and California due to global warming, causes a cesation from the union, followed by Texas. Thus causing America to become the 'shattered Union.' The one who obtains power in America in the east, is a liberal professor who takes over the goverment and is an extremist, and tries to 'pacify' and 'sterilize' any threat to the already 'shattered union.'

The professor makes it mandatory for tolerance and complete conformity to the norm to become punishable by

2006-12-09 08:36:20 · 4 answers · asked by Anonymous in Other - Politics & Government

(i know i am half mexican half spaniard)

2006-12-09 08:36:04 · 6 answers · asked by Paul C 1 in Military

I'm sick and tired of this patriotic, nationalistic and fascist crap. I stood through a memorial service today for a young Marine that was killed in Iraq back in April. During this memorial a number of people spoke about the guy and about his sacrifice for the country. How do you justify 'sacrificing' your life for a war which is not only illegal, but is being prosecuted to the extent where the only thing keeping us there is one man's power, and his ego. A recent Marine Corps intelligence report that was leaked said that the war in the al-Anbar province is unwinnable. It said that there was nothing we could do to win the hearts and minds, or the military operations in that area. So I wonder, why are we still there? Democracy is not forced upon people at gunpoint. It's the result of forward thinking individuals who take the initiative and risks to give their fellow countrymen a better way of life.

When I joined I took an oath. In that oath I swore to protect the Constitution of the United States. I didn't swear to build democracies in countries on the other side of the world under the guise of "national security." I didn't join the military to be part of an Orwellian ("1984") war machine that is in an obligatory war against whoever the state deems the enemy to be so that the populace can be controlled and riled up in a pro-nationalistic frenzy to support any new and oppressive law that will be the key to destroying the enemy. Example given – the Patriot Act. So aptly named, and totally against all that the constitution stands for. President Bush used the reactionary nature of our society to bring our country together and to infuse into the national psyche a need to give up their little-used rights in the hope to make our nation a little safer. The same scare tactics he used to win elections. He drones on and on about how America and the world would be a less safe place if we weren't killing Iraqis, and that we'd have to fight the terrorists at home if we weren't abroad. In our modern day emotive society this strategy (or strategery?) works, or had worked, up until last month's elections.

My point in this; to show that America was never nationalistic. If anything they were Statalistic (giving their allegiance to the state of their residence). This is shown in the fact that the founders created states with fully capable and independent governments and not provinces that were just a division of the federal government. These men believed that America was a place where imperialistic values would be non-existent. Where the people trying to make their lives better by working hard, thinking, inventing and using the free market would tie up so much of normal life that imperialistic colonization and the fighting of wars thousands of miles away for interests that are not our own would be avoided. They believed this expansion of power could be left to the European nations, the England, France and Spain of their time. However this recent, and current influx of nationalistic feeling has created an environment where giving up your rights, going to a foreign country to fight a people who did not ask for us to be there, nor did their leader do anything to warrant us being there, and dying would be considered honorable and heroic. I don't believe it anymore. I don't believe it's right for any American to go along with it anymore. Yes I know that we in the military are bound by the UCMJ and somehow don't fall under the Constitution (the very thing we're suppose to be defending) but sooner or later there is a decision that every American soldier, marine, airmen and seamen makes to allow themselves to be sent to a war that is against every fiber this country was founded on. I know that when April rolls around I will be thinking long and hard on that decision. Even though we in the military are just doing as we're told we still have the moral and ethical obligation to choose to do as we're told, or to say, "No, that isn't right." I believe that if more troopers like me and the professional military, the officers and commanders, start standing up and saying that they won't let themselves or their troops go to this illegal war people will start standing up and realizing what the heck is going on over there.

The sad fact of the matter is that we are not fighting terrorists in Iraq. We are fighting the Iraqi people who feel like a conquered and occupied people. Personally I have a hard time believing that if I was an Iraqi that I wouldn't be doing everything in my power to kill and maim as many Americans as possible. I know that the vast majority of Americans would not be happy with the Canadian government, or any other foreign government, liberating us from the clutches of George W. Bush, even though a large number of us would like that, and forcing us to accept their system of government. Would not millions of Americans rise up and fight back? Would you not rise up to protect and defend your house and your neighborhood if someone invaded your country? But we send thousands of troops to a foreign country to do just that. How is it moral to fight a people who are just trying to defend their homes and families? I think next time I go to Iraq perhaps I should wear a bright red coat and carry a Brown Bess instead of my digitalized utilities and M16.

Notice I never once used the word homeland in any of this. I have a secondary point I want to bring up now. Never once was the term homeland ever used to describe the country of America until Mr. Bush began the department of homeland security after the 9/11 attacks. Taking a 20th century history class will teach us that the most notable countries in the last century that referred to their country in this way were Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia. Hitler used the term fatherland to drum up support, nationalistic support, for his growing war machine. He used the nationalism he created in the minds of the Germans to justify the sacrifice of their livelihood to build the war machine to get back their power from the oppressive restrictions the English and French had put on them at Versailles. This is the same feeling that has been virulently infecting the American psyche in the last hundred years. This is the same feeling that consoles a mother after her son is killed in an attempt to prosecute an aggressor's war 10,000 miles away. It's also known as Patriotism these days, but I say, "No more." No more nationalistic inanity, no more passing it off as patriotism. Patriotism is learning, and educating oneself to understand what their country really stands for.

2006-12-09 08:35:10 · 17 answers · asked by Anonymous in Military

2006-12-09 08:33:06 · 9 answers · asked by ally 2 in Military

I would like to join the United States Coast Guard. I'm a 25 year old male in good physical condition, very motivated but, I also have an anxiety disorder I was hospatlized when I was 16, also had a 3 day evaluation when I was 20. In recent years it has gotten much better and easy to manage. Other than that I'm great. I've thought about enlisting many times but , always thought I would be turned away if they found out in a backgrould check or something.

2006-12-09 08:32:51 · 4 answers · asked by ninjatunafish 1 in Military

2006-12-09 08:31:52 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous in Law & Ethics

If we were to let Iran help w/ the withdrawl of US troops in Iraq, would that lesson the tension between the US and Iran? So by the sounds of it, this would work out. The US could be deemed victorious and leave; which would make both Republicans and Democrats happy. So the war would be over, the 2 parties in Congress could focus on bigger threats. So by the sounds of it all, it would be a good thing for America, right?

But the thing I cant think around is that Iran and Syria have been funding money and weapons to the insurgents in Iraq. Whos to say that when we leave, that they help the insurgents and take back Iraq?

2006-12-09 08:30:41 · 5 answers · asked by I Hate Liberals 4 in Military

2006-12-09 08:29:57 · 4 answers · asked by macwmc@pacbell.net 1 in Military

With all of the controversy with Iran wanting nuclear privelages and our dispute with Iraq, do you think we will be dealing with the possibility of nuclear warfare in the near future?

2006-12-09 08:29:34 · 8 answers · asked by qtpatootie 1 in Military