This is hilarious (US foreign policy)

[Verto]

They have other entertainments.


I know it's in bad taste, I couldn't help it.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I do wonder if this current US administration actually thinks before it does anything dealing with foreign policy. I thought Clinton's foriegn policy was bad, but Bush is just atrocious! He's a big dumb ox who doesn't give a damn that he's ****ing everything up.

Makes me wish I'd voted for Gore .

[DinoDoc]

Imran, I thought that you'd be pleased that Bush was finally following the terms of the Rome Statute.

[Imran Siddiqui]

You can't follow a treaty if you haven't signed it. And just because you can do something doesn't mean you should do it. FDR was following the Constitution when he decided to pack to SCOTUS... Lincoln was following the Constitution when he suspended habeas corpus.

We have the most short sighted, moronic foriegn policy of any Western nation. If I dare say it, Mugabe might be a better foreign policy US President than Bush, the retarded. One wonders how long it will take to rebuild the bridges that have been burned by this utter imbecile.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
You can't follow a treaty if you haven't signed it. And just because you can do something doesn't mean you should do it. FDR was following the Constitution when he decided to pack to SCOTUS... Lincoln was following the Constitution when he suspended habeas corpus.

We have the most short sighted, moronic foriegn policy of any Western nation. If I dare say it, Mugabe might be a better foreign policy US President than Bush, the retarded. One wonders how long it will take to rebuild the bridges that have been burned by this utter imbecile.

Imran, Of course you have a better plan for defending the United States - even Gore supports Bush.

What is your plan? It is far too easy to criticize and loftily declare your opponent an imbecile. Such talk usually masks a deficiency in alternates. But obviously in this case I am mistaken, right?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
FDR was following the Constitution when he decided to pack to SCOTUS...

I wasn't aware that the President actually had that power. From what part of the Constitution does he derive it from?

Lincoln was following the Constitution when he suspended habeas corpus.

No, he didn't.

We have the most short sighted, moronic foriegn policy of any Western nation.

It's a continuing trend. The body politic of America doesn't tend to care much about foreign policy.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I wasn't aware that the President actually had that power. From what part of the Constitution does he derive it from?

The President can appoint Supreme Court Justices. No where in the Constitution does it state a limit on number of judges.

No, he didn't.

Article one, section 9:

The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.

Imran, Of course you have a better plan for defending the United States - even Gore supports Bush

Of course, because of this crypto-Fascist idea that if you are against the President's policy you are against America.

My plan would not piss off our allies. My plan would be to follow what Colin Powell would do, if he had free reign. You can exempt yourself from the ICC and Kyoto, but there are ways of going about it that don't piss everyone off. There are ways of doing so that make you still seem like the good guy and not the bully. Apparently Bush's father's skill in diplomacy didn't rub off AT ALL on our current Imbecile-in-chief.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

No, he didn't.

Article one, section 9:

The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.

Lincoln got slapped down by the Courts for that one, IIRC.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Yeah, AFTER the war when they wanted to feel all high and moral. The Court wanted to say that was 'bad'. But many do disagree with the court. The Constitution is clear on the point. The only disagreement can be when 'cases of rebellion or invasion' is invoked.

And of course we are all know the Courts are always right . Plessy v. Fergusson anyone? How about Sanford v. Scott?

[Urban Ranger]

Go Duyba!

[Ned]

Imran, Powell is one cool dude. I agree that Bush should rely on him more to achieve his objectives in a pleasing manner. I think the criticism that Bush had been too ham handed in certain cases is valid.

However, I think his overall war plan is right. I don't think Gore will object to Bush's efforts. But he will say that he could have done it in a more polished manner.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Well that is basically objecting. Gore just does it in a 'more polished manner'. It can make all the difference.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

How bout Gore vs. Board of Election? (or something like that)

[DinoDoc]

Is this thread still going on? OFITG seems to have based this thread on so much BS.

Let me take care of this before I go:

Yeah, AFTER the war when they wanted to feel all high and moral.

Ex parte Merryman was heard while the Civil War was still going on. I would think that a person going into law would know that much.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Lincoln didn't get slapped down for Ex Parte Merryman. Taney said he was wrong, but Lincoln just disregarded it. That doesn't sound like getting slapped down to me. The Courts afterwards did slap him down, and the President (Johnson) agreed with the court's decision. That's a slap down.