Election '06

E

EricBess

Guest
There didn't used to be term limits for president. I think the issue is that congress is composed of multiple individuals, each independently elected by their state. If people in the state like the way an individual is going in general, there are plenty of checks and balances from other individuals who are rotating in and out.

In the case of the president, however, the people you are talking about are effectively his cabinet and there is a tendency to start running things a certain way and not be concerned about everyone else.

FDR was in office for 4 terms and the constitution was ammended shortly after. Prior to FDR, 2 terms was just sort of a tradition instead of anything actually written, but apparently, Washington himself was asked to run a third term and he declined, saying that twice was a good limit.
 

Spiderman

Administrator
Staff member
I did already know the history behind the president's term limit and how it came into being and I realize that ideally,
If people in the state like the way an individual is going in general, there are plenty of checks and balances from other individuals who are rotating in and out.
That's how it's supposed to work but let's face it, I don't think that's the reality (again, just-completed election aside and maybe 1994). Incumbents have an enormous advantage over new challengers and even old challengers in terms of money and fund-raising and gerrymandering and what have you. And lots of people vote for the "familiar" name.

But it does seem to boil down to the people have a direct say in who the congresspeople are vs who the president is.
 

turgy22

Nothing Special
Term limits were implemented by republicans, because they were upset that a democrat had managed to stay in office for so long. The irony behind this is that since term limits were imposed, only two presidents (Eisenhower and Reagan) legitimately had a chance at a third term and both were republicans. In general I oppose term limits. FDR's time in office was arguably the most prosperous time in this country's history. He pulled the nation out of the Great Depression and was leading a successful war campaign. Why force a leader out of office if he's doing a good job?

Tag Guard
 

Spiderman

Administrator
Staff member
I just figure what's good for the "goose" is good for the "gander". Either both branches should have term limits or none.
 
A

Astranbrulth

Guest
It's been a LONG time since I posted here, but I just wanted to congratulate you all on a remarkably civil and considerate discussion ... not to mention an INTERESTING discussion. It's quite a change from the screaming trolls on most of the political forums out there.

You were talking about Iraq, which happens to be my current speciality, so I thought I'd weigh in with a link to a VERY good article on what is really happening in Iraq these days.

http://www.bostonreview.net/BR31.6/rosen.html

Is an article by Nir Rosen, who reports straight from the heart of the conflict. Chaps, this horror story is going to get worse before it gets better.

BTW, DUke was Iraqi, wasn't he? What happened to him? Thought he would have something to say on the subject.
 

Spiderman

Administrator
Staff member
Welcome back! Long time no see...

How or why is it your "current specialty"?

DUke is Iraqi, but he hasn't been around for about half a year. He sort of got up and left here.
 
A

Astranbrulth

Guest
Eh, I sort of got caught up in the whole "Iraq War" thing. I began corresponding with the Iraqi bloggers and somehow I got sucked in. All I can say is that I have about a gigabyte of articles, blog entries and opinion pieces on the Iraq situation stored on my HDD. I'm amazed my eyes haven't burnt out.

I really don't want to spoil such a civilised thread by ranting about US foreign policy, so let's not get into all of that. Suffice to say that the more you dig, the more dirt you find, to the point where you reach the conspiracy theorist stuff, and you have to wonder how the heck you got from A to Z ... and what is truth and what is fiction.

DUke was a little wierd ... perhaps intense is the better word ... and I was rather fascinated by what he had to say. Pity he disappeared.
 

Killer Joe

New member
I know *squat* about the War in Iraq so my input on the subject is of no real value. But I do have questions?

The U.S. had a Civil War back 1861 and even though England and France supported the opposing sides they did not overrun or take over the situation and ultimately let us battle it out. It surely was enevitable that the war would happen. How is this war different?

The "voters" made the Democrats take over the House and Senate who ran an election on opposing the war or something similar to that effect or at least that's how I percieved it. Then why am I hearing about how the House or Senate won't oppose more spending on the war?

And lastly, if Staying The Course is no longer "a plan of action" but was highly touted by the administartion these past few years and any opposing opinions were thought of as "Being on the side Terrorism" or "Unpatriotic" or "Not supporting our troops" does that mean now the Administration are these things since they've "let go" of their previous position?

Things that make you go Hmmmm.."
C + C Music Factory
 
L

Limited

Guest
Killer Joe said:
The U.S. had a Civil War back 1861 and even though England and France supported the opposing sides they did not overrun or take over the situation and ultimately let us battle it out. It surely was enevitable that the war would happen. How is this war different?
I know *squat* about the Civil War, but reading Wikipedia I get the feeling that the South explicitly tried to include Brittain and France in the conflict, but neither really did. Can somebody enlighten me?
 

Spiderman

Administrator
Staff member
I believe the South sent ambassadors to England and France but they didn't want to be involved officially. Unofficially, they may have sent aid.
 
L

Limited

Guest
Thats what I read, but I was wondering what Killer Joe meant by "even though England and France supported the opposing sides".. I got the impression that the South tried to get them both involved, but neither did (except for some trading).
 
L

Limited

Guest
Killer Joe said:
The U.S. had a Civil War back 1861 and even though England and France supported the opposing sides they did not overrun or take over the situation and ultimately let us battle it out. It surely was enevitable that the war would happen. How is this war different?
Then I just don't get this statement. How are these wars even remotely the same? Killer Joe, could you please elaborate?
 

turgy22

Nothing Special
Limited said:
Then I just don't get this statement. How are these wars even remotely the same? Killer Joe, could you please elaborate?
I have no idea what KJ has to explain his question, but I don't see many similarities at all. The Civil War was started by the U.S. from an internal conflict (the right of succession). The Iraqi war was started by an external force (the U.S.). I'd equate the Iraq war more closely to our own revolution - both countries were stifled by dictatorships which were overthrown - but again, we began our conflict internally instead of relying on outside influences.

Also, to clarify for those curious about the economics and role of outside countries in the Civil war, here's what I've heard:
Before the Civil War broke out, most of our trading was done with England and France. When the South tried to pull out of the union, they needed to set up trade relations with those countries to support their economy. But the North set up an embargo on the South, not allowing trade ships to pass by. The European countries would have had to engage in battle to trade with the South and actually didn't even want to trade that badly (since farming was done in the South, while manufacturing was done in the North - Europe wanted finished products, not raw materials). However, both countries maintained contact with the South, just in case they won the war, but couldn't overtly assist them, in the event that they lost the war.
So basically, England and France had little to no bearing on the Civil War, except for the fact that they did continue to trade with the North, helping the Northern economy. But ending trade would have hurt their own economies just as much as it would have hurt the north, so that wasn't much of a choice.

Tag Guard
 
A

Astranbrulth

Guest
[killer joe] “It surely was enevitable that the war would happen. How is this war different?”

Which war? The war between Iraq and the US or the civil war in Iraq?

Between the US and iraq … well that was quite avoidable.

Between the Iraqi factions … I’m not so sure.

Before the war I was warning about this danger. Then, I got to talking to Iraqis and realised that they were actually very intermarried and not nearly as sectarian as I had thought. Then the tit for tat bombings and killings started, and it turned out that the strongest social fabric can tear.

It’s a mess in Iraq like you would NOT believe.

In a nutshell:

The Iraqi patriotic types, some Shias and the Sunni tribes are fighting the Americans. The Shiite radicals and the Sunni radicals are fighting each other. The Sadrists, which are the biggest Shiite faction, would be fighting the Americans except for that they are too busy killing Badrist Shias and the Sunnis. The Badr Brigade which is the armed wing of SCIRI (Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, set up by Khomenei himself) has been working hand in hand with their sworn enemies, the Americans - at least, I suspect, until they either seize power or until Iran is attacked - whichever comes first. The Kurds occasionally lend their Peshmerga out to the US when an “Iraqi” face needs to be put on a particular operation, but in reality they are making a bid to separate themselves from the rest of Iraq. Turkey, a US ally, has a large (suppressed) Kurdish population and has all but threatened war if the Kurds secede. The criminals and criminal gangs are having an absolute riot in the meanwhile, and I suspect they have connections to both sides of the sectarian divide. In the northern cities Sunnis and Turkomen are battling Kurds for land and oil. Al Qaeda is an unknown sized force that gets redefined every time that CENTCOM needs to either make an argument that they are winning or that they need to stay to fight AQ.

The US is sitting on a ticking bomb where even its allies are its enemies, where the government it is supposed to be protecting is closer to Iran than the US, and where around 60% of the population thinks killing US troops is a good idea. The Iraqis that support the US presence do so only because they are scared the “other” Iraqis will take over if you leave.

Question.

What do you do now? *



[turgy22] “since farming was done in the South, while manufacturing was done in the North - Europe wanted finished products, not raw materials”

Hm. Sounds like the situation had reversed itself from the time when the War of Independence had raged. At that time Britain wanted cheap raw materials from the US in return for expensive finished goods – the mercantilist system, in other words.


*Other than write a science fiction novel on this story, which will get flamed for the improbable plot.
 

Killer Joe

New member
I meant that outside powers (England and France) could've meddled in our civil war and tried to run the war but they didn't. But we are neck deep in the what will soon be an Iraqi Civil War.

I want to know why do we have to stay, can't we let them settle it themselves? Just a question.
 
L

Limited

Guest
Killer Joe said:
I meant that outside powers (England and France) could've meddled in our civil war and tried to run the war but they didn't. But we are neck deep in the what will soon be an Iraqi Civil War.

I want to know why do we have to stay, can't we let them settle it themselves? Just a question.
Thats because it was already a civil war before France & England could have meddled with it. In Iraq there was a regime which was not exactly democratic, but there was leadership with control over police and army that kept peace. I am not saying it was a nice place to live (especially if you are a Kurd) but it was stable.

With the US removing Saddam from power, there is now no authority in the country. The way I understand, two rival factions have each ceased this opportunity to become the ruling faction in Iraq, willing to kill each other and the invading American army. Leaving Iraq now would leave both parties entirely unchecked, which would result in bloodbaths.
 

Killer Joe

New member
Could've France and England helped us avoid the blood bath in our civil war? They certainly had the resposibility to help us if indeed they were great and noble nations. Right?

I don't know the answers but I'm sure somewhere down the line it's our fault if only partially for the Iraqi war, imo. So we made it and now we get to live with it? :confused:
 
L

Limited

Guest
In the time of the Civil War, there wasn't an international community like there is today. Allthough they had banned slavery at that time, they probably weren't go to war with a country for trying to maintain it. Besides, the North was bound to win it anyway;
On the other hand, if French and English troops would have aided their cause, the South might have given up sooner, which would have spared lives. It would have been the 'noble' thing to do.

But remember, if they would have helped, they would have assisted an already organized and ruling party to assume control of the rest of the country (or even to keep control of it). In Iraq, there was only one 'force' that had the means to govern the country. You are not helping a ruling party to gain control, you are creating a ruling party. As we all know now, but as most knew before the invasion of Iraq, this is a very difficult task.

So until a ruling party has been created (which is recognized by a sufficient portion of the Iraqi people), if you want to maintain some form of government, an outside army has to assume control of Iraq.
 
Top