The Universal Declaration of Human Rights

[BigRob]

Does China owe us billions of dollars, or is it the other way around?

That does not matter. So what if we owe China a lot of money? Does China want to risk losing its biggest market? Can they afford to flood the market with US dollars? Can they afford to call in the debt? We can always print more money, they have a vested interest in not calling in debt to maintain their own exports and currency devaluation. Owing China money is not an indicator of power.

Sure, economic power trumps military might in today's world.

I am not entirely convinced of that, but by a measure of solely economic power the United States still beats China 2 to 1.

Unfortunately, the first part of that statement is correct.

Unfortunate or not, we need to accept it for what it is.

 

[PLC1]

That does not matter. So what if we owe China a lot of money? Does China want to risk losing its biggest market? Can they afford to flood the market with US dollars? Can they afford to call in the debt? We can always print more money, they have a vested interest in not calling in debt to maintain their own exports and currency devaluation. Owing China money is not an indicator of power.

Who has the most power, the debtor, or the creditor?

But, back to the original premise:

Is the United States, or any other country obligated to lead the rest of the world?

Do we, or anyone else have the power to lead the world?

 

[BigRob]

Who has the most power, the debtor, or the creditor?

Depends on the situation. It is not as cut and dry as that either in this situation.

Is the United States, or any other country obligated to lead the rest of the world?

Obligated? No. However, the benefits we get from being the hegemon are worth the problems in my view.

Do we, or anyone else have the power to lead the world?

In terms of taking over the world, no, but in terms of exerting influence and power in every corner of the world, yes, I think we do possess that power.

 

[PLC1]

Depends on the situation. It is not as cut and dry as that either in this situation.

Well, we do still have a lot of economic power for the time being. We're in the process of squandering it through an unsustainable government, but we do still have a fairly strong economy.

Obligated? No. However, the benefits we get from being the hegemon are worth the problems in my view.

I wonder if the British felt the same way a couple of centuries ago? The sun never set on their empire, you know.

In terms of taking over the world, no, but in terms of exerting influence and power in every corner of the world, yes, I think we do possess that power.

Influence and power? Sure, as long as we remain a credible voice, we can wield considerable influence and power.

 

[BigRob]

Well, we do still have a lot of economic power for the time being. We're in the process of squandering it through an unsustainable government, but we do still have a fairly strong economy.

I agree we are spending massive amounts of money. I am not sure we are to the point where we are stuck on a road to destruction.

I wonder if the British felt the same way a couple of centuries ago? The sun never set on their empire, you know.

No one assumes we will dominate the world forever, empires come and go, that is the way of it. However, the benefits we glean from it now are worth the cost.

Influence and power? Sure, as long as we remain a credible voice, we can wield considerable influence and power.

I do not think that our credibility in international politics is hurt because we waterboarded a few terrorists.

 

[PLC1]

I agree we are spending massive amounts of money. I am not sure we are to the point where we are stuck on a road to destruction.



No one assumes we will dominate the world forever, empires come and go, that is the way of it. However, the benefits we glean from it now are worth the cost.




I do not think that our credibility in international politics is hurt because we waterboarded a few terrorists.

Perhaps not. What about the innocents who were tortured and killed?

I suppose once you have invaded a sovereign nation on false premises, then a little waterboarding isn't going to make much of a difference.

 

[BigRob]

Perhaps not. What about the innocents who were tortured and killed?

Such as?

I suppose once you have invaded a sovereign nation on false premises, then a little waterboarding isn't going to make much of a difference.

Maybe we could ask Bill Clinton. Before Bush was ever in office, Bill Clinton wrote in as part of his national security strategy statement that regime change in Iraq was a major goal of US foreign policy.

The idea that Saddam needed to go existed well before Bush was even President.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Such as?



Maybe we could ask Bill Clinton. Before Bush was ever in office, Bill Clinton wrote in as part of his national security strategy statement that regime change in Iraq was a major goal of US foreign policy.

The idea that Saddam needed to go existed well before Bush was even President.

regime change does not in any way mean go to war and take over. Nor did Cinton ever suggest that...nore did he stand in front of the public and show as proof/evidence things that where known to be false at the time. Saddam needed to go, but that does not mean Bush did not have other options and did not lie.


I did not support CLinton, and also I feared for our troops safty that we would see WMD Used on them....that does not say I had not seen the intel that suggested that Iraq did not in fact have a WMD Program...or that the evidence put out by Bush, was wrong or at least very exagerated.

 

[Dr.Who]

The Constitution was not even written until after the English King admitted defeat and recognized the United States. The Constitution can stand on its own without the Declaration of Independence.



Well enforcement is a major problem, however the law is not applied because it is not a real law.

You are correct as you often are but I do not want to diminish the importance of the D of I.

The D of I does not have the force of law but it is a foundational document that has been used by the Supreme court to interpret the Constitution. Without the D we would not have the same understanding of the C that we have today.

"For example, in early constitutional law, the Court held that the Constitution was the supreme law of the land as the highest expression of intent of the people. The Court relied on the Declaration’s language about the rights of the “people,” as compared with the rights of the states. Another example, in an 1830 case, the Court, interpreting a wills and estates question of New York law, held that a child born in New York before July 4, 1776, and whose parents moved him to Britain, was not a citizen of the United States. That is, the Court determined that July 4, 1776 was the date on which the sovereignty of Great Britain ceased."

 

[BigRob]

regime change does not in any way mean go to war and take over. Nor did Cinton ever suggest that...nore did he stand in front of the public and show as proof/evidence things that where known to be false at the time. Saddam needed to go, but that does not mean Bush did not have other options and did not lie.

When it is a stated goal of your national security policy to enact regime change, I think he obviously would have told you there was a problem with the current regime in Iraq.

What other options would you propose Bush had? Put yourself in his shoes and act only on the information he had at the time.

 

[BigRob]

You are correct as you often are but I do not want to diminish the importance of the D of I.

The D of I does not have the force of law but it is a foundational document that has been used by the Supreme court to interpret the Constitution. Without the D we would not have the same understanding of the C that we have today.

Sure, I am not trying to diminish the importance of the Declaration of Independence.

"For example, in early constitutional law, the Court held that the Constitution was the supreme law of the land as the highest expression of intent of the people. The Court relied on the Declaration’s language about the rights of the “people,” as compared with the rights of the states. Another example, in an 1830 case, the Court, interpreting a wills and estates question of New York law, held that a child born in New York before July 4, 1776, and whose parents moved him to Britain, was not a citizen of the United States. That is, the Court determined that July 4, 1776 was the date on which the sovereignty of Great Britain ceased."

Sure, but these are not the norm. Additionally, to relate it to terms of the UNDHR, the D of I, like the UNDHR cannot stand independently. What can come out of those, such as other binding treaties or constitutional law will indeed be binding, but none of that makes the original document a legally binding document, which was my main point.

 

[PLC1]

Such as?

Such as the incidents you've read about and dismissed as leftist propaganda, or something similar.

What was the name of the guy who was hung from the ceiling and beaten? You know, the one you heard about in the leftist blog.

Maybe we could ask Bill Clinton. Before Bush was ever in office, Bill Clinton wrote in as part of his national security strategy statement that regime change in Iraq was a major goal of US foreign policy.

The idea that Saddam needed to go existed well before Bush was even President.

I didn't know you were such a fan of Bill Clinton. If he thought that "regime change" in Iraq was important enough to justify an invasion, does that make it so?

 

[BigRob]

Such as the incidents you've read about and dismissed as leftist propaganda, or something similar.

What was the name of the guy who was hung from the ceiling and beaten? You know, the one you heard about in the leftist blog.

I did not dismiss anything as "leftist propaganda." Please show me where I said that about anything. Further, I want examples of innocent people who were tortured and killed and those responsible were not held accountable. Please show me the Presidential Directive that stated that anyone should be hung from the ceiling and beaten.

I didn't know you were such a fan of Bill Clinton. If he thought that "regime change" in Iraq was important enough to justify an invasion, does that make it so?

I give Clinton credit when he did things right. Fact is, regime change in Iraq was an idea in this country years before George Bush was ever President. Yet somehow, this idea consumes us all that the Bush administration alone was out to invade Iraq all along. He was not the first one make this a national security priority.

 

[PLC1]

I did not dismiss anything as "leftist propaganda." Please show me where I said that about anything. Further, I want examples of innocent people who were tortured and killed and those responsible were not held accountable. Please show me the Presidential Directive that stated that anyone should be hung from the ceiling and beaten.

So, the Afgan taxi driver, I can't recall his name just now, you know, the guy that got hung from the ceiling and beaten until he died, do you dismiss that incident in one way or another, or is it the example you're looking for? You do remember that incident, don't you? It's hard to find stories without the name attached. Does anyone remember?

I give Clinton credit when he did things right. Fact is, regime change in Iraq was an idea in this country years before George Bush was ever President. Yet somehow, this idea consumes us all that the Bush administration alone was out to invade Iraq all along. He was not the first one make this a national security priority.

One of the things that Clinton did right, then, was supporting t he idea of regime change in Iraq, without actually finding an excuse to invade that nation. Yes, that was a good thing.

 

[PLC1]

I did not dismiss anything as "leftist propaganda." Please show me where I said that about anything. Further, I want examples of innocent people who were tortured and killed and those responsible were not held accountable. Please show me the Presidential Directive that stated that anyone should be hung from the ceiling and beaten.



I give Clinton credit when he did things right. Fact is, regime change in Iraq was an idea in this country years before George Bush was ever President. Yet somehow, this idea consumes us all that the Bush administration alone was out to invade Iraq all along. He was not the first one make this a national security priority.

Here's one from a leftist source, MSNBC. Of course, such a leftie source is not credible, but it does lend some credence to the preposterous notion that tor... I mean enhanced interrogation, went beyond waterboarding three of the very worst:

“We’re talking about rape and murder here, we’re not just talking abut giving people a humiliating experience, we’re talking about rape and murder and some very serious charges.”

Here's one about those photos that Obama has refused to release:

Abu Ghraib abuse photos 'show rape'

Photographs of alleged prisoner abuse which Barack Obama is attempting to censor include images of apparent rape and sexual abuse, it has emerged.

But, then, there is no doubt that this one is overblown, too. Just keep repeating the mantra:

Only three bad guys, and we saved LA.
Only three bad guys, and we saved LA.
Only three bad guys, and we saved LA.

There. Doesn't that feel better?