seeing that this may be the last post i will give tonight I will attempt to answer all the posts up to
phongn's second post after mine (10:43 pm)
note* i would greatly appreciate it if all posts made concerning both threads, to be placed on this one, in the intrests of simplicity and being the one most current
First off the problem seems to be that, all of you, including me have
have somewhat forgotten what the issue of debate, here in this thread is. And as a result everything since has turned into endless nit picks, ignoring the orginal premise of discussion.
That issue or premise is is that:
The US is a power hunger imperialistic state that will do anything to gain more power.
Bush[/color] The Elite are bilthering idiots who cares only for money and power.
In a few years globalization and free market industry will cause a greater divide between the elite and the rest of the world.
The problems of today will escalate, wars will start, people will die, poverty, disease, and hunger will run rampant, and every last freedom that was granted to us will be gone, so it had never existed. (well that last one was a rant)
Therefore Grassroots Democracy with a Socialist Economy is what will best help the world. Not the curent state in which only the elite and wealthy are granted sustained prosperty and humane life.
-----------------------------------------------
Now too get to some lingering questions that still have relevence with the orginal issue.
phongn
note* I will answer the remarks of the other thread in this one for reason explained above.
First to the other thread and the remaks about the envornment,
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
While the USSR didn't have an outstanding env. record if you bother to look at the other side of the picture you'll discover Bush's envornmental record.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Which is no-where near as bad as the USSR's.
Again I am reiterating the fact that I have
never defended what the former USSR did in
any of its policies. However what I am saying about the US is relevent in that, the government is not doing anything even close to actually saving the environment.
But the main challenge as you brought up was the Nuclear Affect that testing had.
Concerning to Bikini Atoll:
"On March 5, 2001, the Nuclear Claims Tribunal handed down a decision on a seven year lawsuit the Bikinians had brought against the United States for damages done to their islands and their people during the nuclear testing on Bikini. The Tribunal gave them a total award of $563,315,500.00 [loss of value $278,000,000.00, restoration costs $251,500,000.00, suffering and hardship $33,814,500.00], which is the final amount after deducting the past compensation awarded by the U.S. government [see above three trust funds]. The problem is that the Nuclear Claims Tribunal, which was created by the Compact of Free Association of 1986, was underfunded and does not have the money to pay for this claim. It is now up to the people of Bikini to petition the U.S. Congress for the money to fulfill this award. This is expected to take many years and it is uncertain if the United States will honor their claim."
taken from
http://www.bikiniatoll.com//history.html
Concerning other testing:
http://www.parascope.com/gallery/galler ... /index.htm
Concerning testing in US:
http://www.parascope.com/articles/1097/fallout.htm
http://rex.nci.nih.gov/massmedia/Fallout/contents.html
BTW this link is a full National Cancer Institute report on nuclear fallout from US testing,
so read it, if you wish.
Now to the arguments this thread:
Your first post was basicly a nit pick not worth while,
Ever heard of a little place called Vietnam, perhaps? It had a command economy for decades and only began recovery once they implemented free-market reforms. You think Nike pays a pittance for its Vietnamese factories? Look at the Cost of Living in Vietnam first.
Now, whose not name source, at least i directed you to the general vacinity of proof, while what you leave me is unsubstantiated claims of your take of the situation.
the second part of your post referes to the Execuative Orders,
First off the puropse, exposing EOs was for the purpose of awareness about what kind of power the Execuative Branch has. And even though some of them have been revoked, they have and can be numerously reinstated, refined, revoked, and reinstated again.
Why does this matter?
Where in the constitution does it allow for this type of power? Isn't division of power the constitution's goal?
As for arguments over the authority of EOs, concerning the word seizure.
Seizure: the act of seizing, to seize
definition of seize:
to put in possesion of
EO 10995
"WHEREAS there is an immediate and urgent need for integrated short and long-range planning with respect to national and international telecommunications programs, for continuing supervision over the use of the radio frequency spectrum by the executive branch of the Government and for the development of national policies in the field of telecommunications;"
EO 11000
" (e) Requirements. Develop, in coordination with manpower-usage agencies, plans, procedures and standards for presenting claims for civilian manpower, periodically obtain and analyze or make estimates of requirements for manpower, in total and by specific skill categories and occupations currently and for any emergency, taking into account the estimates of needs for military and civilian purposes; and advise other agencies on the manpower implications of alternative program decisions. Such evaluation shall take into consideration the geographical distribution of requirements under emergency conditions.
(f) Claimancy. Prepare plans to claim materials, equipment, supplies and services needed in support of assigned responsibilities and other essential functions of the Department from appropriate agencies and work with such agencies in developing programs to insure the availability of such resources in an emergency."
EO 11004
"(f) Claimancy. Prepare plans to claim materials, manpower, equipment, supplies, and services needed in support of assigned responsibilities and other essential functions of the agency from appropriate agencies, and work with such agencies in developing programs to insure availability of such resources in an emergency.
(g) Distribution. Develop allocation and distribution control systems consistent with the priorities and allocations procedures prescribed by the Department of Commerce for materials and equipment needed for housing, and develop programs for the domestic distribution and use of mobile lodging facilities in an emergency."
With all such vauge language used by the government it is difficult to understand what exactly they are saying. It is really up to the interpretation of each Order. But with words such a Claimancy, Designation, National guidance Civilian manpower mobilization, it is most certain that the will use this powers to their fullest extent.
Now if you wish to debate the orignal topic, feel free to in the future.
If those in charge of our society-politicians, corporate executives and owners of press and television-can dominate our ideas, they will be secure in their power. They will not need soldiers patrolling the streets. We will control ourselves
-Howard Zinn
and will respond with a gist of what I orginally had
