Achilles Posted August 15, 2007 Share Posted August 15, 2007 Link CARACAS, Venezuela - President Hugo Chavez was presenting his blueprint Wednesday for sweeping constitutional changes expected to allow him to be re-elected indefinitely, a move his critics call a threat to democracy. Oh goodness. Watch out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Totenkopf Posted August 16, 2007 Share Posted August 16, 2007 Well, the question is now whether he can pull it off w/o some type of fraud. Either way, if he succeeds, the only pertinent question will be what he plans to do about "his" oil. I already saw that he's predicting $150/bl in the near future. Makes you wonder what he might be planning..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jae Onasi Posted August 16, 2007 Share Posted August 16, 2007 Well, he's pretty much a dictator already. He takes whatever he wants and suppresses anyone who disagrees with him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Totenkopf Posted August 16, 2007 Share Posted August 16, 2007 So...anyone want to place bets on when/if the Roosevelt Corollary kicks in... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roosevelt_Corollary Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arcesious Posted August 16, 2007 Share Posted August 16, 2007 Why hasn't the U.s sent some nice little assassins to kill that power-hungry idiot yet?! uggg... tha guy is so annoying. hopefully someone will put him in his place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jae Onasi Posted August 16, 2007 Share Posted August 16, 2007 Because it's against US law to assassinate world leaders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Totenkopf Posted August 16, 2007 Share Posted August 16, 2007 At least "officially".....can't leave a paper trail that would be incriminating. Blackwater to the rescue, perhaps? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Web Rider Posted August 16, 2007 Share Posted August 16, 2007 Not that this was really surprising or anything. Still, it's kinda sad. it would have been nice if at least ONE leader who tried to establish that sort of setup actually had good intentions behind it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allronix Posted August 16, 2007 Share Posted August 16, 2007 Well, the CIA tried to out him once. Unfortunately for them, he not only got restored in a counter-coup, but came out looking like a martyr. Look, even I'll say he's nuts, but it's frankly not our damn business to go topping other people's government. Look at Iraq Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Achilles Posted August 16, 2007 Author Share Posted August 16, 2007 Because it's against US law to assassinate world leaders. "Executive order" is not the same thing as "law". In order to understand the nature and scope of the U.S. Federal ban on assassinations and the degree to which it restricts the military options of the President, it is necessary to examine the circumstances of its origin. Reading the language of the rule—now in effect as Executive Order 12333—one could easily conclude that it prevents the United States from employing deadly force against foreign leaders. However, a legal and historical analysis of this document suggests that it is far less prohibitive than it might at first appear. It fails to actually bar state-sponsored assassination for two major reasons. First, in recent years the Order has been interpreted to allow the types of attacks against foreign leaders that the United States has typically favored. Second, an executive order does not have the force and immutability of law, and is subject to change by the President. As a result, Executive Order 12333 is not an effective legal obstacle to assassination, but rather is only a visible symbol of policy and a mechanism to ensure that the authority to initiate an assassination attempt resides with the President alone. Source:AMERICAN LAW AND POLICY ON ASSASSINATIONS OF FOREIGN LEADERS: THE PRACTICALITY OF MAINTAINING THE STATUS QUO Emphasis mine. More On Executive Order 12333. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pho3nix Posted August 16, 2007 Share Posted August 16, 2007 Why hasn't the U.s sent some nice little assassins to kill that power-hungry idiot yet?! Name one politician who isn't a power hungry idiot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jae Onasi Posted August 16, 2007 Share Posted August 16, 2007 "Executive order" is not the same thing as "law". My mistake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilentScope001 Posted August 16, 2007 Share Posted August 16, 2007 Name one politician who isn't a power hungry idiot. Sulla, the first Roman "Consul For Life", who took the job to rebuild Rome after its destruction by Marius, and resigned his position after 2 years once he reformed the Senate to make sure people like Sulla don't seize power via military coups. He was neither power-hungry, nor was he an idiot. *runs* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Web Rider Posted August 16, 2007 Share Posted August 16, 2007 Name one politician who isn't a power hungry idiot. I give credit to quite a few politicians who aren't power hungry, and you average power-hungry person is NOT an idiot, it's contrary to the goal of being power hungry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arcesious Posted August 16, 2007 Share Posted August 16, 2007 If the Russians, Europeans, and Americans would all ally together as one single governement, then no one would have to worry about any of the other 'rogue countries' that threaten the world's 3 most powerful nations. With russian and American weaponry together, and Europe's technological advnacement, those three countries would make an excellent new world superpower, and could put people like Huge Chavez back in line. Edit: it would be nice to have Japan's thriving technological boosts on our side too now that i thinmk about it. maybe a few other countries too.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Achilles Posted August 16, 2007 Author Share Posted August 16, 2007 If the Russians, Europeans, and Americans would all ally together as one single governement, then no one would have to worry about any of the other 'rogue countries' that threaten the world's 3 most powerful nations. With russian and American weaponry together, and Europe's technological advnacement, those three countries would make an excellent new world superpower, and could put people like Huge Chavez back in line. Edit: it would be nice to have Japan's thriving technological boosts on our side too now that i thinmk about it. maybe a few other countries too.) Maybe we could call it "United Nations" or something like that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arcesious Posted August 16, 2007 Share Posted August 16, 2007 I mwean tto say could ally together- not would ally together. But the united nations already exists in europe- the U.N. Maybe it could be called the International Union Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Achilles Posted August 16, 2007 Author Share Posted August 16, 2007 I mwean tto say could ally together- not would ally together. Not sure I follow. But the united nations already exists in europe- the U.N. Actually, the U.N. has over 190 member nations (not just in Europe ). Are you thinking of the E.U. (European Union)? Maybe it could be called the International Union I've heard "League of Nations" is hip again Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arcesious Posted August 16, 2007 Share Posted August 16, 2007 All i really care about is when somebody will finally decide to assinate hugo chavez. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mimartin Posted August 16, 2007 Share Posted August 16, 2007 I've heard "League of Nations" is hip again As you know the League of Nations did a real good job of preserving the peace. I think I'd rather go with the “Justice League”. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Achilles Posted August 16, 2007 Author Share Posted August 16, 2007 So that he can achieve martyrdom amongst his radical followers? So that we can further bolster our international image as imperialist bullies? So that we can finally deplete any shred of international goodwill that might extend to the U.S.? Surely there are better alternatives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arcesious Posted August 16, 2007 Share Posted August 16, 2007 Oh no... you guys haven't been watching those superhero cartoons again have you...? But then again, an international Union sort of thing could cause humanity to destroy itself if you really think of the problems it would cause... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Achilles Posted August 16, 2007 Author Share Posted August 16, 2007 But then again, an international Union sort of thing could cause humanity to destroy itself if you really think of the problems it would cause... Err...it already exists, man. What sort of self-destructive problems do you foresee? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arcesious Posted August 16, 2007 Share Posted August 16, 2007 I meant a union of all nations accross th entire world being one, single nation. Problems i forsee: Trade disputes due to the fac t that if all nations ar eone, there ar eno befits for gaining incoem from the trade to the people trading. Many 'we need this' and 'we need you to support this' problems amount everyone. a single government controlling the world would be a great economic stress. and many more problems... such as rewriting laws and treaties and constitutional rights... etc, etc. the world would be huge a mess for about a decade or half a century before it gets organized with this sort of setup. Fore xample: world hunger would be hard for one government to fix. Religious confilictions due to changing of laws that would be put into effect everywhere. Civil war over exchanging of territory between countries originally hostile to each other in the past... military funding would get sooooo mixed up. Medical funding from one governement to the entire world problems... Scientific advnacement would likely be halted dramtically to resort economic complete reconstructing... and numerous other problems... The onyl way to fix the world economy under a single world governemtnet would be to recall all courrecn accross the globe, instill a time when all currency transaction is frozen, and to print or crete a brand new internatioanl currency, and also, complete restarting from day one for every buisness accross th entire world, including free enterprises. Also, ther would need to be comeplete reestimation of currecny use to equalize economy for everyone. All that would take forever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Achilles Posted August 16, 2007 Author Share Posted August 16, 2007 I meant a union of all nations accross th entire world being one, single nation. Oh, well we're a long ways off from that. Trade disputes due to the fac t that if all nations ar eone, there ar eno befits for gaining incoem from the trade to the people trading. Actually free trade would be a good thing. Tariffs usually go to the government anyways, so maintaining them would be pointless in this scenario. Many 'we need this' and 'we need you to support this' problems amount everyone. a single government controlling the world would be a great economic stress. Again, not really. A single, standardized system of trade would eliminate problems, not increase them. and many more problems... such as rewriting laws and treaties and constitutional rights... etc, etc. the world would be huge a mess for about a decade or half a century before it gets organized with this sort of setup. Well yeah, but the U.N. has already paved the way in many respects. Nations that don't recognize human rights are going to balk at having to revise their policies, but I don't think that this is strictly a "unified govenment" issue. world hunger would be hard for one government to fix. Why? My understanding is that most famine is exacerbated by differences between governments, not eliminated. Religious confilictions due to changing of laws that would be put into effect everywhere. Clearly sectarian states will not want to become secular and vice versa. This isn't any different that what we see around us today or have seen for the last 1000+ years. Civil war over exchanging of territory between countries originally hostile to each other in the past... Yep, in-fighting to resovle old feuds would probably be an issue. Don't see much getting around that one...unless we could negotiate a solution before hand. military funding would get sooooo mixed up. Please explain. Medical funding from one governement to the entire world problems... Too ambiguous. This would depend a great deal on what kind of medical system was adopted. No doubt a problem, but I don't see how isolated resources via separate governments is a better scenario. Scientific advnacement would likely be halted dramtically to resort economic complete reconstructing... Why? The onyl way to fix the world economy under a single world governemtnet would be to recall all courrecn accross the globe, instill a time when all currency transaction is frozen, and to print or crete a brand new internatioanl currency, and also, complete restarting from day one for every buisness accross th entire world, including free enterprises. Also, ther would need to be comeplete reestimation of currecny use to equalize economy for everyone. All that would take forever. Hmm...the colonies did it when the federal treasury was formed. Europe was able to do it with the euro. Difficult sure, but not impossible. Besides, cost of living is cost of living no matter what currency you use. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.