The General American Politics Thread

[blackherox]

Other than North Korea, pretty much.

Okay,but why is it illegal for them to possess such weapons when other world nations do so?

Honestly? That depends entirely on your opinion of how relevant the United Nations is post-9/11.

So is it more of a ' we're scared they'll nuke us first, so lets nuke em now instead'

But I mean do the states have the financial means to actually do this (being involved in 2 wars)? Would it be legal? And shouldn't there be at least an attempt at diplomacy beforehand? What of the ramifications (e..g intensifying Islamic extremism etc)? etc

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

Okay,but why is it illegal for them to possess such weapons when other world nations do so?

It's not so much that they're illegal than it is a lack of trust regarding their use from what I know. Considering how volatile things are with the politics, if they were to get such weapons they may not give much of damn about the treaties forbidding their use.

Then there's the concern of them selling it to terrorist groups that people are concerned about.

Tornado will more than likely explain it better.

So is it more of a ' we're scared they'll nuke us first, so lets nuke em now instead'

Do that and you'd be in serious trouble on the international front. Nuking North Korea of all places will no doubt make China go on the offensive and declare war, and that's the last thing we want at the moment.

Edited April 10, 2012 by ChaosSupremeSonic

[Tornado]

Okay,but why is it illegal for them to possess such weapons when other world nations do so?

Because they are a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

So is it more of a ' we're scared they'll nuke us first, so lets nuke em now instead'

Not really. More "they said they wouldn't pursue acquiring nuclear weapons, they are doing it anyway and we are going to do everything in our power to stop them."

But I mean do the states have the financial means to actually do this (being involved in 2 wars)?

Absolutely. And I mean absolutely.

Would it be legal?

That's more of an issue of how it is carried out than anything else.

And shouldn't there be at least an attempt at diplomacy beforehand?

They have been for nearly a decade now. That isn't to say that I want the U.S. to stop trying, but it isn't as if them flipping the war switch is coming out of nowhere.

What of the ramifications (e..g intensifying Islamic extremism etc)? etc

Oh, they'll probably be pretty bad; just like they were in 1979.

[Stacy]

Okay,but why is it illegal for them to possess such weapons when other world nations do so?

So is it more of a ' we're scared they'll nuke us first, so lets nuke em now instead'

But I mean do the states have the financial means to actually do this (being involved in 2 wars)? Would it be legal? And shouldn't there be at least an attempt at diplomacy beforehand? What of the ramifications (e..g intensifying Islamic extremism etc)? etc

For the sake of the whole damn World. Diplomacy should be used before giving North Korea the Nuclear finger!

Anyway with Kim Jong Il dead, I am sure North Korea's Generals are too busy varying for who gets to groom Kim Jong -Un.

Oh, shit.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/northkorea/9191814/North-Korea-promotes-nuclear-and-missile-chiefs-as-Kim-Jong-un-consolidates-power-before-rocket-launch.html

Like Father, like Son all he needs now is some Granny Glasses.

Anyway this getting a bit off topic.

[turbojet]

Because they are a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

A treaty that they can resign from at anytime they choose just like North Korea.

When it comes to the NPT, there was a fundamental flaw with the treaty from the beginning such as a countries who didn't have nuclear weapons at the time accepting the vulnerability of not possessing the most powerful weapons in the world in exchange of some promises that counties with nuclear weapons won't use them. According to Article I and Article II of the treaty, countries with nuclear weapons are not supposed to provide, sell, distribute nukes to countries that don't and countries that don't aren't supposed to accept, seek, or attempt to create nuclear weapons. The United States, United Kingdom, and France broke that part of the deal as soon as the treaty was put into action. So the NPT is a bit contradictory when it seems to acquiesce countries who do obtain nuclear weapons more than punish them.

Iran is a bit different as they always been interested in obtaining nuclear weapons because they thought it would benefit them from Invasion such as their war with Iraq. So they circumvented the IAEA, used the excuse that they are searching nuclear energy as the treaty permits, and are pretty much gloating at this point.

Why Iran can't nuclear weapons? They have every right as a sovereign nation to obtain them. However, I really would not trust the political party in charge at the moment to not be reckless with them and do a silly thing like, I don't know, nuke Israel or trust a government that openly houses many terrorist organizations. It is a matter of self-preservation for Israel and a matter of protecting our allies for the United States. International Law is tricky business.

[SuperStingray]

Right now, it's not the weapons themselves we're afraid of; there are stockpiles of them in nations worldwide but even the most devastating weapons imaginable are useless without a willing finger on the trigger. The fact that it only takes one person with the will and means to use them to set the world on fire is what makes diplomacy regarding them so delicate. We have no reason to trust anyone with nuclear weapons, including ourselves, but we know far less about Iran and North Korea's true agendas which is what makes them far more of a risk to give the responsibility of not creating nuclear hellfire to than France or even China. And even if they don't themselves use it, there's still the risk that they can sell them to organizations that may. I mean really, God help us if someone like Al-Qaeda obtains even one. It's not something I count on ever happening, but I'd put good money that they wouldn't hesitate to use it.

[Tornado]

A treaty that they can resign from at anytime they choose just like North Korea.

They absolutely can. But since they didn't, and instead just decided to kept following it while not actually following it, that justifies actions against them in the name of enforcing it.

I'm not saying that the NPT wouldn't be more useful as toilet paper than as an international treaty, but open defiance of it when there is a clear and defined system for getting out of it is basically just asking for action to be taken against you. It may be semantics that military action would be justified against Iran and not North Korea, but what are international treaties if not pages of semantics in the first place?

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

Question: why the fuck are treaties pages of semantics instead of being too the point? I take it that it's like that so that those who made it can find loopholes out of them, or find other means to achieve their goals? That's always been the puzzeling part, because I've felt things could be much different if that were the case (although whether that would be a good thing really depends).

[Tornado]

Because actually enforcing treaties tends to be a messy, messy thing that very few of the ones that draft a treaty actually want to do; and a lot of the times drafters of the treaties write loopholes into them so they don't have to follow them if they don't want to.

The NPT is pretty much both.

[Kevin]

So what Romney won the Republican Nomination? Oh Jesus fucking christ!

He hasn't "officially" won since he hasn't gotten the required number of delegates yet, but he's guaranteed to win the nomination now barring something extremely unforeseen.

[turbojet]

Place your bets, ladies and gentlemen. Just how fast will Romney run to the middle now that the primaries are done? He is like wet cement. Just stamp your ideology on to him and your ideology becomes his.

Edited April 13, 2012 by turbojet

[Mono]

You guys remember John Kerry back in 2004? He lost because he played the middle, changing his views back and forth for the whole campaign.

Mitt Romney is the GOP's Kerry. All Obama has to do is show he has no answers for our problems, and changes his mind whenever necessary.

Funny, they are both from the same state.

Edited April 11, 2012 by Jay Rockman

[-Robin-]

A Tennessee bill would define kissing and hand-holding as "gateways to sexual activity," would ban teachers from "promoting" contraception, and allow parents to take legal action against teachers who promote the method.

MEMPHIS, TN -

(WMC-TV) - Tennessee senators approved an update to the state's abstinence-based sex education law that includes warnings against "gateway sexual activity."

In a new family life instructions bill, holding hands and kissing could be considered gateways to sex. Planned Parenthood said that allowing state government to define local sex education curriculum could backfire.

According to a 2009 Youth Risk Behavior Study, 61 percent of Memphis City high school students and 27 percent of middle school students have had sex. That's higher than the national average.

Planned Parenthood said these numbers are why a new sex education bill promoting abstinence is not realistic.

"If the state of Tennessee gets to create the curriculum, it has to create something that umbrella reflects everyone," said Planned Parenthood Director of Education Elokin CaPese.

Tennessee House Bill 3621 and Senate Bill 3310 are currently up for debate.

In the bill, a uniformed policy on sex education is defined with terms like "gateway sexual activity." Also listed are statewide instructions on how to teach family life curriculum.

"It's not detailed enough in a health-based way," said CaPese.

The bill prohibits teachers from demonstrating gateway sexual activity. CaPese said that would include health education models.

"It makes it very clear that you can't promote contraception," said CaPese.

If an instructor goes beyond the curriculum, the bill gives parents more legal rights, stating, "The parent or legal guardian shall have a cause of action against the instructor or organization for actual damages."

"They can opt out, and that means that parents already have the power that we want them to have," said CaPese.

The bill goes before the House Education Committee next Tuesday.

[Stacy]

On come its 2012, not the 1950's, some of the shit people try to pass these days!

[Nepenthe]

The first thing I thought of upon reading the headline was that Ring Around the Rosie was about to become inadvertently outlawed in Tennessee.

[Mono]

Soon there will be a law stating that you can't have eye contact with someone of the different sex.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

Soon there will be a law stating that you can't have eye contact with someone of the different sex.

If they want to destroy more of their chances at getting votes, why not?

[SenEDDtor Missile]

On come its 2012, not the 1950's, some of the shit people try to pass these days!

It is kind of to be expected; these types of people are getting desperate because the way they see it, the values they have clung onto for so very long are slowly being eroded away, making way for something that they do not understand (or choose not to understand) or even fear.

Retro Edit: My previous comment wasn't that great, so I fixed it.

Edited April 14, 2012 by Enigma the Milkman

[Mono]

I don't care if someone is religious (I am, Catholic), I don't care if they are a man or women, I don't care if you're liberal or conservative. To get my approval, you need to have a brain. The entire GOP is missing one.

Edited April 13, 2012 by Jay Rockman

[Ekaje]

It's really sad when real people act and think the way you'd imagine people only would in a ridiculous satire. Because warning children about handholding being a "gateway sexual activity" sounds like something I would hear in a joke about how overly afraid Americans of their kids learning about sex ever.

And oh god I just realized all the times my family engaged in gateway sexual activities with me. I feel so violated.

Edited April 13, 2012 by Ekaje

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

I don't care if someone is religious (I am, Catholic), I don't care if they are a man or women, I don't care if you're liberal or conservative. To get my approval, you need to have a brain. The entire GOP is missing one.

Either that or their doing this shit entirely on purpose in a desperate attempt to hold power.

I've never expected the GOP to be THIS way in this day and age, but then again I've only gotten into politics recently.

[Mono]

The GOP has been a clusterfuck of stupidity since Reagan. They were pretty moderate before that.

[Nepenthe]

Some part of me wants to think that a lot of GOP realizes that it's caught between a rock and a hard place as it has to appeal more and more to right-wing extremism to keep that base in line, or that they have to tip-toe around agreeing with Democrats or Obama on some issues they may have mutual interests in because that'll be seen as some sort of betrayal or something by their base. Seriously, you look at these guys back in the day and think, "Man, their positions are reasonable; I don't agree with some aspects but they're okay dudes." There's even papers out there with Rick Santorum out there himself expressing that he believes abortion should be left up to the mother, even though he doesn't agree with it himself; completely opposite of what we heard on the campaign trail. The party's simply been hijacked by the loonies like the Tea Party protestors just as much as it's been infested with people like Bachmann and such.

[-Robin-]

I'd like to think it's just the incensed emotions that election year brings out that's the reason why we're seeing a constant stream of extreme conservative, fundamentalist rhetoric. But, we'd have to wait until mid-2013 before a comparison can be made.

This goes for liberal arguments and counter-points as well. But if Gallup polls are any indication, the public is slowly shifting to the left anyway.

[turbojet]

Romney, sometimes it is nice to shut the fuck up.