06-22-2015 04:39 PM
196 ... 678
tools
  1. A895's Avatar
    We don't worry about aggression from Germany, Italy, or Japan these days. It's a good model to consider for the Middle East as well. We can certainly tailor our approach to account for cultural differences.

    As for the fundamental impact on the Middle East, it probably depends on whom you ask. For example, people who were involved with Saddam Hussein's political party or the Taliban aren't happy, but I don't see anyone calling for the restoration of either one.
    I am saying that a military occupation in the Middle East is a bad idea, when many Middle Eastern countries are anti American. ISIS is after all the result of our messing with Middle East.

    Posted via the Android Central App
    06-07-2015 06:39 AM
  2. Scott7217's Avatar
    I am saying that a military occupation in the Middle East is a bad idea, when many Middle Eastern countries are anti American. ISIS is after all the result of our messing with Middle East.
    I wouldn't be surprised if there was a time when the German, Italian, and Japanese people were anti-American, but we don't experience that now.

    For example, we dropped two atomic bombs on Japan, the country that invented the concept of a suicide bomber with the Kamikaze. Yet, Americans don't worry about the Japanese planning revenge against the US.

    In fact, it is American involvement in Germany, Italy, and Japan that has led to lasting peace in those countries.

    In any case, I heard President Obama is sending 450 troops to Iraq for "training" purposes. Hopefully Obama will make good on his promise to degrade and ultimately destroy ISIS.
    06-11-2015 07:17 PM
  3. A895's Avatar
    I wouldn't be surprised if there was a time when the German, Italian, and Japanese people were anti-American, but we don't experience that now.

    For example, we dropped two atomic bombs on Japan, the country that invented the concept of a suicide bomber with the Kamikaze. Yet, Americans don't worry about the Japanese planning revenge against the US.

    In fact, it is American involvement in Germany, Italy, and Japan that has led to lasting peace in those countries.

    In any case, I heard President Obama is sending 450 troops to Iraq for "training" purposes. Hopefully Obama will make good on his promise to degrade and ultimately destroy ISIS.
    This is why your reasoning fails and that is because it lacks context. Japans military was completely taken down after the atomic bomb drops. Germany had to own up to the holocaust and today acts like our never happened. The Middle East, that is a region that has been in turmoil for hundreds of years now.

    I don't see how it benefits us (outside of oil) to continuously spend billions and hundreds of lives to fix something that needs a lot more work than us.

    Posted via the Android Central App
    06-12-2015 12:44 AM
  4. Scott7217's Avatar
    This is why your reasoning fails and that is because it lacks context. Japans military was completely taken down after the atomic bomb drops. Germany had to own up to the holocaust and today acts like our never happened. The Middle East, that is a region that has been in turmoil for hundreds of years now.
    In Germany, it is illegal to deny the Holocaust. As for Japan, it makes sense to completely take down the Japanese military and station US military in the region, like what we continue to do today. This is why we no longer fear of future attacks from Japan.

    Perhaps we should be open to the idea of maintaining a continual military presence in the Middle East. For some, it would be difficult to accept, just like how some people find it difficult to accept that George W. Bush is not a war criminal. Still, that is the reality of the situation.
    06-16-2015 05:25 PM
  5. Scott7217's Avatar
    Pardoning him? He hasn't been charged with anything, much less convicted.
    Gerald Ford pardoned Richard Nixon, even though Nixon was never brought to trial. So we do have a precedent for pardons that occur before any criminal charges could be filed.
    06-16-2015 05:33 PM
  6. Mooncatt's Avatar
    Gerald Ford pardoned Richard Nixon, even though Nixon was never brought to trial. So we do have a precedent for pardons that occur before any criminal charges could be filed.
    I don't think one or two decisions should set a precedence. If a bad decision is made, the fact that it was the first decision on a topic shouldn't set the basis for decisions going forward.
    06-16-2015 05:55 PM
  7. Scott7217's Avatar
    I don't think one or two decisions should set a precedence. If a bad decision is made, the fact that it was the first decision on a topic shouldn't set the basis for decisions going forward.
    There is no appeal for a presidential pardon, so I don't know how you would stop any president from pardoning anyone who has not been charged with a crime.
    06-16-2015 06:04 PM
  8. Mooncatt's Avatar
    There is no appeal for a presidential pardon, so I don't know how you would stop any president from pardoning anyone who has not been charged with a crime.
    True, and in this case, it's a silly and nonsensical idea anyway with no legal impacts. But my point about precedence in general still remains.

    Plus, in this case, it was someone with no legal authority "pardoning" someone that hasn't been charged. Had an actual charge and conviction actually happened, it still would have no effect coming from a blog writer.
    06-16-2015 08:32 PM
  9. Scott7217's Avatar
    True, and in this case, it's a silly and nonsensical idea anyway with no legal impacts.
    The greater point is that George W. Bush is not a war criminal; therefore, he would never need a pardon in the first place.

    That is why the idea of pardoning Bush before any charges are brought against him is silly by design. He was never guilty in the first place.
    06-17-2015 12:53 AM
  10. Kelly Kearns's Avatar
    Gerald Ford pardoned Richard Nixon, even though Nixon was never brought to trial. So we do have a precedent for pardons that occur before any criminal charges could be filed.
    There is no appeal for a presidential pardon, so I don't know how you would stop any president from pardoning anyone who has not been charged with a crime.
    One case is not a precedent and not even sure that pardoning before a conviction is Constitutional . If the pardon is unconstitutional and an abuse of power, not sure it can be held up. Presidential Pardons have gone before the Supreme Court and they have refused to limit them, but have hinted that there are times the court would.

    Chief Justice Warren E. Burger, in Schick v. Reed (1974), hinted that an unconstitutional pardon might could be overturned.

    The POTUS can not pardon a former POTUS that has been impeached.
    The POTUS can not pardon someone convicted in a state or lower court.

    The pardon of Nixon was never tested, so we have no idea if it would have been shot down or not.
    06-17-2015 05:31 PM
  11. Kelly Kearns's Avatar
    If Presidential Pardon before someone is even tried, can be held up, then seems to me a GOP POTUS would pardon any and all future GOP presidents of any wrong doing and a DNC POTUS would pardon any and all future DNC presidents of any wrong doing.
    06-17-2015 05:34 PM
  12. Scott7217's Avatar
    The POTUS can not pardon a former POTUS that has been impeached.
    The POTUS can not pardon someone convicted in a state or lower court.

    The pardon of Nixon was never tested, so we have no idea if it would have been shot down or not.
    George W. Bush was never impeached for war crimes. Also, war crimes do not fall under the jurisdiction of state or lower courts.

    Why wasn't Nixon's pardon challenged? Furthermore, why did Gerald Ford win the Profile in Courage Award from the JFK Library?

    NY Times -- Ford Wins Kennedy Award For 'Courage' of Nixon Pardon (article link)

    Senator Ted Kennedy seemed to think Ford made the right decision when he said the following: "I was one of those who spoke out against his action then. But time has a way of clarifying past events, and now we see that President Ford was right. His courage and dedication to our country made it possible for us to begin the process of healing and put the tragedy of Watergate behind us."
    06-19-2015 05:54 AM
  13. Kelly Kearns's Avatar
    George W. Bush was never impeached for war crimes. Also, war crimes do not fall under the jurisdiction of state or lower courts.

    Why wasn't Nixon's pardon challenged? Furthermore, why did Gerald Ford win the Profile in Courage Award from the JFK Library?

    NY Times -- Ford Wins Kennedy Award For 'Courage' of Nixon Pardon (article link)

    Senator Ted Kennedy seemed to think Ford made the right decision when he said the following: "I was one of those who spoke out against his action then. But time has a way of clarifying past events, and now we see that President Ford was right. His courage and dedication to our country made it possible for us to begin the process of healing and put the tragedy of Watergate behind us."
    It wasn't challenged because it meant nothing, he wasn't charged.
    06-19-2015 12:36 PM
  14. Scott7217's Avatar
    It wasn't challenged because I meant nothing, he wasn't charged.
    By accepting Ford's pardon, Richard Nixon was admitting his guilt.

    Originally, Nixon refused to take the pardon, but Ford's offer was a one-time deal. If Nixon refused to take it, Ford would not give another opportunity for a pardon to Nixon.

    Senator Ted Kennedy's remarks also seemed to illustrate the sentiment at the time. People thought Ford's pardon was a shady deal that allowed Nixon to get away with multiple crimes.

    If there was a way to legally challenge Ford's pardon, I think Kennedy and others would have done it. In hindsight, though, Kennedy admitted that the pardon was the correct action.

    With respect to George W. Bush, I think if there was a way to charge him for war crimes, someone other than the Malaysian government would have done it by now.
    06-19-2015 04:32 PM
  15. Scott7217's Avatar
    If Presidential Pardon before someone is even tried, can be held up, then seems to me a GOP POTUS would pardon any and all future GOP presidents of any wrong doing and a DNC POTUS would pardon any and all future DNC presidents of any wrong doing.
    If any political party tried to pardon any and all future presidents from their party, the people would simply refuse to elect them to office.

    In any case, I think some clarification is in order. In talking about an unconditional pardon, we would be referencing future charges about past actions. We are not talking about alleged criminal activity that has not occurred yet. However, we can include past criminal actions that were only recently discovered.

    In a hypothetical pardon for George W. Bush, we would be focusing on his actions during his presidency. Any such actions would have occurred in the past since Bush is no longer president.
    06-19-2015 04:50 PM
  16. Kelly Kearns's Avatar
    By accepting Ford's pardon, Richard Nixon was admitting his guilt.

    Originally, Nixon refused to take the pardon, but Ford's offer was a one-time deal. If Nixon refused to take it, Ford would not give another opportunity for a pardon to Nixon.

    Senator Ted Kennedy's remarks also seemed to illustrate the sentiment at the time. People thought Ford's pardon was a shady deal that allowed Nixon to get away with multiple crimes.

    If there was a way to legally challenge Ford's pardon, I think Kennedy and others would have done it. In hindsight, though, Kennedy admitted that the pardon was the correct action.

    With respect to George W. Bush, I think if there was a way to charge him for war crimes, someone other than the Malaysian government would have done it by now.
    No, every knew Nixon was guilty. It meant nothing because the pardon never came into play because he wasn't charged.

    You can bet if he was charged it would have been challenged.

    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N910A using Tapatalk
    06-19-2015 07:49 PM
  17. Kelly Kearns's Avatar
    If any political party tried to pardon any and all future presidents from their party, the people would simply refuse to elect them to office.

    In any case, I think some clarification is in order. In talking about an unconditional pardon, we would be referencing future charges about past actions. We are not talking about alleged criminal activity that has not occurred yet. However, we can include past criminal actions that were only recently discovered.

    In a hypothetical pardon for George W. Bush, we would be focusing on his actions during his presidency. Any such actions would have occurred in the past since Bush is no longer president.
    They would do it after elected and someone from both parties would do it.

    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N910A using Tapatalk
    06-19-2015 07:50 PM
  18. Scott7217's Avatar
    They would do it after elected and someone from both parties would do it.
    If the Democrats and Republicans were to continue this pattern of pardons, it would give an excellent opportunity for a third party to make their case for the White House.
    06-20-2015 12:02 AM
  19. Scott7217's Avatar
    No, every knew Nixon was guilty. It meant nothing because the pardon never came into play because he wasn't charged.

    You can bet if he was charged it would have been challenged.
    If you were advising Richard Nixon at the time, would you tell him to accept Gerald Ford's pardon? Why or why not?

    It seemed like Nixon avoided a lot of legal trouble by accepting the pardon.
    06-20-2015 12:05 AM
  20. Kelly Kearns's Avatar
    If you were advising Richard Nixon at the time, would you tell him to accept Gerald Ford's pardon? Why or why not?

    It seemed like Nixon avoided a lot of legal trouble by accepting the pardon.
    He didn't avoid any trouble by accepting the pardon. He avoided trouble by resigning.

    Telling him to accept the pardon means nothing. Had there been a conviction, that pardon would have gone to the Supreme Court.
    06-20-2015 08:33 PM
  21. Scott7217's Avatar
    He didn't avoid any trouble by accepting the pardon. He avoided trouble by resigning.

    Telling him to accept the pardon means nothing. Had there been a conviction, that pardon would have gone to the Supreme Court.
    What do you think Richard Nixon's fate would have been had he not accepted Gerald Ford's pardon? Would he have gone to prison?
    06-22-2015 04:39 PM
196 ... 678

Similar Threads

  1. volume control on a bush tablet
    By AC Question in forum Ask a Question
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 04-27-2015, 12:42 AM
  2. Hi'm George!
    By George Wilkie in forum New to the Forums? Introduce Yourself Here!
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 06-02-2014, 03:42 PM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD