Politics: Onward from New Hampshire

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by bilmore
Maybe I'm misreading this, but are you positing that Libya's surprise nuclear capitulation and NK's recent agreement to re-enter talks occurred only coincidently shortly after our invasion of Iraq? That the past years of sanctions were what really drove these events?

in the case of Libya, don't forget the efforts of France to bring it to the table.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
This is going to create an absolutely wild situation for two years, because I have no doubt a number of gays will get married, and then the possibility will be cut off by state const. amendment in 2006 (or whenever). But I doubt teh state could nullify those marriages, could it? Sort of a group annulment. Is that impairing the obligation of contracts?

I would have to research this more to come up with a definitive answer, but as long as it is not a taking of property without just compensation or an ex post facto criminal sanction, the state can nullify the marriages with a state constitutional amendment and not violate the US constitution.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by bilmore
Maybe I'm misreading this, but are you positing that Libya's surprise nuclear capitulation and NK's recent agreement to re-enter talks occurred only coincidently shortly after our invasion of Iraq? That the past years of sanctions were what really drove these events?

I haven't bought the party line with respect to Libya, although my point was narrower. Are you suggesting that the sole basis for Qaddafi's decision was that the US, only by invading Iraq, could show it was serious about battling countries with WMD? A certain airraid in 1986 might have made him think we could do it again, whenever we wanted. Perhaps France helped, though, desirous of not having to rebuild its embassy . . . again. Even so, I'll concede that it may have helped convince qaddafi, or accelerated his decision. But I very much doubt it altered by 180 degrees his position on the matter. But, if so, are you advocating the SPECTRE approach to world peace? Shoot someone to keep everyone else in line?

As for N. Korea, come on. They blew off talks last August--months after the invasion--and until they stop blowing them off, I assume they will continue apace--promising maybe to do something, to buy time, and then backing out. It's been going on for years. Too many years.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
in the case of Libya, don't forget the efforts of France to bring it to the table.

I always forget the efforts of France.

I feel so dumb.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
I haven't bought the party line with respect to Libya, although my point was narrower.

I think your advanced pressure points are WAY more attenuated than my suggestions.

As for N. Korea, come on. They blew off talks last August--months after the invasion--and until they stop blowing them off, I assume they will continue apace--promising maybe to do something, to buy time, and then backing out. It's been going on for years. Too many years.

Didn't they just make a new announcement last week? About coming back to the table? (I may be misremembering this.)

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
I haven't bought the party line with respect to Libya, although my point was narrower. Are you suggesting that the sole basis for Qaddafi's decision was that the US, only by invading Iraq, could show it was serious about battling countries with WMD? A certain airraid in 1986 might have made him think we could do it again, whenever we wanted. Perhaps France helped, though, desirous of not having to rebuild its embassy . . . again. Even so, I'll concede that it may have helped convince qaddafi, or accelerated his decision. But I very much doubt it altered by 180 degrees his position on the matter. But, if so, are you advocating the SPECTRE approach to world peace? Shoot someone to keep everyone else in line?

Libya has been coming in from the cold for a while. Witness the Pan Am deal. If we're going to pretend that invading Iraq is the proximate cause of all the good things that have happened in the world since then, then we also have to take responsibility for the bad things, like the mess that is Israel, Gaza and the West Bank, or the bird flu.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Not Me
I would have to research this more to come up with a definitive answer, but as long as it is not a taking of property without just compensation or an ex post facto criminal sanction, the state can nullify the marriages with a state constitutional amendment and not violate the US constitution.

Nor shall any state pass any law "impairing the obligation of contracts." Art. I, sec. 10.

I'm not saying it's a winning argument, but I don't think it's free from doubt.

And it wouldn't surprise me to say that a constitutional amendment or decision holding such marriages invalid was itself a violation of the state's equal protection clause.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Libya has been coming in from the cold for a while. Witness the Pan Am deal. If we're going to pretend that invading Iraq is the proximate cause of all the good things that have happened in the world since then, then we also have to take responsibility for the bad things, like the mess that is Israel, Gaza and the West Bank, or the bird flu.

Do we get credit for the good, like settlements in Gaza going away?

And bird flu is Clinton's fault, doing even bring that here.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by bilmore

Didn't they just make a new announcement last week? About coming back to the table? (I may be misremembering this.)

Yes. And they made one last summer to go to China in August. And then promptly left (or demanded too much, causing others to leave). Come on. NK has been saying they'll agree to something forever, but then placing unreasonably high demands in exchange for meaningless concessions, solely to buy time while they build up their arsenal.

Libya is at least plausible, despite the post hoc ergo propter hoc problems, but NK hasn't done anything other than talk. Shit, they talked with Clinton, too. Maybe if bush gets an internal blowjob, NK will give up the nukes, or at least talk about it.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Do we get credit for the good, like settlements in Gaza going away?

No. And remember, Saddam would have died eventually from old age anyway.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Maybe if bush gets an internal blowjob . . .

C'mon, Bush is already blurring the line between parties with his spending. Don't you start, too.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by bilmore
remember, Saddam would have died eventually from old age anyway.

This may be true. And remember, the kids were bad, but the grandkids would have been nicer. The grandkids would have grown up as future world leaders, and they would have been more concilitory, and had little ambition to be so stand-offish. maybe some more time for the sanctions to work was in order.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Nor shall any state pass any law "impairing the obligation of contracts." Art. I, sec. 10.

I'm not saying it's a winning argument, but I don't think it's free from doubt.

And it wouldn't surprise me to say that a constitutional amendment or decision holding such marriages invalid was itself a violation of the state's equal protection clause.

If they're going to amend the constitution, wouldn't the amendment trump that provision?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Do we get credit for the good, like settlements in Gaza going away?

If you think that Sharon is on the right track, then you can take credit for him. However, a resolution dictated on Israel's terms is not likely to be peaceful or long-lasting.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
1 Have some of your agents go to Libya tomorrow and try and buy some nuke-stuff.

Disclaimer: I've heard this in a cocktail party situation from an Egyptian, naturalized American friend of mine. I've done no independent research.

I've been told that Quadafi (or however you spell his name) is very, very sick, and he doesn't expect to live very long. He would like to be able to pass on his regime to his son, and his getting rid of weaponry was done more in an effort to keep people from having an excuse to sweep in as soon as he dies and take the country away from his son. Not that we won't do that anyways.