Lxxx Posted March 17, 2012 Share Posted March 17, 2012 The Commander In Chief himself yesterday passed an executive order allowing him to, with the stroke of a pen, nationalise EVERYTHING in the state of an emergency; Food, civilian labour, private property, water, energy....pretty much everything, all in the name of national defence. http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/03/16/executive-order-national-defense-resources-preparedness Wonder why they would need to do that? Wonder what they might be expecting??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Watcher Posted March 18, 2012 Share Posted March 18, 2012 I am no constitutional expert, but I have been led to believe that the Prime Minister of the UK has similar powers, granted by, and upon, the Queen signing a Declaration of a State of Emergency. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted March 18, 2012 Share Posted March 18, 2012 What are you expecting? Your questioning seem to imply that the legislation is in expectation of something. I wouldn't think it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Watcher Posted March 18, 2012 Share Posted March 18, 2012 What are you expecting? Your questioning seem to imply that the legislation is in expectation of something. I wouldn't think it is. I agree, it is just necessary powers incase. Not inevitable. And such powers have always existed in all countries and from time to time they need dusting down and amendments made for changing times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted March 18, 2012 Share Posted March 18, 2012 I mean, we can disagree with the use of such powers and consider these powers to be dangerous and indicative of the possibilities that the US could create in its foreign policy, but it doesn't demonstrate an expectation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lxxx Posted March 18, 2012 Author Share Posted March 18, 2012 I would argue that the timing is very crucial, at a time when Israel is pushing the US to take action against Iran and it's two main opponents, Russia and China, are making it very clear they are opposed to such a move and would respond accordingly and side with Iran should the US act against their national interests. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guzzi Posted March 18, 2012 Share Posted March 18, 2012 The Commander In Chief himself yesterday passed an executive order allowing him to, with the stroke of a pen, nationalise EVERYTHING in the state of an emergency; Food, civilian labour, private property, water, energy....pretty much everything, all in the name of national defence. http://www.whitehous...es-preparedness Wonder why they would need to do that? Wonder what they might be expecting??? I think it's simply a question of readiness. The UK has long had Emergency Powers Acts and now the Civil Contingencies Act 2004. Timing might be a response to international tensions, or then again, it may simply be plugging a gap in US legislation in this area. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moghrey Mie Posted March 19, 2012 Share Posted March 19, 2012 Judging by the trailers of forthcoming films at the Palace Cinema last week (Avengers Assemble etc) the Americans seems to be confusing video games, sci-fi films, war and reality. The need emergency powers to cope with their imagined future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lxxx Posted March 19, 2012 Author Share Posted March 19, 2012 Tut tut....doesn't Ahmadinnerjacket know what happened to the last two leaders of countries who tried accepting other payment for oil instead of dollars (Saddam and Gaddafi) ?? Silly boy. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/commodities/9122214/Iran-is-far-from-the-only-threat-to-oil-prices.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted March 19, 2012 Share Posted March 19, 2012 I would argue that the timing is very crucial, at a time when Israel is pushing the US to take action against Iran and it's two main opponents, Russia and China, are making it very clear they are opposed to such a move and would respond accordingly and side with Iran should the US act against their national interests. And side in war? A war? The United States is not going to war with these two countries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lxxx Posted March 19, 2012 Author Share Posted March 19, 2012 I would argue that the timing is very crucial, at a time when Israel is pushing the US to take action against Iran and it's two main opponents, Russia and China, are making it very clear they are opposed to such a move and would respond accordingly and side with Iran should the US act against their national interests. And side in war? A war? The United States is not going to war with these two countries. Who mentioned war?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted March 19, 2012 Share Posted March 19, 2012 What are you implying? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lxxx Posted March 19, 2012 Author Share Posted March 19, 2012 What are you implying? I'm not implying anything. I am just stating a fact that is in the public domain, that Russia and China have quite clearly said that an attack on Iran would be an attack on their 'national interests' and thus they would not sit back and let it go unchallenged, hence the veto from them both on Syria, a key ally of Iran. Quite how they would go about defending their national interests is anyone's guess at present, as militarily the US is streets ahad of anyone else, so we' ll have to wait and see how it progresses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted March 19, 2012 Share Posted March 19, 2012 Yes, you are implying something. You brought up the matter of Iran as well as Russia and China's opposition to US intervention. And how they would support Iran were the US to intervene militarily. Well, what bearing does that have on this legislation? It is clear that you have made connections. What would cause a state of emergency out of some hypothtical scenario involving these three powers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lxxx Posted March 20, 2012 Author Share Posted March 20, 2012 Yes, you are implying something. You brought up the matter of Iran as well as Russia and China's opposition to US intervention. And how they would support Iran were the US to intervene militarily. Well, what bearing does that have on this legislation? It is clear that you have made connections. What would cause a state of emergency out of some hypothtical scenario involving these three powers? Does it need spelling out......??? The US is being backed into a corner re: Iran by Israel's insistence that some action needs to be taken. It's two main foes in the world, both politically, militarily and increasingly economically are opposed to such a move. It has this week already pissed off India by threatening it with sanctions over Iran as well, thereby completing the set of antagonising the emerging powers. The US is being backed into a corner on a number of fronts right now and arguably has to show some form of 'leadership' to maintain it's position of head honcho in the world, a position it is rapidly losing both in practice and in global respect. Who knows what a rat is capable of when it is cornered, but if we think this is just going to fade away without a whimper then we're mistaken, hence the executive order and as Obummer and his lesbo-bitch Clinton keeps re-iterating 'all options are on the table.' Military action against Iran and what it entails wouldn't be a wise move but the US is ironically fast becoming a rogue nation on international affairs, so nothing would surprise me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.