Fantasy vs. Reality

[Sneak]

Sinavestos you need to go back to college and read about representive democracy.

[Chayesh]

A federal republic is a democratic form of government however it is not a true democracy. True democracy is mob rule.

[Magick]

Martineius = Bush

Yup. Ole Dubbya plays FL and makes up for any and all mistakes that were made in the White House. There has to be a balance somewhere.

[Behrens]

I will note that:

1. Approval ratings are relatively meaningless. The result of the Electoral College is all that matters. (they're not totally meaningless as some politicians alter views based on them, but otherwise they are meaningless)

2. The decision to go to war is one made by the Congress, the decision to end war is one made by the President. There is a reason for this, and our war in Iraq is totally legal because of that.

3. Each state in the United States has a lot more power than the Federal Government (for example, federal troops cannot enter any state without the state's permission (Posse Comitatus act)), they have just chosen via their legislatures to assume identical acts to the Federal Government to be eligible for Federal monies (drinking age is a great example here). If the Federal income tax were eliminated, the states would rapidly shift laws to fit their politics (Midwestern states would become rapidly more conservative, and Coastal states more liberal)

4. I don't think the Red/Blue mentality that the US has right now is a GOOD thing, but it's no more divisive than the issues that have separated us before (Read up on the election of Rutherford B. Hayes).

5. Personally, I'm actually not as strong a social conservative as I am a fiscal conservative. I think the best president the United States ever had was Calvin Coolidge.

6. No, Tribunal is in no way related to my support for Mr. Bush.

7. No seventh point, I just like the number.

[Sinavestos]

But instead of giving my opinion on the whole hairball that is global politics atm' date=' I'd just like to point out that [b']if our country was in fact a democracy, we (the civilian population) would be required to vote on every bill that is introduced for it to become a law. And, in my opinion, that form of government would be a Very Bad Thing. Most people do not have the time or the inclination to learn enough about political issues to make informed decisions about matters of state. Popular opinion is swayed easily enough as it is by propaganda and spin doctoring of countless issues, that to put every issue that currently faces congress to a popular (national) vote would be not only incredibly time-consuming, but most likely disastrous as well.

Err yeah that should have read 'if our country was in fact a true democracy'.

So if there's an elected legislature it's not a democracy?

You seem to be agreeing with me about the Civil War as far as I can see. States' rights was the sovereign principle of the Confederacy, which lost, putting the theory to rest.

And uh ... not to split hairs, but I find it humorous that in the case of the Civil War you're willing to say that since the Confederacy lost, their ideals were wrong. Does this mean that winning a war makes you correct? Might makes right? Given your earlier posts that seemed to imply you are not in favor of war (the casualty figures, comments on Bush), I can't see where you would take that stance. If you were referring to the statement that a diverse system is more survivable, and that the theory was shot because of the fact that the Confederacy lost, that would make sense, if they had actually been able to practice that system up until the war began. The reason the southern states wanted to secede was that they felt their individual states' rights were being infringed upon, and had been for some time, thus putting them at the mercy of the northern, more industrialized states. The southern states lost the war (for the most part) because they were at a disadvantage technologically. Add in the fact that Lincoln was a brilliant leader of our country ... in fact I think the emancipation proclamation could (though this is one of those things that can never really be proved one way or another) have been one of the most brilliant strategical moves by a military commander ever, as it completely took away Great Britain's ability to aid the Confederacy in any way, at a time when they had been considering allying with the South, because Great Britain was extremely anti-slavery. In the words of Sun Tzu (who, yes, happens to be one of my favorite authors), "The superior militarist strikes while schemes are being laid. The next best is to attack alliances. The next best is to attack the army." The topic of states' rights is still one being debated today, as with most issues in politics; there are some people in favor one way, some the other, and over time actual policy slides a bit in one direction, a bit in another, depending on who is elected at the time.

And, yes, a representative government is a form of democratic government, in that we do get to vote on who is making our laws, but I think it becomes apparent the major differences between it and a true democracy when major **** hits the fan right after re-elections. When it comes down to it, the people making policy have two to four years to implement their agendas, before having to worry about putting out some clever soundbites in a bid for staying in office. I would definitely not say that this is any worse than the chaos that would ensue were people required to vote on the things that are normally handled by the elected legislature; my point is here are no perfect systems of government; personally, considering governments have to be made up of humans, subject to human nature, I think ours is doing pretty ****ing good ... I just happen to be of the opinion that a shift towards giving state governments more control over what happens in those states would allow peoples' needs to be better met, as the governments are dealing with a much smaller number of people. Look at your paycheck, and consider what would be possible on a local level if the amount you paid to the state and to the federal governments were reversed. Granted, I am putting out extreme examples here, but an overall shift of any scale towards giving states more power to help their citizens is something that would likely be a solution to many of the problems the country tends to polarize on on a national level.

As far as the current situation (ugh ... I live in Boston ... you've no idea what it's like for me to talk politics with people here ) ... we went to war ... people were vastly in favor of it at the time. We didn't find any weapons of mass destruction, but we did manage to toss out a dictator, which generally seems like a good deed to me. Unfortunately we stepped into the middle of a religious war that had been simmering for some time, in a culture where people don't so much debate the death penalty, as they do debate whether they are justified in killing their next-door neighbor for differing with them on religious issues. It's very difficult for us to understand why so many people are willing to volunteer to blow themselves up. We don't live there, and we can't see it through there eyes. But from my perspective, being an American, I feel a certain amount of responsibility in the fact that we did in fact head over there and **** some **** up, and now it's a ****ing mess. It seems to me we have a responsibility to finish what we started, and not crap out and tell the Iraqi people, "Here ... here's your civil war ... have fun. Oh, we took a **** in your shoes, too. Later." Bush seems to share this idea, and is taking ungodly amounts of **** for wanting to stick things out. The fact that he is not caving into the incredible pressure that is being put on him to cut and run makes him someone I admire, if only for that.

[Designated_Driver]

I will note that:

1. Approval ratings are relatively meaningless. The result of the Electoral College is all that matters. (they're not totally meaningless as some politicians alter views based on them, but otherwise they are meaningless)

2. The decision to go to war is one made by the Congress, the decision to end war is one made by the President. There is a reason for this, and our war in Iraq is totally legal because of that.

3. Each state in the United States has a lot more power than the Federal Government (for example, federal troops cannot enter any state without the state's permission (Posse Comitatus act)), they have just chosen via their legislatures to assume identical acts to the Federal Government to be eligible for Federal monies (drinking age is a great example here). If the Federal income tax were eliminated, the states would rapidly shift laws to fit their politics (Midwestern states would become rapidly more conservative, and Coastal states more liberal)

4. I don't think the Red/Blue mentality that the US has right now is a GOOD thing, but it's no more divisive than the issues that have separated us before (Read up on the election of Rutherford B. Hayes).

5. Personally, I'm actually not as strong a social conservative as I am a fiscal conservative. I think the best president the United States ever had was Calvin Coolidge.

6. No, Tribunal is in no way related to my support for Mr. Bush.

7. No seventh point, I just like the number.

2. While the decision to go to war must be made by Congress, the decision to initiate military action resides solely in the President. Hence why, for some of the time our troops occupied Iraq/Afghanistan, they were not there "at war", but rather it was a military operation. The consequences of this action are that, while we may or may not accomplish whatever political/economic reforms we're seeking, we don't get to keep what we conquer. These ramifications, in this case, are acceptable, seeing as how we don't want Iraq or Afghanistan.

4. The Hayes election isn't a very valid "Red/Blue" example, as there were a lot more major factors involved than just flat out Republicans vs Democrats (or North vs South), IE- Immigrant Workers, Slaves and, quite frankly, the beliefs of the military forces who were occupying the South at the time. As Guantanimo Bay has proven, military officers are more than adept at conveying their beliefs toward particular subjects.

7. Seven's fine, but isn't twenty-three better?

[Ex-D&Der]

Sinavestos I'm not saying the outcome Civil War means that the idea that United States is a mere federation of states should be dead as a doctrine, I'm saying that it means that it was in fact established not to be the case, by force of arms.

[Sinavestos]

Sinavestos I'm not saying the outcome Civil War means that the idea that United States is a mere federation of states should be dead as a doctrine' date=' I'm saying that it means that it was in fact established not to be the case, by force of arms.[/quote']

Oh ... well, yeah, that's very true ... while might does not necessarily make right, it does in fact make policy Which is one of the reasons why I am so strongly in favor of a shift towards states' rights ... the reason things are how they are now is because of the result of a war (and the fact that after the war, the Confederacy was associated so closely with slavery, making it difficult to separate the two long enough for people to consider what they were actually fighting for), not because of a democratic process.

[delfytheelfy]

If you havn't been to war' date=' you arn't qualified to comment on it. Thats all I'm going to say about Iraq/Afganistan.[/quote']

Good thing I have been to both eh?

[Ex-D&Der]

A federal republic is a democratic form of government however it is not a true democracy. True democracy is mob rule.

I think I'm with Aristotle here in saying that mob rule is a perversion of democracy, in which the majority governs out of self-interest rather than in the public interest, not democracy per se.

[delfytheelfy]

Nixon resigned' date=' for those of you who REALLY don't know American history.[/quote']

ROFL!!!

[Guest emp_newb]

alright, here is an insider fact as to why this is NOT pointless.(true story, its a tear jerker.)

"Port St. Lucie, Florida, sponsored a canned food drive for American soldiers. It was also a collection of small stuffed animals for Iraqi children. Beanies & Bears.

A mobile infantry patrol convoy was stationed to watch a small outskirt village near Fallujah, upon entering the village a group of insurgants was found, holding Iraqi citizens hostage, inside a school. After several hours of intense negotiations. The insurgents were given passage safely from the city in return for the release of the citizens. This convoy was one of a few whom recieved several boxes of the donations. They spread the donations out amongst the citizens and continued out in the morning. After the convoy set out, a young Iraqi child was sitting in the middle of the road that leads out the direction the soldiers where set to travel. After a few minutes the navigating officer of the lead Hum-vee got out to move the girl from the road.

Once the officer reached the child she turned to him and pointed at the dirt in front of her. The little girl was pointing at a piece of cardboard which was covered with a small amount of dirt. Concealing a land mine. Had the small child not pointed at this, it would never have been seen."

Now, if this alone does not show you that this is not to gratify some blood lust that bush has for Iraq. That removing Hussein was about preserving freedom and giving everyone the same chances we all have. How would you feel living in circumstances so bad that a can of tomato soup would earn enough devotion that you would do something like that.

[Designated_Driver]

Re PsychoChild:

Having just seen your comment, I'd like to point out that while someone who has not been to war might not understand the emotional conflict in a war, there are people who make it their lives to understand the economic and political impact of war, which is what is being discussed here.

[Malchaeius]

And hey, don't trust anything the god of Chaos says against him.

Bush might have stolen the first election, but he outright won the second one. I don't like him or his policies, but it seems that the majority of the American public does. The 48% of us who don't just have to suck it up. You are right though. Martineius can PK on his own. It is definately Martin > Dubya.

[Lexi]

I think what bothers most people, at least here in Europe, is that Bush and his government attacked another state without any valid reason. The 9/11 bombings did not come from Iraq, and Iraq did not have any Weapons of Mass Destruction. In my eyes, the leaders of the United States of America is a bunch of hypocrits. The UN voted down the attack on Iraq, and still US forced invaded. Why?

To bring democracy? How many dictatorships are there in the world? Will the US bring democracy to all of them? Is it their duty to create world-peace by using military force?

[Guest emp_newb]

Melinda, Iraq was invaded for refusing to let inspectors in til they could hide the weapons/smuggle them away. I am sorry your views are as tainted, but you need also be familiar with the history there. As well as Iraqs proven support of, and protecting of, Al Qaida(sp?). Hussein is not just a dictator, Castro is a dictator, Hussein is a heartless killer. If we wished to end all dictatorships, Im sure cuba could be taken rather easily, yet it is the same as it has been since the cold war. Why? Because castro is not KILLING HIS PEOPLE, or stock piling weapons. Last time we got pissed at Cuba was? The cuban missile crisis. When they where what? Refusing to let inspectors in and purchasing Russian weapons.

Also, you may consider America barbaric or whatever. Facts are that is your opinion. I ask again, put yourself in an Iraqi citizens place. This is a blessing from a 25+ year plague. You should be thankful your life has been so fortunate.

[J.Twendrist]

Not a big fan of bush personaly but the un has no control over U.S. operations. They were made to talk and vote, but in the end they have no real power to force an issue. Also as far as I can tell the war in Iraq is not really a war, considering war has never been declared. The battle against a unified army ended under the amount of time the president can send troops in (something like 90-180 days) after that we just kind of stayed their to clean up the mess.

Iraq has been a ****hole mainly because they are treating it a lot like vietnam. By that I mean the poloticians are more involved with the war than the generals. In Vietnam they were picking targets to bomb from Washington D.C. for crying out loud. Vietnam (which we created due to crappy foreign policy) caused America a lot of the same problems we are having now. I guess what they say is true, if you don't learn from history you are doomed to repeat it. And it sure looks like we are doing a good job repeating Vietnam right now. They way they are giving out sign on bonus's, and public oppinion of the war, and the fact that there are rent a cops acting as M.P.s (military police) (I know this because my dad is retiered air force, and I go on base activly) tells me that there is a huge lack of soldiers. This also tells me that the draft is damn near inevitable, and when that happenes **** will really hit the fan in the country. My guess is within a year or two there will be a full out draft and a full out crisis in America with protests and draft dodging/card burning as there was in the 60's and 70's.

Another issue of mine with the government is the patriot acts. I know I know, they are there to protect us (or so they say) and lack of privacy is a small price to pay for freedom (but aren't they really limiting our freedom?), but in the end no matter how you look at them, they are a complete breach of the constitution.

As for the comment you have to be in a war to comment on it (loosly quoted) my family is a military family-my dad was in vietnam and in the air force for 22 years, my aunt was in for 30 years and in gulf war 1, my grandpa was in ww2, and numerous other relatives were in the military but not in wars... anyway I am not claiming that this give me the same say as a soldier, but I have grown up around the military all my life. Hell I have my insurance through tricare and i have a military id. Anyway you are right though, only a soldiers comment can truely be accepted on the horrors of war and exactly what goes on in one.

[Ex-D&Der]

Emp_newb you have a few errors in your post. Iraq was not hiding weapons--there weren't any. The inspectors were in Iraq. And Iraq was not cooperating with Al Qaeda.

[Behrens]

Emp_newb you have a few errors in your post. Iraq was not hiding weapons--there weren't any. The inspectors were in Iraq. And Iraq was not cooperating with Al Qaeda.

The British still claim their intel was correct with respect to WMDs, as do the Israelis (I am not saying it is, just that is what they say), but regardless, Saddam was not acting as if he didn't have WMDs, and all the intel at the time supported us. Hindsight is always 20/20.

The inspectors were in Iraq, but they themselves said their access was too limited to be transparent enough to be sure.

Iraq WAS cooperating with Al Qaeda. There were several Al Qaeda camps in Iraq, and Zarqawi was a close Saddam supporter and high-up in Al Qaeda.

Iraq did not (and Bush has never claimed they did) have anything to do with 9/11/2001, which is probably what you mean, Ex-D&Der. I agree with you there.

Edit: A few other points to other posters.

J. Twedrist: I am also from a military family. I was going to be commisioned until the Army found out I had two fused vertabrae from a broken neck in college. Also, it is the legal view of the Bush administration that the authorization to use force on Iraq was equivalent to a declaration of war in the legal sense, and gives us all the rights and responsibilities of war.

PATRIOT is a LOT more lenient than FDR or Lincoln were during their wartime presidencies. I'm not a huge fan either, but I see the need for it.

[Ex-D&Der]

I'm referring to the Duelfer Report wrt to WMDs. Conclusion was that there were none before the war. Bush himself has admitted there were no weapons.

There was minor noncompliance with the inspectors (he wouldn't let them in the palace, for instance), but the inspectors themselves didn't think it was serious enough for them to be withdrawn. Blix and el Baredei both have said the inspections were working. The Duelfer Report confirmed that the inspections were keeping Saddam from resuming his programs.

The 9/11 Commission concluded that there was no cooperation between Iraq and Al Qaeda. All specific claims of cooperation were investigated extensively and found to be based on insufficient or misinterpreted evidence.

[Mister E]

I think what bothers most people, at least here in Europe, is that Bush and his government attacked another state without any valid reason. The 9/11 bombings did not come from Iraq, and Iraq did not have any Weapons of Mass Destruction. In my eyes, the leaders of the United States of America is a bunch of hypocrits. The UN voted down the attack on Iraq, and still US forced invaded. Why?

To bring democracy? How many dictatorships are there in the world? Will the US bring democracy to all of them? Is it their duty to create world-peace by using military force?

The USA is not the only country doing this kind of thing, though it does not have enough allies in the matter. In my opinion all the countries in the world who enjoy their quality of life, or those who way behind but who are willing to step into the technological age, should band together and embargo all countries that produce and hide terrorists.

I say freedom of religion should end where terrorism begins, but Bush is not a terrorist as some like to say, he may be extreme and he may be religious but he IS defending freedom. There is so much money in the world right now, and there are a lot of people who would like to invest and develop in some of these backward countries. If there were responsible governments, or at least governments that were willing to "play ball" on a global scale then places in africa, or the middle east etc could have decent education, social constructs, some kind of democracy and then a middle class would emerge, the true symnol of the free world.

edit: Oh and as for the UN. They are useless as tits on a bull. Libya chairs the board of human right, yeah, the UN is a great thing

[Ex-D&Der]

Here's a story about some new transcripts of internal discussions among Saddam and his cabinet in the 1990s saying that they had destroyed the weapons and stopped their programs:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060321/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_wmd_tapes;_ylt=Am_nnWqS.TmI2xk3Iyg8uVQDW7oF;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

[Behrens]

Ex-D&Der, I think it was clear that Saddam wanted people to think he had WMDs to intimidate the Iranians and Syrians, at the least.

http://abcnews.go.com/International/IraqCoverage/story?id=1734490&page=1 sheds some good light on the connections between Iraq, Al-Qaeda, and their hiding documents from inspectors.

I think Bush spoke well on this recently, so I'll let you look up his speech, but remember that even the Democrats weren't claiming Saddam had no WMDs, nor was any major intel agency.

Saddam wanted the deterent effect of having them, so he acted like he did. He certainly HAD them earlier, as he used them in the Iran-Iraq war and against the Kurds, the only question is if he destroyed them or hid them.

[J.Twendrist]

I think you are quite right about him wanting to think that he had em, but isn't that why we have the cia and the like? So we know for sure?

[Behrens]

It is exactly why we have the CIA. But remember that Saddam was trying to fool intel agencies, and had an agency of his own to do so. We're not perfect.