who is the biggest war criminal?

[limerickman]

So you didn't really get to vote for the PM position?
I never said you didn't think Bush or Clinton wasn't elected. I said that under the 'democratic' Irish system Clinton would never have been president. If the US had your 'democratic' system, the House of Representatives or in your terms the "Dail", would have chosen a member of its own party to lead. Hence a republican would have been president. In Ireland they don't trust the people to decide who the PM should be. Again Democracy - European style!

We do actually - we vote for every member of the legislature.
Unlike your country.
Where cabinet members are appointed and given access to political positons of power and policy making.
Some would say your country's cabinet members are exactly the same as unelected Ayotollahs.
Except, the Ayotollahs don't have access to the same quantity of taxpayers money as yours !

 

[Colorado Ryder]

We do actually - we vote for every member of the legislature.
Unlike your country.
Where cabinet members are appointed and given access to political positons of power and policy making.
Some would say your country's cabinet members are exactly the same as unelected Ayotollahs.
Except, the Ayotollahs don't have access to the same quantity of taxpayers money as yours !

Which is it? Did you or did you not vote for the fellow who is PM now? Unlike your country we get to elect who our leader will be. Unlike your country, our leader can be from the party that does not control the Congress. Unlike your country the US Constitution puts the power to elect the leader directly into the hands of the people.
Oh and by the way we do vote for every single member of the legislature.

 

[Carrera]

From what I gather, Iran is next on the hit list. Not that the U.S. seeks a war with Iran but it's more the case Israel won't allow Iran to go nuclear. I think the U.S. will be forced into war with Iran as it's highly likely Israel will use the military option soon as Iran starts heating up.
It dumbfounds me why the Administration undid its entire policy in the Middle East by undermining secular Iraq. I mean the mind boggles! Hussein fought a war against Islamic extremism in the region, laid down the lives of thousands of Iraqis and won the Iran/Iraq war. Then Bush decides to overthrow the secular regime in Iraq and make Iran strong. Now they have the saem problem with Iran as before but no Saddam to help them out.
I'll bet my bottom dollar Israel will hit Iran in the very near future and we'll be treated to another U.S./European split. But I see Russian and the U.S. backing Israel when the final crunch comes (seeing as so many Jewish Russians live in the Holy Land).

 

[Carrera]

From what I gather, Iran is next on the hit list. Not that the U.S. seeks a war with Iran but it's more the case Israel won't allow Iran to go nuclear. I think the U.S. will be forced into war with Iran as it's highly likely Israel will use the military option soon as Iran starts heating up.
It dumbfounds me why the Administration undid its entire policy in the Middle East by undermining secular Iraq. I mean the mind boggles! Hussein fought a war against Islamic extremism in the region, laid down the lives of thousands of Iraqis and won the Iran/Iraq war. Then Bush decides to overthrow the secular regime in Iraq and make Iran strong. Now they have the saem problem with Iran as before but no Saddam to help them out.
I'll bet my bottom dollar Israel will hit Iran in the very near future and we'll be treated to another U.S./European split. But I see Russia and the U.S. backing Israel when the final crunch comes (seeing as so many Jewish Russians live in the Holy Land).

 

[Carrera]

From what I gather, Iran is next on the hit list. Not that the U.S. seeks a war with Iran but it's more the case Israel won't allow Iran to go nuclear. I think the U.S. will be forced into war with Iran as it's highly likely Israel will use the military option soon as Iran starts heating up.
It dumbfounds me why the Administration undid its entire policy in the Middle East by undermining secular Iraq. I mean the mind boggles! Hussein fought a war against Islamic extremism in the region, laid down the lives of thousands of Iraqis and won the Iran/Iraq war. Then Bush decides to overthrow the secular regime in Iraq and make Iran strong. Now they have the saem problem with Iran as before but no Saddam to help them out.
I'll bet my bottom dollar Israel will hit Iran in the very near future and we'll be treated to another U.S./European split. But I see Russia and the U.S. backing Israel when the final crunch comes (seeing as so many Jewish Russians live in the Holy Land).

 

[limerickman]

Which is it? Did you or did you not vote for the fellow who is PM now?

I don't have a vote in the Dublin-North constituency.

Unlike your country we get to elect who our leader will be. .

I never disputed that you get to vote for your leader.

Unlike your country we get to elect who our leader will be. Unlike your country, our leader can be from the party that does not control the Congress. .

I never disputed this either.

What I did contend was that Rumsfeld and other cabinet members are not elected by the people.
That is undemocratic - as undemocratic as an Iranian Ayotollah is.

 

[davebee]

I haven't got time to read through 17 pages of discussion so I will just post my thoughts and hope I don't get in the way too much!

I voted for George Bush on the basis that he went into a war against the will of the United Nations with the primary aim of the invasion being regime change. Saddam Hussein (sp) behaved in a dispicable way towards the people of his own country, that much is pretty much indisputable. I would however question the right of another country to decide that he has to go. If such a decision needs to be made it needs to be done at the very least on a majority basis by an independant council. IE the UN.

The thing that ****** me off most of all about the Iraq war was Britain's (my country) involvement. We were taken to war by Blair against the majority will of the country. That isn't democracy!


Just as an aside. WHY is democracy the best method of government? It sort of works in the USA (a slightly warped kind of democracy but still just about democracy) and it works in europe to a pretty good extent but that doesn't mean it is the way that everyone else should go to. It hasn't worked in Africa or large swathes of Asia and its success in the middle east is questionable at best. So why does everyone keep banging on about democracy?


Goodnight everyone.

 

[Carrera]

Good point you make. Plato criticized democracy on these grounds. Namely that if, say, a sportsman wanted to improve his sport he wouldn't consult Joe Average but would find a qualified coach. In the same way, Plato argued that the masses were usually not qualified to choose the best option that might protect their interests.
Plato rejected democracy as inefficient and it was the Greeks who invented the system too (mainly the Athenians). Sparta, and some other Greek States, preferred Oligarchy, as did Plato himself.

I haven't got time to read through 17 pages of discussion so I will just post my thoughts and hope I don't get in the way too much!

I voted for George Bush on the basis that he went into a war against the will of the United Nations with the primary aim of the invasion being regime change. Saddam Hussein (sp) behaved in a dispicable way towards the people of his own country, that much is pretty much indisputable. I would however question the right of another country to decide that he has to go. If such a decision needs to be made it needs to be done at the very least on a majority basis by an independant council. IE the UN.

The thing that ****** me off most of all about the Iraq war was Britain's (my country) involvement. We were taken to war by Blair against the majority will of the country. That isn't democracy!


Just as an aside. WHY is democracy the best method of government? It sort of works in the USA (a slightly warped kind of democracy but still just about democracy) and it works in europe to a pretty good extent but that doesn't mean it is the way that everyone else should go to. It hasn't worked in Africa or large swathes of Asia and its success in the middle east is questionable at best. So why does everyone keep banging on about democracy?


Goodnight everyone.

 

[limerickman]

Good point you make. Plato criticized democracy on these grounds. Namely that if, say, a sportsman wanted to improve his sport he wouldn't consult Joe Average but would find a qualified coach. In the same way, Plato argued that the masses were usually not qualified to choose the best option that might protect their interests.
Plato rejected democracy as inefficient and it was the Greeks who invented the system too (mainly the Athenians). Sparta, and some other Greek States, preferred Oligarchy, as did Plato himself.

Didn't Plato script "The Republic" ?

 

[EoinC]

...Plato rejected democracy as inefficient...

Most, if not all, of the World's "democracies" are actually democratic oligarchies, by accident or design. A true democracy would call for decision by open referendum on matters brought before government for consideration. In some "democracies", even matters that are brought forward for open referendum are often presented in a form so as to nearly pre-determine the result.
Does anyone have any recollection of how the referendum for Australia becoming a republic was delivered? Some people on the group probably have a less disjointed memory of the presentation than I. I always thought that the referendum should have been in 2 parts:
[1] Should Australia become a republic (Yes / No)?
[2] If Australia does become a republic (regardless of whether you answered Yes or No to [1]), what system of government should it adopt (a / b / c...)?
I seem to recall that the actual referendum required a bunch of republicans to tear each other apart in debate, prior to the referendum, as they were to put forward only 1 model of system of government as the alternative to the encumbent.
If this is the way it was, this filtering does 2 things:
(a) Splits the vote of those who would otherwise have voted republican - If the selected model offered is not acceptable to them, they will vote for the encumbent system of government.
(b) Disenfranchises the populi, including those who were against the republic, by not allowing them a say in the system of government they are to be blessed / encumbered with, should the republic vote succeed.
Democratic oligarchies (in their various manifestations) trust the people to have the necessary knowledge to make the 'correct' decisions in choosing the people who make up (or decide the make up of) the oligarchy, but do not trust them to have the necessary knowledge to make the 'correct' decisions that the oligarchy make on their behalf.
This works well (and relatively efficiently) when the oligarchy do have the knowledge and do make the 'correct' decisions on behalf of the people, but goes horribly pear-shaped when they do not, or they keep the knowledge from the people as it may alter the people's view that the oligarchy are truly acting in the best interests of the people.

 

[Wurm]

Sparta, and some other Greek States, preferred Oligarchy, as did Plato himself.

Well, that's what we have in the U.S. now - wouldn't you say?

"Government by a few, especially by a small faction of persons or families."

 

[NYY2183]

liveable...?

ever tried living without fresh water, electricity, food, clothing?

thats what Bush has taken away from the innocents in Iraq.

i agree mountainpro, GWB is a war criminal cause he's using the war in Iraq as an opprutunity to further his riches in the oil industry. and Conniebiker thinks that Iraq is a suitable place for people to live. THEY ARE KILLING EACH OTHER IN THE NAME OF ALLAH. THIER GOD, NOT THEMSELVES. it's going to take YEARS for the damage BUSH HAS PUT ON THE AMERICAN PEOPLE to pass and good things to happen again. WE MUST GAIN OUR INTERNATIONAL DIGNITY back. otherwise we are going to be fighting everyone. EXCEPT THE BRITS!

 

[davidmc]

That's a fantastic diatribe there, Dave.
Except it misses a few salient points :
What is your country doing in Iraq ? It has no right to be in Iraq.

And like your friend, you make the analogy that Iraq had something to do with
9/11.
Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 - your own Senate confirmed this.

How did I make said analogy Nevertheless, Iraq has turned into a vacuum, attracting all sort's of terrorist's/jihadist's from Saudi, Iran, Lebannon, Chechnya, North Africa, ect, ect.... Might as well fight them there, no Regardless, once a gov't is in place & thier people able to take care of themselves e.g.-police, hospital's, jails, ect...believe you me; GWB will hightail it out of there if he knows whats good for him.

 

[davidmc]

i agree mountainpro, GWB is a war criminal cause he's using the war in Iraq as an opprutunity to further his riches in the oil industry. and Conniebiker thinks that Iraq is a suitable place for people to live. THEY ARE KILLING EACH OTHER IN THE NAME OF ALLAH. THIER GOD, NOT THEMSELVES. it's going to take YEARS for the damage BUSH HAS PUT ON THE AMERICAN PEOPLE to pass and good things to happen again. WE MUST GAIN OUR INTERNATIONAL DIGNITY back. otherwise we are going to be fighting everyone. EXCEPT THE BRITS!

My plan was to invade Canada. Guess that's "off the table" now

 

[davidmc]

Which is it? Did you or did you not vote for the fellow who is PM now? Unlike your country we get to elect who our leader will be. Unlike your country, our leader can be from the party that does not control the Congress. Unlike your country the US Constitution puts the power to elect the leader directly into the hands of the people.
Oh and by the way we do vote for every single member of the legislature.

Here's something elucidating the Iranian election result's

 

[davidmc]

Reason's to exit Iraq. Too many to list. Bush really fecked up on this one. It is ironic that our own president is a threat to our national security by decimating our military in a war of choice thereby leaving the "real instigator's" of destruction (N. Korea, Taliban, Iranian Conservatives, ect... free to do as they please. Nice going George

 

[rkcohen]

"The USA if it is a democracy - as you clearly feel it is - should not be engaged in regime change or keeping people locked up without charge.
After all isn't that what Saddam used to do ?

Wow, you're right, guess I was way off here.

Good thing you pointed out the difference - now I feel much better about the Holocaust, you know, knowing how things REALLY work.

And for the enlightened among us that believe the federal government is doing its best to turn us into a nation of feudalism and serfdom - cool!

Just tell me which pocket of my Carradice to put my copy of Mao's little book, so that I can have the same stream of unconciousness this thread has displayed.

OOPS - gotta go attend my Weatherman's meeting!
http://www.cyclingforums.com/report.php?p=1978774

 

[davidmc]

Last "string". These are quite good.

 

[limerickman]

How did I make said analogy Nevertheless, Iraq has turned into a vacuum, attracting all sort's of terrorist's/jihadist's from Saudi, Iran, Lebannon, Chechnya, North Africa, ect, ect.... Might as well fight them there, no Regardless, once a gov't is in place & thier people able to take care of themselves e.g.-police, hospital's, jails, ect...believe you me; GWB will hightail it out of there if he knows whats good for him.

Dave "Iraq has turned into a proxy war & every young upstart who want's to cut his teeth, goes to Iraq to fight the American's in the central part of Iraq."
This is what you said.

If your country had not invaded Iraq - there would be no war in Iraq.
Instead your country told a pack of lies as the pretext to invading Iraq.
Your President still refers to 9/11 and Iraq's alleged involvement.

The invasion of Iraq was morally and ethically and legally wrong.
Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11.

But setting that aside that issue for the moment.
Your country is in there now : as I see it it looks like your country will be there for a long time to come because the people fighting the occupation
will not back down.

In invading Iraq, your country did indeed open up another front for anyone who has a difficulty with the USA, to attack the US in Iraq.
Your country is seen as occupiers (and were never viewed as liberators, even by friendly Iraqi's and Muslims) of Iraq.
"Hearts and minds" was never an option that would, or could, work.

If you're a foreigner in any country, you run the risk of being regarded as an invader and that's what has happened in Iraq.
It wouldn't matter if the US arrived unarmed and bearing gifts.
The perception is that not one American has any right to be on the soil of Iraq - and I agree with this.

Our country was occupied for 800 years : we're the best of friends with the
british now but if I had been around 100 years ago, I too would have volunteered to fight against them.

Put the boot on the other foot - how would you feel if the Iraqi's occupied the USA ?
Naturally, you'd fight them and their occupation.
And if that fight attracted others who had a difficulty with your common enemy, you'd welcome that support.

 

[limerickman]

Most, if not all, of the World's "democracies" are actually democratic oligarchies, by accident or design. A true democracy would call for decision by open referendum on matters brought before government for consideration. In some "democracies", even matters that are brought forward for open referendum are often presented in a form so as to nearly pre-determine the result.
Does anyone have any recollection of how the referendum for Australia becoming a republic was delivered? Some people on the group probably have a less disjointed memory of the presentation than I. I always thought that the referendum should have been in 2 parts:
[1] Should Australia become a republic (Yes / No)?
[2] If Australia does become a republic (regardless of whether you answered Yes or No to [1]), what system of government should it adopt (a / b / c...)?
I seem to recall that the actual referendum required a bunch of republicans to tear each other apart in debate, prior to the referendum, as they were to put forward only 1 model of system of government as the alternative to the encumbent.
If this is the way it was, this filtering does 2 things:
(a) Splits the vote of those who would otherwise have voted republican - If the selected model offered is not acceptable to them, they will vote for the encumbent system of government.
(b) Disenfranchises the populi, including those who were against the republic, by not allowing them a say in the system of government they are to be blessed / encumbered with, should the republic vote succeed.
Democratic oligarchies (in their various manifestations) trust the people to have the necessary knowledge to make the 'correct' decisions in choosing the people who make up (or decide the make up of) the oligarchy, but do not trust them to have the necessary knowledge to make the 'correct' decisions that the oligarchy make on their behalf.
This works well (and relatively efficiently) when the oligarchy do have the knowledge and do make the 'correct' decisions on behalf of the people, but goes horribly pear-shaped when they do not, or they keep the knowledge from the people as it may alter the people's view that the oligarchy are truly acting in the best interests of the people.

If I recall the referendum in Australia actually helped to split the Republican vote as you say.
They eventually argued amongst themselves and the issue and momentum of their campaign diffused.

But the point that you make is very interesting about democracy and oligarchy.
No system in the world that claims to be democratic - is truely democratic in
essence.
Otherwise every bill, every piece of policy, should be put to referendum by the people.
So different "democracies" have different means of ensuring the "democracy"
works but in a way that minimises the ability of the people to influence decision making, without excluding people (the electorate) totally.

But in my opinion, the American model of "democracy" is flawed.
More flawed that the Western European/Antipodean model.
No one in the WE/A model can access power unless they have been elected
by the people first.
They can - and are allowed to access power in the USA without being elected.
In the USA, the Senate and Congress are effectively lawmakers.
Whereas the goverment of the USA exercise power and is unaacountable
with regard to the appointment of cabinet positions.
Indeed their President's accountability is minimal : unlike John Howard or Tony Blair or Chirac or Ahern or Schroder, the US President doesn't have to answer to parliament on a weekly basis.