A Canadian on the state of US "democracy"

[EvolveNow]

As a Canadian I can't participate in the American political process but I'll be damned if I sit by and watch my once respected neighbour degenerate into a theocratic uber-state with liberty and justice...for the rich.

This thread is intended to be a rational discussion on the state of democracy in the US so let me stipulate:

I am not a leftist.
I am not a rightist.
I believe in a system where 1 person = 1 vote.
I believe that individual rights are supreme and might does not make right.
I am not a homo-hippie-treehugger-liberal-wussy-peacenik (as some Americans have accused when I engage them in political discussion)

I am a little frightened.
America pumps it's collective fist in the air at the site of bombs dropping on foreign cities, but has mass stroke at the site of a female breast.

The current US administration lies and lies and lies and lies yet Americans don't seem to care.

America has a hissy-fit when thier last president lies about getting a hummer in the oval office. Sensibilities were offended but no one died as a result. Yet the country seems perfectly willing to ignore presidential lies that directly result in the deaths of thousands.

A very close election is decided by a supreme court that has a rather "chummy" relationship with the party that is declared the winner.

The link below leads to clip that makes me wonder about the state of "democracy" in America. (shudder)
Check out the link and gimme your thoughts.

http://www.ericblumrich.com/gta.html

(I know this post is a little dis-jointed, sorta just letting it all out)

Cheers

M

[Michael Redman]

I share some of your frustration. I worry about where we're headed. But I have to point out a few things:Originally posted by EvolveNow
The current US administration lies and lies and lies and lies yet Americans don't seem to care.

America has a hissy-fit when thier last president lies about getting a hummer in the oval office.Half of America is outraged by the first, and the other half by the second. Your assertion that it's all or nothing is wrong. America is divided, almost equally. It is not accurate to say that all Americans are of one mind.A very close election is decided by a supreme court that has a rather "chummy" relationship with the party that is declared the winner. The election was decided by the Constitution. The Court's action had no effect on the outcome. No matter what they decided, Bush had more votes in Florida, and he won the election. I wish he had not, but the argument that the Court decided the election is not based in fact.

I'm pretty fed up with what is going on. I would be tempted to leave this country for a better one, but I don't see any evidence that such a place exists.

[Tony]

The root cause of the problem is the fact that the government has too much power (with more power comes more potential for abuse) and that it doesn't work in the interests of the people. Both sides are perfectly content with the status quo (certain groups want to give the government more power), so I really don't see anything changing.

[Michael Redman]

Originally posted by Tony
The root cause of the problem is the fact that the government has too much power (with more power comes more potential for abuse) and that it doesn't work in the interests of the people. Both sides are perfectly content with the status quo (certain groups want to give the government more power), so I really don't see anything changing. I agree. It's sort of tyranny by apathy. We have it well within our power to have exactly the type of government we want, but most people don't know or care enough to make a change. On the other hand, you could say that this is evidence that the people, for the most part, actually want a strong central government that tells them what to do, rather than doing what they tell it to.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by EvolveNow
As a Canadian I can't participate in the American political process but I'll be damned if I sit by and watch my once respected neighbour degenerate into a theocratic uber-state There is no evidence that we are becoming a theocracy. Court decisions and legal precedent with very few narrow exceptions are moving in one direction. To separate church and state. And we have never been a theocracy. From day 1 our government did not advocate a religion. Our Constitution expressly prohibits it. In the beginning our leaders tolerated some ritual in government but that is all but gone now. Yes there is "in god we trust" on the money and yes there are skirmishes over ID in school districts but this does not prove in any way shape or form that we are degenerating into a theocracy.

...with liberty and justice...for the rich. I would say that you really know little of our history and the foundations or our government. We were founded in part on the principle that Capitalism is key to opportunity for all. We must balances the needs of the poor with rights of the entrepreneur. To much regulation stifles economic progress. We have a right as a sovereign nation to decide what is the best way to achieve that goal.

But please, don't sit back. You are invited to discuss and debate. Our decisions affect the world. Your opinion is valued and respected. The only thing I wish for you to understand is that the sky is not falling.

[Chaos]

Originally posted by Michael Redman
Half of America is outraged by the first, and the other half by the second.

So where are the Americans outraged about their administration? I don´t see or hear them. Here in Europe, people have been on on the streets by the tens of thousands for a lot less.

The election was decided by the Constitution. The Court's action had no effect on the outcome. No matter what they decided, Bush had more votes in Florida, and he won the election. I wish he had not, but the argument that the Court decided the election is not based in fact.


BS.

Sorry, but this is and utter BS. The Florida election was fishier than a fleet of tuna trawlers (if you excuse the lame pun). Have you ever taken a closer look at what happened there - at what irregularities were uncovered? Or at least, at all the stuff that a REAL democracy would considered irregularities. Florida alone would have been reason enough repeat the elections - not just ot recount the votes - many times over.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Chaos


Or at least, at all the stuff that a REAL democracy would considered irregularities.

The US isn't a REAL democracy.

[Chaos]

Originally posted by Tony


The US isn't a REAL democracy.

At least here, we agree.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Chaos


At least here, we agree.

There is nothing to agree or disagree about. The US is not a REAl democracy, that is a fact.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Chaos
Sorry, but this is and utter BS. The Florida election was fishier than a fleet of tuna trawlers (if you excuse the lame pun). Have you ever taken a closer look at what happened there - at what irregularities were uncovered? Or at least, at all the stuff that a REAL democracy would considered irregularities. Florida alone would have been reason enough repeat the elections - not just ot recount the votes - many times over. "The Florida election was fishy" is not really a very good argument.

I guess we are just not going to let this one go are we? We've beat this one to death so much it is ridiculous. But ok, I have read the data and I disagree. I suppose we can do it all again if that is necessary. Here is some data for the debate. It's your claim so I will let you frame the argument and outline the premises and then I will rebut them.

AP Rewrites History of Florida Recount <http://www.fair.org/activism/ap-recount.html>;

and AP Clarifies Report on Florida Ballots <http://www.fair.org/activism/ap-florida-update.html>

The story should also have noted that some scenarios showed Gore coming out ahead. For example, a vote-by-vote review of untallied ballots by The Associated Press and seven other news organizations found Bush would have narrowly prevailed in the partial recounts sought by Gore, but that Gore would have finished ahead by the barest of margins had he pursued and gained a complete statewide recount. Remember that Gore did not want a complete recount of the entire state.

link to Pitt law school summary of December 8 case and others related to Florida re-count http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/election/electiontime.htm

[Michael Redman]

Originally posted by Chaos
So where are the Americans outraged about their administration? I don´t see or hear them. Here in Europe, people have been on on the streets by the tens of thousands for a lot less. Wonderful. You go out on the street and we'll see what that accomplishes.

I'll vote. Current polls indicate as many people intending to vote for Kerry, the channenger, as Bush, the incumbant. This should make it quite obvious to even the most casual observer that Bush enjoys less than full support in the US.

[Sindai]

Originally posted by Chaos
At least here, we agree.

You do realize he's pulling the old "no modern country is a true democracy" on you, right?

Of coure, he is correct. The idea is to show that you're ignorant of the actual meaning of the terms you use, and are just throwing around the emotionally-charged phrase "true democracy" for effect.

of course, in this he is also correct, but I thought I'd speed up the process by spelling it out for you. I get bored easily seeing this same thing on a dozen boards a hundred times. :p

[EvolveNow]

Originally posted by RandFan
There is no evidence that we are becoming a theocracy. Court decisions and legal precedent with very few narrow exceptions are moving in one direction. To separate church and state. And we have never been a theocracy. From day 1 our government did not advocate a religion. Our Constitution expressly prohibits it. In the beginning our leaders tolerated some ritual in government but that is all but gone now. Yes there is "in god we trust" on the money and yes there are skirmishes over ID in school districts but this does not prove in any way shape or form that we are degenerating into a theocracy.
------------------------------------
When asked who his most respected historical political philosopher is, Bush smirked and spouted "Christ, because he changed my heart." (Iowa debate, Dec. 1999). Now I'm not a political scientist but it is somewhat of a stretch to call Christ a political philosopher. To me, this shows Bush as a somewhat confused latter day fundamentalist. There have been other "religious" presidents: Jimmy Carter was a "born-again" Christian but had the mental depth to understand that not everyone else is. Bush does not seem to possess this depth.

Bush has come out solidly in support of a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage. His support for this measure, in my opinion, does not emanate from any secular disapproval. He bases his support on the fact that the Christian bible prohibits homosexuality. If this is not a clear step towards theocratizing (sic?) American society, than I don't know what is.

Bush's speeches are laced with Christian references and he has stated on more than one occasion that he believes it was God's plan that he become president.

Bush's faith-based initiatives clearly violate the concept of church/state separation by giving taxpayer money to fund religious recruitment. This alone is historical in its unsoundness.

What does all of this mean? To me it means that the highest and (arguably) the most powerful office in the land is currently held by a Christian fundamentalist woo-woo.

---------------------------------------

Originally posted by RandFan
I would say that you really know little of our history and the foundations or our government. We were founded in part on the principle that Capitalism is key to opportunity for all. We must balances the needs of the poor with rights of the entrepreneur. To much regulation stifles economic progress. We have a right as a sovereign nation to decide what is the best way to achieve that goal.

---------------------------------------

On the contrary, I have been a keen student of American political history for most of my life (I can still remember my Mom pissing me off by pre-empting my daily cartoon watching with Watergate hearings). And as such I know that capitalism was NOT one of the foundations of America. Capitalism is simply a by-product of the true foundations which were, in part, liberty and freedom. This liberty and freedom granted to all citizens spawned the concept of capitalism as a natural outgrowth. However, the two extremes of economic theory are equally destructive: Pure, unfettered capitalism produces extremely concentrated wealth and leads to a heavily "classified" society where the rich get richer and the poor get poorer (OK for the rich but crappy for the poor). And pure socialism leads to complete stagnation as there is no motivation for innovation (no profit motive for entrepeneurs). In my opinion the best system is a balance of the two.

The Bush administration appears to have a rabidly idealogical view that only pure capitalism can keep America strong. Their actions concerning the environment (GOP program names such as "clear skies" and "healthy forest restoration act" are positively Orwellian), rights of individuals to sue, and seeming preference for the well-being of corporations at the expense of private individuals are frightening.

--------------------------------------

Originally posted by RandFan
But please, don't sit back. You are invited to discuss and debate. Our decisions affect the world. Your opinion is valued and respected. The only thing I wish for you to understand is that the sky is not falling.

-------------------------------------

Don't encourage me! :-)

M

[EvolveNow]

Originally posted by Michael Redman
Half of America is outraged by the first, and the other half by the second. Your assertion that it's all or nothing is wrong. America is divided, almost equally. It is not accurate to say that all Americans are of one mind.

-----------------------------

You say it is a half and half split. I cannot be sure about that. But one lie was clearly more destructive than the other. To trivialize the difference is to put them on even terms. I will not agree with that. You are missing my point. I will illustrate:

Clinton lies about affair->lie is discovered->American media leads every newscast every night with the sordid details. You can't escape coverage of the story->country is reported to be outraged->Office of the President is somewhat humiliated->Clinton is demonized and then impeached.

Bush lies about various reasons to got to war immediately in Iraq->thousands of people are maimed and killed->country no safer than before the war (maybe even less safe)->Bush lies about the lies->newscasts relegate the story to low priority->America loses credibilty with much of the world->American people, apparently don't seem to care.

This makes me frightened.

M

[Segnosaur]

There may be minor problems with the democratic system in the U.S., but I feel that Canadians have no right to criticize, as our problems are much much worse...

Originally posted by EvolveNow
As a Canadian I can't participate in the American political process but I'll be damned if I sit by and watch my once respected neighbour degenerate into a theocratic uber-state with liberty and justice...for the rich.


In Canada, we have liberty and justice, but only for those connected to the Liberal party.

Originally posted by EvolveNow
I believe in a system where 1 person = 1 vote.


In that case, how do you feel about the Canadian system? In our "first past the post" system, the ruling party usually gets less than 50% of the vote, and in many cases people who vote against the candidate who wins the riding basically have their votes ignored. (For example, in the last federal election a significant minority of the population in Ontario voted for the Conservatives and Alliance, yet that didn't translate into any meaningful representation in the government.)

Originally posted by EvolveNow
I believe that individual rights are supreme and might does not make right.


Then you must really hate Canada...

People in the U.S. might complain about things like the patriot act and other measures that curtail freedom, but Canada has had a much more repressive government than the U.S., even with the patriot act.

Some examples:
- Americans have a much stronger "freedom of information" act (allowing people to get info on government activities)
- Although the reaction (and censorship) resulting from the Janet Jackson 'superbowl' incident has been a little disturbing, Canada also has problems with censorship. For example, mail coming across the border into Canada is regularly opened, to 'protect' us from pr0n. (And the Supreme court says its perfectly alright, regardless of how incompetent the government is. See the case of the Little Sister's book store.) Also, witness the reaction of the government to Don Cherry's European visor comment. (You may disagree with Cherry, but he should not be censored just because you disagree with him.)
- Americans have things like the Right to Arms, which Canadians don't (Note: I realize many people may consider that right to be unimportant or even dangerious; still, its an example of the rights the U.S. has that Canada doesn't.). The U.S. constitution also has property rights, Canada's constitution doesn't
- The U.S. has a much lower tax rate than Canada. Many people consider it a 'right' to be able to keep money they earned without excessive taxation
- Canadian courts are very willing to issue 'gag orders' to prevent the public from knowing what happens during trials. I don't hear of the same problems coming from the U.S.
- Canada's constitution has the 'not withstanding' clause, which basically means that the government can override basic rights when its convenient; the U.S. constitution doesn't

Originally posted by EvolveNow
The current US administration lies and lies and lies and lies yet Americans don't seem to care.


Ummm... The Liberal government lies and lies, and Canadians don't seem to care. In fact, the more scandals there are, the higher the Liberal's popularity gets. Perhaps you should try to get Canada's house in order before you try to fix the U.S.

The scope of the scandals in Canada far exceeds anything that happened in the U.S.... HRDC, Gun Registry, Sponsorship Scandal, Shawinigate, and the latest: security-gate.

Originally posted by EvolveNow

America has a hissy-fit when thier last president lies about getting a hummer in the oval office. Sensibilities were offended but no one died as a result. Yet the country seems perfectly willing to ignore presidential lies that directly result in the deaths of thousands.


Well, first of all, although the reaction to Clinton's extra-marital activities were excessive, remember that around that time he had several attacks launched; there are 'rumours' going around that one of the reason he ordered the strikes was to deflect attention from 'Monica-gate.'. Of course, these attacks did nothing, but it did lead to some deaths.

And yes, Bush's military actions may have lead to more casulties; however, there is the chance that in the long term lives may be saved.

Originally posted by EvolveNow

The link below leads to clip that makes me wonder about the state of "democracy" in America. (shudder)
Check out the link and gimme your thoughts.

http://www.ericblumrich.com/gta.html

The information may be correct, however, it is very one-sided. It ignores any 'sneaky' dealings that the Democrats may have done leading up to the election. (Even if Florida did turn out to be the 'key' state, should other Democratic activities be ignored?)

Like I said, Canada has a lot more problems with 'democracy and freedom' than the U.S. does. Maybe you should spend more time trying to fix Canada's problems that the U.S. problems.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by EvolveNow

I am a little frightened.
America pumps it's collective fist in the air at the site of bombs dropping on foreign cities, but has mass stroke at the site of a female breast.


Most people really didn't care much about the Janet Jackson spectacle. Don't judge popular reaction by press coverage. You should know this. And the accusation that we were pumping our fists at the site of bombing foreign cities is pathetic. Does Canadian sympathy only extend to Americans when were are bloodies and battered, as on 9/11, or does it remain when we get back on our feet and fight back against those who threaten us?


The current US administration lies and lies and lies and lies yet Americans don't seem to care.


I do care. But I doubt we'd agree exactly on what the lies were. And I also doubt we'd even agree about what the central issues are.


America has a hissy-fit when thier last president lies about getting a hummer in the oval office. Sensibilities were offended but no one died as a result. Yet the country seems perfectly willing to ignore presidential lies that directly result in the deaths of thousands.


Again, don't judge popular opinion by press coverage. Most americans didn't think Clinton's improprieties were that important. Conversely, most americans also know that Iraq and the world are better off without Saddam, and we're willing to let Bush have the benefit of the doubt because it worked. Call it a matter of substance over form. Bush is the only world leader who is talking not only about fighting terrorism, but actually winning.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by EvolveNow

Bush lies about various reasons to got to war immediately in Iraq->thousands of people are maimed and killed->country no safer than before the war (maybe even less safe)->Bush lies about the lies->newscasts relegate the story to low priority->America loses credibilty with much of the world->American people, apparently don't seem to care.

This makes me frightened.


And your fear rules your response. Sorry, but America chooses not to live in fear. If the world's sympathy only extends when we remain bloodied and bruised and as scared as they are, then spare us such sympathy.

Violent islamic fundamentalism has been festering for decades now, and it will continue to do so as long as there are oppressive and violent regimes in the middle east. If you want to defeat terrorism, the ONLY way is to bring democracy to the middle east, by force when necessary. The toppling of Saddam and the Ba'athist regime in Iraq is part of that process - Americans know, even if the rest of the world refuses to acknowlege it, that this fight was ALWAYS about more than just the WMD's. This is a dangerous undertaking, to be sure, but it is even more dangerous to continue to let the problem fester. Americans are not cowards. We fight to win. And we will not appologise for the cowardice of other nations.

[Michael Redman]

Originally posted by EvolveNow
American people, apparently don't seem to care.Again, this simply is not true. Don't be fooled into thinking that because you have access to American media, you know what Americans are thinking.

(And we're not all thinking what Ziggurat's thinking either! :D )

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Michael Redman

(And we're not all thinking what Ziggurat's thinking either! :D )

Certainly not. Americans are not homogenous, and I have plenty of co-workers who think like the Canadian poster. But do you have any specificl criticism of my position?

[RandFan]

I apologize for any patronizing or condecension. It's my way. Stick to the points and argue the facts. I'll try and tone it down if I can.

I truly apreciate your response.

Originally posted by EvolveNow
When asked who his most respected historical political philosopher is, Bush smirked and spouted "Christ, because he changed my heart." (Iowa debate, Dec. 1999). Now I'm not a political scientist but it is somewhat of a stretch to call Christ a political philosopher. To me, this shows Bush as a somewhat confused latter day fundamentalist. There have been other "religious" presidents: Jimmy Carter was a "born-again" Christian but had the mental depth to understand that not everyone else is. Bush does not seem to possess this depth.

Bush has come out solidly in support of a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage. His support for this measure, in my opinion, does not emanate from any secular disapproval. He bases his support on the fact that the Christian bible prohibits homosexuality. If this is not a clear step towards theocratizing (sic?) American society, than I don't know what is.

Bush's speeches are laced with Christian references and he has stated on more than one occasion that he believes it was God's plan that he become president.

Bush's faith-based initiatives clearly violate the concept of church/state separation by giving taxpayer money to fund religious recruitment. This alone is historical in its unsoundness.

What does all of this mean? To me it means that the highest and (arguably) the most powerful office in the land is currently held by a Christian fundamentalist woo-woo. So? The founders of our Country saw fit to divide power between three branches of governement. Bush couldn't turn this country into a theorcracy if he tried.

On the contrary, I have been a keen student of American political history for most of my life... Hmmm....


(I can still remember my Mom pissing me off by pre-empting my daily cartoon watching with Watergate hearings). Ok,

And as such I know that capitalism was NOT one of the foundations of America. Non Sequiter.

Capitalism is simply a by-product of the true foundations which were, in part, liberty and freedom. You've got allot of reading to do if you truly believe that our founding fathers did not seriously consider the importance of property rights and business when they founded this government.

"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Already they have raised up a moneyed aristocracy that has set the government at defiance. The issuing power (of money) should be taken away from the banks and restored to the people to whom it properly belongs."
- Thomas Jefferson

I have to run but I will post more on our founding fathers and capitalism

This liberty and freedom granted to all citizens spawned the concept of capitalism as a natural outgrowth. This is patently wrong. The United States was founded with the idea of Capitalism in mind.

The Bush administration appears to have a rabidly idealogical view that only pure capitalism can keep America strong. Demonstrably untrue. I have friends and family who are upset with Bush's social agenda.

Their actions concerning the environment (GOP program names such as "clear skies" and "healthy forest restoration act" are positively Orwellian), rights of individuals to sue, and seeming preference for the well-being of corporations at the expense of private individuals are frightening. Hyperboyle.

Don't encourage me! Sorry, but I will. If you are going to make claims you are going to have to support them. I would strongly recomend you brush up on American History.

Watergate hearings are a poor substitute for a formal education.

RandFan.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by Segnosaur
In that case, how do you feel about the Canadian system? In our "first past the post" system, the ruling party usually gets less than 50% of the vote, and in many cases people who vote against the candidate who wins the riding basically have their votes ignored. (For example, in the last federal election a significant minority of the population in Ontario voted for the Conservatives and Alliance, yet that didn't translate into any meaningful representation in the government.)
That has as much to do with the idiocy of the right as it does with the system. Mulroney and Campbell devastated the PC party, but they wouldn't give up the ghost and merge with the reform until very recently. I really don't know why they were so reluctant - they did it before when the Conservative party merged with the upstart, western based Progressives.
People in the U.S. might complain about things like the patriot act and other measures that curtail freedom, but Canada has had a much more repressive government than the U.S., even with the patriot act.
Canada is much less concerned with individualism than the United States, but I don't think that our government is "repressive".

Some examples:
- Americans have a much stronger "freedom of information" act (allowing people to get info on government activities)
I can't comment on this. Just don't know.
- Although the reaction (and censorship) resulting from the Janet Jackson 'superbowl' incident has been a little disturbing, Canada also has problems with censorship. For example, mail coming across the border into Canada is regularly opened, to 'protect' us from pr0n. (And the Supreme court says its perfectly alright, regardless of how incompetent the government is. See the case of the Little Sister's book store.) Also, witness the reaction of the government to Don Cherry's European visor comment. (You may disagree with Cherry, but he should not be censored just because you disagree with him.)
Little Sisters is a problem, I agree. Seemed like a personal vendetta at times. And, the Cherry thing is a bit ridiculous. But I don't think that it was the CRTC that came down on Cherry, but CBC instituted a five second delay on its own. I don't agree with it, but it's not quite the same.
- Americans have things like the Right to Arms, which Canadians don't (Note: I realize many people may consider that right to be unimportant or even dangerious; still, its an example of the rights the U.S. has that Canada doesn't.). The U.S. constitution also has property rights, Canada's constitution doesn't
Property rights were specifically excluded from the Charter as some felt that it might create a positive obligation, and it opens a huge can of worms. But the fact that it is not in the Charter does not mean that I don't own my house. There are still quite strong common law protections for property rights. As for arms, I can't think of any other country that specifies a right to arms like the US. I submit that the US is an aberration, out of the particular circumstances of the US Revolution.
- The U.S. has a much lower tax rate than Canada. Many people consider it a 'right' to be able to keep money they earned without excessive taxation
To my mind higher taxes do not equal repression. There are benefits that come with that higher rate of taxation. If you do not agree with that cost benefit analysis, you have other options.
- Canadian courts are very willing to issue 'gag orders' to prevent the public from knowing what happens during trials. I don't hear of the same problems coming from the U.S.
Did you really need to know the lurid details of the Bernardo tapes? Or is it simple morbid curiosity?
- Canada's constitution has the 'not withstanding' clause, which basically means that the government can override basic rights when its convenient; the U.S. constitution doesn't
The notwithstanding clause is not so flippant as you make it out to be. It is there to maintain parliamentary supremacy. Many complain about "judicail activisim". You may even be one of them. This clause is designed to prevent judges from making laws that the people disagree with - but it comes at a price. The government has to specifically say that they are going to enforce a certain law notwithstanding its violation of rights. That is not something done lightly.

The scope of the scandals in Canada far exceeds anything that happened in the U.S.... HRDC, Gun Registry, Sponsorship Scandal, Shawinigate, and the latest: security-gate.
In the name of everything you hold dear, please stop using "gate" as if it is a suffix for "political scandal". Fer crying out loud, Watergate wasn't even in this country! (btw Security-gate? Like at the airport?)

The information may be correct, however, it is very one-sided. It ignores any 'sneaky' dealings that the Democrats may have done leading up to the election. (Even if Florida did turn out to be the 'key' state, should other Democratic activities be ignored?)
What are these sneaky dealings?

[Michael Redman]

Originally posted by Ziggurat
Certainly not. Americans are not homogenous, and I have plenty of co-workers who think like the Canadian poster. But do you have any specificl criticism of my position? No, I'm just trying to make the point that Americans are not all behind Bush, and you seem to be undercutting my point. I'm not saying anything about the content of your position.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by Ziggurat

Does Canadian sympathy only extend to Americans when were are bloodies and battered, as on 9/11, or does it remain when we get back on our feet and fight back against those who threaten us?
You'll note that we were right there beside you in Afganistan - and in fact we are still there. If you were fighting back against someone who actually threatened you, we'd be there again. But Iraq did not threaten you.

And your fear rules your response. Sorry, but America chooses not to live in fear. If the world's sympathy only extends when we remain bloodied and bruised and as scared as they are, then spare us such sympathy.
I find this response interesting, considering that the US administration used such fear mongering tactics to gain support for the war on Iraq. It was their strategy to keep you in fear, and they still do. It is the American populous that lives in fear, not the Canadians.
Violent islamic fundamentalism has been festering for decades now, and it will continue to do so as long as there are oppressive and violent regimes in the middle east. If you want to defeat terrorism, the ONLY way is to bring democracy to the middle east, by force when necessary.
Really? What about Saudi Arabia, the big buddy of the US? Not so democratic, funds terrorism, and many of the 9/11 attackers came from there. Many more ties than Iraq. But who gets attacked?
The toppling of Saddam and the Ba'athist regime in Iraq is part of that process - Americans know, even if the rest of the world refuses to acknowlege it, that this fight was ALWAYS about more than just the WMD's.
Right, in a nice bit of revisionist history. Bush and the administration used fear mongering tactics that centred on the WMD's to gain support for the war from the people. It was all based on lies and shoddy information.
This is a dangerous undertaking, to be sure, but it is even more dangerous to continue to let the problem fester. Americans are not cowards. We fight to win. And we will not appologise for the cowardice of other nations.
Cowardice? Please. This is like an eighteen year old calling other teenagers cowards for not helping him attack the five year old down the street who he has accused of having a slingshot. You then go and beat the five year old, find no slingshot anywhere, and say that it was because the five year old was mean, and used a magnifying glass on bugs, and might one day do something. Meanwhile, you are buddies with the kids who have slingshots and give rocks to other kids to break your windows.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Thanz

That has as much to do with the idiocy of the right as it does with the system. Mulroney and Campbell devastated the PC party, but they wouldn't give up the ghost and merge with the reform until very recently.

Although the 'right' has had may problems in the past decade, the problem of people's votes not mattering has been around a lot longer, and is a symptom of our political setup. (Even before the Conservative and alliance split, anyone who wanted to vote Conservative or NDP in (for example) Ottawa, which always votes Liberal, your vote wouldn't mean anything.

Originally posted by Thanz

Canada is much less concerned with individualism than the United States, but I don't think that our government is "repressive".

And I'm sure most Americans don't view their government as particularly 'repressive' either.

But then again, you're probably a fairly 'average' person. Where 'repression' happens is at the extremes. (You may not care about, for example, the "right" to view pr0n, but do you think that right should be taken away from others?)

And individualism is very strongly linked to the idea of freedom.

Originally posted by Thanz

Little Sisters is a problem, I agree. Seemed like a personal vendetta at times. And, the Cherry thing is a bit ridiculous. But I don't think that it was the CRTC that came down on Cherry, but CBC instituted a five second delay on its own. I don't agree with it, but it's not quite the same.

Although Little Sisters is the most visible case, they are not the only ones. Anyone who has received any package from the U.S. (even if it was from your own grandma who winters in Florida) was liable to have their stuff searched, and in some cases confiscated. Order a copy of "Naked women doing dirty stuff" from the U.S.? Customs might keep the video, even though you can probably get the same video (or ones almost identical) at places in Canada.

As for Don Cherry, yes it was the CBC that decided on the 7 second delay, but remember, it was members of the goverment who were actually talking about investigating him for hate speech, etc. Plus, there are other examples of the goverment interfeering with free speech. (For example, Lowell Green's complaints about them cancelling the Somalia inquiry.)

Originally posted by Thanz


Property rights were specifically excluded from the Charter as some felt that it might create a positive obligation, and it opens a huge can of worms. But the fact that it is not in the Charter does not mean that I don't own my house.


But the measure of a 'right' is not how it affects the 'average' person (like you, who own your house), but how it affects those on the fringe. What if the government wanted your home for some reason? Without any mention in the charter, then you've got much less recourse.

Originally posted by Thanz

As for arms, I can't think of any other country that specifies a right to arms like the US. I submit that the US is an aberration, out of the particular circumstances of the US Revolution.

I could be wrong, but doesn't Switzerland have rules that everyone must have a firearm?

Originally posted by Thanz

To my mind higher taxes do not equal repression. There are benefits that come with that higher rate of taxation. If you do not agree with that cost benefit analysis, you have other options.

If you don't think paying higher taxes is repressive, would you mind paying my income and property taxes?

When the government raises taxes, it is usually the 'rich' that end up paying more, but it is usually the 'poor' who end up receiving the benefit. The left-wing usually says "that's social justice", however, the rich person ends up with a much higher cost to benefit ratio.

And you said there are 'options'... Other than actually leaving the country, what exactly are those options?

Originally posted by Thanz

Did you really need to know the lurid details of the Bernardo tapes? Or is it simple morbid curiosity?

Again, the Bernardo tapes are only one example of courts issuing gag orders. (For example, I think there is a gag order on parts of the Air India bombing trial.)

As for why I would care - No, I don't need to know all the lurid details, but even basic facts (what was the plea bargin? How many deaths were involved, etc.) get supressed. Yes, eventually the gag order gets lifted, but long after the case is over and will likely get underreported in the media. (And as a voter, I would like to know if the government is handling criminal cases properly.)

Originally posted by Thanz

The notwithstanding clause is not so flippant as you make it out to be. It is there to maintain parliamentary supremacy. Many complain about "judicail activisim". You may even be one of them. This clause is designed to prevent judges from making laws that the people disagree with - but it comes at a price. The government has to specifically say that they are going to enforce a certain law notwithstanding its violation of rights. That is not something done lightly.

Actually one of the major reasons for the Not Withstanding clause was to give goverments time to adjust existing laws (which may have conflicted with the charter) to make them consistent with the charter.

And who cares how 'lightly' its done? If there is a rule that says "you can suspend people's rights", then that's not a good thing. Do you think the english people in Quebec thought "Well, we can't use English signs, but at least the Provincial government didn't take things lightly when they made that decision"?

Oh and by the way, you do have a point in that the notwithstanding clause can "maintain parliamentary supremacy", however, keep in mind that in several recent issues (gay marrige, drug legalization) the government has decided to "let the courts decide" rather than make a stand for themselves. Now, forget whether you are for or agains gay marrige and drug legalization... Ask youself this: If they have this notwithstanding clause to protect parliment, why aren't they using it?

Originally posted by Thanz

In the name of everything you hold dear, please stop using "gate" as if it is a suffix for "political scandal". Fer crying out loud, Watergate wasn't even in this country! (btw Security-gate? Like at the airport?)

Everyone else in the media seems to be suing it, and its a lot easer to say "Shawinigate" rather than "The case of the prime minister arranging federal assistance for someone who was going to buy his golf course, even though he wasn't paid for his ownership, and the person who tried to stop the issue was harrased by the goverment and subject to illegal searchs".

As for "security-gate", I'm referring to one of the most recent problems where the auditor general has released a report complaining that much of the billions of dollars collected from you and me to improve security following 9/11 was managed very poorly and has done very little to actually improve security.

See: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20040318/AUDITOR18/TPNational/Canada or http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1079564344469_18/?hub=TopStories

Originally posted by Thanz

What are these sneaky dealings?

For example, the Democrats wanted recounts in certain areas of Florida that used "butterfly ballots", but only in areas where Democratic support was strong.

Plus, they've received a large share of 'soft campaign funds'.

[Thanz]

Segnosaur - Thanks for the reply. I'll respond to a few of your points here. If there is something that I omit but you really want a response to it, let me know.

Originally posted by Segnosaur

Although the 'right' has had may problems in the past decade, the problem of people's votes not mattering has been around a lot longer, and is a symptom of our political setup. (Even before the Conservative and alliance split, anyone who wanted to vote Conservative or NDP in (for example) Ottawa, which always votes Liberal, your vote wouldn't mean anything.
That's not really the same thing. That is just getting outvoted. It doesn't mean that your vote doesn't count - just that more people in your riding vote for the other person. That happens everywhere. And in the case of the liberals, I don't think that some sort of ranking would stop their grip on the country. They are generally regarded as being between the NDP and PC, so they are a natural "second choice".

But the measure of a 'right' is not how it affects the 'average' person (like you, who own your house), but how it affects those on the fringe. What if the government wanted your home for some reason? Without any mention in the charter, then you've got much less recourse.
Does having property protection in the US actually prevent expropriation? Can a homeowner in the use simply refuse to sell to the government if they try and expropriate?

I could be wrong, but doesn't Switzerland have rules that everyone must have a firearm?
I don't know for sure, but it would surprise me. My wife lived in Switzerland for a year and has never mentioned it.

If you don't think paying higher taxes is repressive, would you mind paying my income and property taxes?
Thanks for the offer, but I think I'll just pay my own. :)

When the government raises taxes, it is usually the 'rich' that end up paying more, but it is usually the 'poor' who end up receiving the benefit. The left-wing usually says "that's social justice", however, the rich person ends up with a much higher cost to benefit ratio.
True. I get dinged more than most people, but not as much as others. As a left leaner, I don't fuss too much about it. I am not saying that I love paying taxes, just that I agree with using graduated tax rates to help those at the lower end of the pay scale.

And you said there are 'options'... Other than actually leaving the country, what exactly are those options?
Democratic options. Voting. This election may be the first time in a long time that there is an actual race, with the Conservatives uniting and the sponsorship scandal. While the Liberals have had a stranglehold on the nation for a while, I don't expect it to last forever. In the past 15 years Ontario has had governments from all three main parties. The PC's got voted in on a tax cut agenda - perhaps the federal Conservatives can as well.

BTW, have you seen Rick Mercer's bits on "Why the Liberals will Rule Canada Forever"? Quite entertaining.
Actually one of the major reasons for the Not Withstanding clause was to give goverments time to adjust existing laws (which may have conflicted with the charter) to make them consistent with the charter.

And who cares how 'lightly' its done? If there is a rule that says "you can suspend people's rights", then that's not a good thing. Do you think the english people in Quebec thought "Well, we can't use English signs, but at least the Provincial government didn't take things lightly when they made that decision"?
What I am saying is that there are real political consequences to invoking the clause. The PQ are no longer in power in Quebec, and support for separtism seems to be in a lull as well.

Oh and by the way, you do have a point in that the notwithstanding clause can "maintain parliamentary supremacy", however, keep in mind that in several recent issues (gay marrige, drug legalization) the government has decided to "let the courts decide" rather than make a stand for themselves. Now, forget whether you are for or agains gay marrige and drug legalization... Ask youself this: If they have this notwithstanding clause to protect parliment, why aren't they using it?
Simple - politicians are cowards. They avoid the tough issues like the plague.

[Chaos]

Re: Switzerland

Every male Swiss citizen is part of the militia/army reserves/whatever they call it - it is more or less equivalent to the US National Guard. Therefore, every male Swiss citizen keeps a rifle (and ammunition, presumably) at home; though I don´t know how they are required to keep it - locked away or open or either way or whatever.
So there´s a gun in practically every Swiss household - wether they want it or not - but every man there knows how to use guns responsibly.

[EvolveNow]

I didn't want this discussion to be a comparison between Canada and America. We in Canada have our own problems to deal with but that is not what this thread is about.

M

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Thanz
Segnosaur - Thanks for the reply. I'll respond to a few of your points here. If there is something that I omit but you really want a response to it, let me know.


No, you're pretty reasonable and efficient at getting your points across.

Originally posted by Thanz
That's not really the same thing. That is just getting outvoted. It doesn't mean that your vote doesn't count - just that more people in your riding vote for the other person. That happens everywhere.


It may happen everywhere (or at least in a lot of other places), but a large number of countries (possibly even the majority of democracies) have some sort of stronger method for proportional representation.
- The U.S. has the presidency, which, although technically involves an 'electoral college', does usually allow the president to get elected by actual popular vote
- France has a separate president and prime minister, one of which is elected by direct vote
- Isreal's parliment awards seats based on the proportion of votes cast for each party
In each of those cases, somewhere along the line a person's vote can influence the government, even if they happen to be in a minority in their own local area.

You may think that my vote counts, but I don't feel the same way. Regadless of who I vote for in the next election, I know that my representative will be a Liberal. (Wherease someone in, for example, an east coast riding may vote PC, NDP, or Liberal, and actually get a representative based on who they vote for.) So, from my perspective, my vote means less than that in an area where they actually change their MPs.

Originally posted by Thanz

Does having property protection in the US actually prevent expropriation? Can a homeowner in the use simply refuse to sell to the government if they try and expropriate?

To be honest, I don't hear much about property rights cases either in the U.S. or Canada. The last time I heard it being an issue is when gun owners in Canada wanted to challenge the gun registry (and laws on confiscation of certain weapons) based on property rights. Of course, not being part of the consititution, that would likely fail.

Even if you don't hear of property right violations though, I would still feel much better with the added protection of having those rights spelled out in the constitution. (You may choose to trust the government; at this point, I'm far less trusting.)

Originally posted by Thanz

I don't know for sure, but it would surprise me. My wife lived in Switzerland for a year and has never mentioned it.

I've seen people talk about the Swiss whenever gun control comes up (but then, it could all be an urban legend). I think its based on the idea that people in Switzerland have to be part of the national militia.

Originally posted by Thanz

True. I get dinged more than most people, but not as much as others. As a left leaner, I don't fuss too much about it. I am not saying that I love paying taxes, just that I agree with using graduated tax rates to help those at the lower end of the pay scale.

Problem is, as taxes go up, a lot of really bad things happen:
- Thanks to government inefficiencies, not all of the money goes to the poor; instead, some gets wasted (like the gun registry), or ends up going to subsidize companies
- Taxes do have a habit of supressing the economy. It may sound 'good' to have the governemt take tax money from you to give to the poor, but many people who are 'poor' may actually have a job if taxes were lower and the economy stronger
- And what ever happened to the idea of personal responsibility? Yes, I want to make sure people like the handicapped are cared for, but how much support should we as a society give to people who can work, but choose not to?

Originally posted by Thanz

Democratic options. Voting. This election may be the first time in a long time that there is an actual race, with the Conservatives uniting and the sponsorship scandal.

Unfortunately, Canadians are a relatively stupid bunch and will likely forgive the Liberals. They voted the Liberals back in after the HRDC scandal, and after their broken "revoke the GST promise", and there's every reason to believe they'll do the same with this latest set of scandals.

Look at the opinion polls. Pretty much every news article I've seen states that the Liberal support is 'dropping', yet they still have a higher level of support than the Conservatives (38% Liberal vs. 26% Conservative.) See: http://www.canada.com/montreal/montrealgazette/story.asp?id=D6F9E9AE-46C5-41A2-822B-13F6A201F29E

Originally posted by Thanz

BTW, have you seen Rick Mercer's bits on "Why the Liberals will Rule Canada Forever"? Quite entertaining.


No I haven't. Was this on CBC? Care to paraphrase a bit?

Originally posted by Thanz

What I am saying is that there are real political consequences to invoking the clause.

There may be consequences, but look at it this way, any attempt to invoke the clause will likely involve the rights of the minority rather than the majority (such as English speakers in Quebec). And politically, if you want to get into power, you do things to appease the majority. Invoking the clause is more likely to help the ruling party than it is to hurt them.

Originally posted by Thanz

The PQ are no longer in power in Quebec, and support for separtism seems to be in a lull as well.


Separtist support may be in a lull, but its not dead yet. Remember, many thought separatism was dead after 1980, but we ended up with a referendum in the 90s. And the Bloc has a lead of 49% to 31% over the Liberals in Quebec. Personally, I think all that's needed to start another conflict on separation is either one "exciting" french leader (like Bouchard), or one "outrage" (like, for example, the Meech Lake/Charletown accords).

And remember, the ruling Liberal party in Quebec is also quite willing to use the notwithstanding clause (Didn't Bourassa use it once in some of the sign laws?)

Originally posted by Thanz

Simple - politicians are cowards. They avoid the tough issues like the plague.

While I agree that most are cowards, it doesn't address the issue: Is it good to have a 'notwithstanding' clause to protect parlimentary supremecy if the only reason that it actually gets used is to supress minorities; at the same time, real issues that should be addressed get avoided.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by EvolveNow
I didn't want this discussion to be a comparison between Canada and America. We in Canada have our own problems to deal with but that is not what this thread is about.

M

I know its not what the thread is supposed to be about, but like I said before, if you are going to criticize one country (the U.S.) for its problems, you should make sure that your country doesn't have the same problems, only much worse.

[EvolveNow]

Originally posted by Ziggurat


And your fear rules your response. Sorry, but America chooses not to live in fear. If the world's sympathy only extends when we remain bloodied and bruised and as scared as they are, then spare us such sympathy.

-----------------------------

This is a non-sequiter response. What does my fear of growing US political trends have to with America living in fear? Hogwash.

I have sympathy for the victims of violence everywhere. Whether they be innocent workers burned alive in the WTC or civilians blown to bits by bombs.

America IS living in fear. It is the life-blood of the Bush administration. A frightened population is a compliant population.

----------------------------


This response is even more inane than the last.

Originally posted by Ziggurat

Violent islamic fundamentalism has been festering for decades now, and it will continue to do so as long as there are oppressive and violent regimes in the middle east.


The ones that America installed, funded, and continue to support. You mean those ones?
Iraq
Iran
UAE
Yemen
Egypt
All American client states.
And we, of course, can't forget Saudi Arabia. One of the most repressive regimes in the world today...but...oh ya they're America's good friend. The majority of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi. The Saudi regime has consistently accomodated the activities of the Wahabi sect of Islam which is the founder and chief funder of various Islamic terror groups, including al-Quaeda. Why doesn't the US take aim squarely at Saudi Arabia?

------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by Ziggurat

If you want to defeat terrorism, the ONLY way is to bring democracy to the middle east, by force when necessary. The toppling of Saddam and the Ba'athist regime in Iraq is part of that process - Americans know, even if the rest of the world refuses to acknowlege it, that this fight was ALWAYS about more than just the WMD's.

-----------------------------------------------

Bullsh*t

The fight was NEVER about WMD's at all. The neo-con chickenhawks have had a boner to invade Iraq since the end of the first gulf war. The Defence Planning Guidance document of 1992 written by Wolfowitz lays out in clear and concise language what the US had in store for the middle east and its vast oil reserves. In a leaked Bush memo from 2001 (pre 9/11), the invasion of Iraq is a clearly stated goal. It is a sad fact that the deaths of several thousand innocent people at the WTC were cynically used by the Bush administration to sell the invasion to the American people.

--------------------------------------


Originally posted by Ziggurat

This is a dangerous undertaking, to be sure, but it is even more dangerous to continue to let the problem fester. Americans are not cowards. We fight to win. And we will not appologise for the cowardice of other nations.

-------------------------------------------

Yes I have this infantile crap before. We, and others are cowards because we don't buy into the Bush administration's phony rational for war. I would propose that real cowards are the ones who use tragedy to further their geo-political goals.

M

[Thanz]

Originally posted by Segnosaur

- And what ever happened to the idea of personal responsibility? Yes, I want to make sure people like the handicapped are cared for, but how much support should we as a society give to people who can work, but choose not to?
Believe me, these people pi$$ me off as much as they probably pi$$ you off. I don't mind helping people who actually need help. I do mind supplying beer money to people who are just damn lazy.

No I haven't. Was this on CBC? Care to paraphrase a bit?
It was on Rick Mercer's Monday Report (CBC every Monday at 8) which I highly recommend. There is some stuff online. Here are some links:
Main site: http://www.cbc.ca/mondayreport/

Why the Liberals will rule Canada forever, part one: http://www.cbc.ca/clips/mondayreport/liberals.rm

Why the Liberals will rule Canada forever, part two: http://www.cbc.ca/mondayreport/backissues_feb09.html#liberals

While I agree that most are cowards, it doesn't address the issue: Is it good to have a 'notwithstanding' clause to protect parlimentary supremecy if the only reason that it actually gets used is to supress minorities; at the same time, real issues that should be addressed get avoided.
The problem isn't the clause, it is the application of it. It is not being used much at all, actually. I cannot think of an example other than the Quebec sign laws. Therefore, it is almost not worth talking about - except to point out that gov'ts consistently allow courts to make the tough decisions when there is no reason for that to be the case, other than cowardice.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by EvolveNow
The ones that America installed, funded, and continue to support. You mean those ones?
Iraq
Iran
UAE
Yemen
Egypt
All American client states.
And we, of course, can't forget Saudi Arabia. One of the most repressive regimes in the world today...but...oh ya they're America's good friend. The majority of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi. The Saudi regime has consistently accomodated the activities of the Wahabi sect of Islam which is the founder and chief funder of various Islamic terror groups, including al-Quaeda. Why doesn't the US take aim squarely at Saudi Arabia?

------------------------------------------------

You are in serious need of a history lesson. We did not install, Iraq, Iran(current), Egypt. I'm not sure about Yemen and UAE so I won't say. Iran American client state? That's news to me.

This point really bugs me, why does it matter that hijackers were Saudis? They caught a murderer in California like a year ago who was from Ukraine, should we punish that country because he was from it? Also, are you seriously suggesting we invade/attack Saudi Arabia?

[epepke]

Originally posted by Chaos
Every male Swiss citizen is part of the militia/army reserves/whatever they call it - it is more or less equivalent to the US National Guard.

Technically, every male US citizen between the ages of 18 and 45 is also a member of the militia, although there is no requirement of firearm ownership.

Therefore, every male Swiss citizen keeps a rifle (and ammunition, presumably) at home; though I don´t know how they are required to keep it - locked away or open or either way or whatever.

The ammunition is in sealed cases that they're not allowed to break, which makes me wonder--how can they possibly ever be successful if they don't practice?

[Bearguin]

Originally posted by Segnosaur

Again, the Bernardo tapes are only one example of courts issuing gag orders. (For example, I think there is a gag order on parts of the Air India bombing trial.)

As for why I would care - No, I don't need to know all the lurid details, but even basic facts (what was the plea bargin? How many deaths were involved, etc.) get supressed. Yes, eventually the gag order gets lifted, but long after the case is over and will likely get underreported in the media. (And as a voter, I would like to know if the government is handling criminal cases properly.)

Just want to add my 2 cents to this topic.

I am 100% behind the idea of a press ban on court cases. The alternative is an OJ Simpson fiasco that serves no one (not the public and certainly not justice). I think the truth about the Bernardo case has come out (including how they screwed up on Halmalka (sp??) if this is the case I'm thinking about). But it does not have to be done immediatley and in such a way as to impact the current case and potential appeal.

Sorry, but I prefer Canadian laws here.

And on the topic of votes not counting, try living out west on election night to see how they don't count.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Gods Advocate

I am 100% behind the idea of a press ban on court cases. The alternative is an OJ Simpson fiasco that serves no one (not the public and certainly not justice). I think the truth about the Bernardo case has come out (including how they screwed up on Halmalka (sp??) if this is the case I'm thinking about). But it does not have to be done immediatley and in such a way as to impact the current case and potential appeal.


Yes, you're right, it was Holmoka that they screwed up on.

Although the OJ trial was a fiasco, would you rather live in a society where court cases were always kept closed? In such a situation, you have no idea whether shady dealings were being made, or whether the government that you were considering voting for in the future was successfully keeping law and order.

Although there are a couple of reasons to keep a court case closed (e.g. to protect the names of innocent, especially underage,) victims, many 'gag orders' are done to 'supposedly' prevent the jury pool from being compromised. (i.e. keep data away from people to prevent them from prejudging.) However, prescreening jurours should eliminate that problem. (And put it this way, would you really want a jury composed of people who were dumb enough to let their opinions to be changed by what they read in the newspaper as opposed to what they hear in the court?)

[RandFan]

Originally posted by EvolveNow
I didn't want this discussion to be a comparison between Canada and America. We in Canada have our own problems to deal with but that is not what this thread is about.Would you respond to my post?

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by EvolveNow

I have sympathy for the victims of violence everywhere. Whether they be innocent workers burned alive in the WTC or civilians blown to bits by bombs.


America does not need sympathy, it needs help in actually fighting the islamofascists. Are you actually in support of that or not?


America IS living in fear. It is the life-blood of the Bush administration. A frightened population is a compliant population.


As someone who supported the invasion of Iraq, you can be damned sure that I am not compliant. Hell, if I was compliant, I'd be railing against Bush, since that seems all the rage in the non-representative circles I spend most of my time in.


The ones that America installed, funded, and continue to support. You mean those ones?
Iraq
Iran
UAE
Yemen
Egypt
All American client states.


I don't think you have any clue about what a client state really is. These are no more client states than France is.


And we, of course, can't forget Saudi Arabia. One of the most repressive regimes in the world today...but...oh ya they're America's good friend. The majority of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi. The Saudi regime has consistently accomodated the activities of the Wahabi sect of Islam which is the founder and chief funder of various Islamic terror groups, including al-Quaeda. Why doesn't the US take aim squarely at Saudi Arabia?


What makes you think we aren't? And what makes you so myopic as to think that our willingness to use military force means that we aren't able to use more subtle forms of pressure when necessary?

You are correct that Saudi Arabia is not our friend. But you are incorrect in assuming we haven't changed our attitude towards them, or that they are not finally being forced to confront the problems they helped create.


The fight was NEVER about WMD's at all.


That was indeed a factor, though the details were very much overplayed. Long term, if sanctions were lifted (see below), we could not have ensured that Iraq would never develop nuclear weapons (and don't even try to debate that with me - I spent a lot of time digging through IAEA documents to find out just how damned close they really got in 1991). And there HAS been a WMD payoff already, or have you not been paying attention to Libya's capitulation in the wake of Saddam's capture?


The neo-con chickenhawks have had a boner to invade Iraq since the end of the first gulf war. The Defence Planning Guidance document of 1992 written by Wolfowitz lays out in clear and concise language what the US had in store for the middle east and its vast oil reserves.


It's a paranoid fantasy that we were only after their oil, a fantasy that has not been born out by the reality of events on the ground. If you want to talk about oil as a motivator, there's a LOT more evidence to suggest that France opposed the invasion and sanctions because of oil contracts French companies signed with Saddam to plunder Iraq to the tune of around $100 billion.


In a leaked Bush memo from 2001 (pre 9/11), the invasion of Iraq is a clearly stated goal. It is a sad fact that the deaths of several thousand innocent people at the WTC were cynically used by the Bush administration to sell the invasion to the American people.


Yes, just as regime change was a goal of Clinton. This is not nefarious, it indicates that they in fact realized the long-term problem Saddam posed and were already thinking of ways to deal with it. It would have been irresponsible to NOT plan for the possibility of taking out Saddam.

I keep hearing from leftists that we're fighting terrorism the wrong way. But what I never hear from them is any actual plan for how to win - are you any different? Argue all you want about details, but the neocons are the only ones with an actual plan for how to win, and fighting to win is the ONLY way to fight. That's why I'll cast my lot in with them. This is not exploitation of tragedy, it is the only correct response to an existential threat.