Bush Administration's latest excuse...

[GePap]

Originally posted by elijah
GePap: Are we both smelling the same thing? Are we smelling the foul odour of desparation among the Americans to keep this war justified?

There is node desperation: this admin. always had several reasons for this war (people like Wolfowitz wanted to invade Iraq either before, or in tandem, with Afghanistan back in 2001), but most of them are based on rather academic arguments or old fashioned real-politik, with a neocon twist. None of them were politically sexy, or capable of getting much internationa support. WMD;s were politically sexy, you can make nice, made for TV presentations at the UN about them, and you would be able to put upon yourself the mantle of world portector, UN protector, and get a "coolition of the willing". The admin. had to go the WMD route to get this war started, though if you notice, when Bush gave his "ultimatum", not a mention of WMD's was made in the actual demands (it was all about regime change). The thing is, I d expect that they though they would find just enough to "justify the war based on that". I expected them to find something, given the 12 years of intelligence reports we were all given when it came to Iraq. That so little had been found does surprise me, and I think it surprised them:What is most surprising is that most people are just willing (in the US) to let the issue die. Some yesterday said Iraq had been a "catharcic war", a way for Americas to feel good again after 9/11. Sounds sappy, but given how the masses react, perhaps true,and rather diheartening.

[gunkulator]

If Bush was completely honest, he'd admit to being surprised at finding no WMD yet. I don't for one minute think Saddam did not have them however. He certainly had them before. Add to that the fact that Blix and the rest of the UN believed there was a reason to continue inspections and, yup, you get to put WMD on the list of reasons to invade.

Of course, Bush had a several other reasons for invading Iraq. However, even all of them put together did not make the war justified IMHO. So yes, what we are seeing today is a kind of backpedaling, but only because nothing has shown up yet to date.

Bush = most trigger happy president in recent memory.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by elijah
Is it true that the democrats actually got more votes than the republicans??? If so, why do the electoral colleges have any power whatsoever?

I know this is a bit OT, but if you really don't understand this, maybe I can help.

The electoral college actually has all the power. The national popular vote means nothing. When a candidate wins the most votes in a state, that states' electoral votes, which are based on population, are all given to the candidate. Thus, if a state as 10 electoral votes, all 10 go to the winner. They are not split.

The candidate who wins is the one with the majority of electoral votes. The nature of the system is that it is possible, though not very likely, to win more electoral votes even though fewer people voted for you.

Here is an example: consider 3 states with the same amount of electoral votes each. Let's say I win one state with 51% of the vote, and another with 51% of the vote. The last state, however, really likes you and gives you 90% of the vote. Technically, more people voted for you, but I won more states so I would win the election.

This is fairly rare in our history, however, and ususally the winner of the electoral vote wins the popular vote as well.

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by elijah
Oedo's sig:

"It was amazing I won. I was running against peace and prosperity and incumbency.

George W. Bush, speaking with the Swedish Prime Minister, unaware that live cameras were rolling"

I thought he was running againest a guy who shortchanged the military and accepted money from thehinese communists. Silly me.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Agathon
Yep - now let all the Apolyton Conservatives repeat after me.

"Bush was full of ****".

"Bush lied and we fell for it"

"The Lefties told us he was lying, but we were too dumb to believe them"

"We won't believe what Bush tells us again."

Bush is a politician. Therefore, he is full of **** by definition.

Bush lied, and we don't give a fair damn.

The Lefties told us he was lying, but we couldn't see why they were so surprised or what they were so bent out of shape over, since we knew it and didn't care in the first place.

We never believed him in the first place, and still won't. The only thing that counts is whether he delivers results.

How's that?

[Whaleboy]

"The only thing that counts is whether he delivers results"

Means vs ends? How about the people he walked over in the process? What if the ends is unjustifiable regardless of the means?

What if the means caused more consequences than the ends? For example in this context, the damage done to democracy by this blatent lying etc?

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by elijah
"The only thing that counts is whether he delivers results"

Means vs ends? How about the people he walked over in the process? What if the ends is unjustifiable regardless of the means?

What if the means caused more consequences than the ends? For example in this context, the damage done to democracy by this blatent lying etc?

What damage? We're a Federal Republic, believe it or not, it'll take more than that to "damage" our government.

Especially when our state Guard units can field divisions of armor.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by reds4ever


you really don't get it do you? if you'd (we'd) have left them alone in the first place..

Read al Qutb and al Maududi. Just like Wolfowitz and Bush have to come up with sound-bite material to get support for the war, the jihadi has to do the same. Your failure to accept Allah as your one God and Muhammad as his messenger, and to fully embrace Sharia dooms you. The only question is your relative priority as a target.

Israel, the US presence in Saudi, etc., are just excuses, because the US has the ability to project power in the region to thwart the fundamentalists' first stated goals of forming a united Islamic state in the current Islamic world.

[Whaleboy]

"The electoral college actually has all the power. The national popular vote means nothing. When a candidate wins the most votes in a state, that states' electoral votes, which are based on population, are all given to the candidate. Thus, if a state as 10 electoral votes, all 10 go to the winner. They are not split"

So its like a first past the post system, but for each state, then the states combined votes in the electoral colleges are combined to form the national figure, in other words, if a politician wins 51% of the vote in all states, he ends up with 100% in government?

My American friends, you need proportional representation!

[reds4ever]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


We never believed him in the first place, and still won't.

You wouldn't admit that at the time?

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by elijah


My American friends, you need proportional representation!

This is only for the executive Branch. Legislative and Judicial still can hold the President by the Balls, if they so choose.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by elijah
Means vs ends? How about the people he walked over in the process? What if the ends is unjustifiable regardless of the means?

What if the means caused more consequences than the ends? For example in this context, the damage done to democracy by this blatent lying etc?

I'm a devout follower of Macchiavelli. I admit it. I revel in it. If the ends are "unjustifiable" that means that he's failed to deliver results. If the ends aren't worth the cost of the means, it means he's failed to deliver results. Ends are a return on investment, means are the investment.

What "damage done to democracy?" Name a single foreign leader who hasn't lied at some point to sell a policy? Ghandhi and Nehru are the only ones who spring to mind, and Nehru skated close to the edge several times. And look at the net results they got, when you consider the long term India-Pakistan-Bangladesh mess.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by elijah
"The electoral college actually has all the power. The national popular vote means nothing. When a candidate wins the most votes in a state, that states' electoral votes, which are based on population, are all given to the candidate. Thus, if a state as 10 electoral votes, all 10 go to the winner. They are not split"

So its like a first past the post system, but for each state, then the states combined votes in the electoral colleges are combined to form the national figure, in other words, if a politician wins 51% of the vote in all states, he ends up with 100% in government?

My American friends, you need proportional representation!

Okay so the US should switch to those shitty coalition types of governments? We all know how those work...

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
I'm a devout follower of Macchiavelli. I admit it. I revel in it.

If only we had more like you in charge of foreign policy.

[Whaleboy]

" Okay so the US should switch to those shitty coalition types of governments? We all know how those work"

It isnt necessarily coalition, although that is always preferable. They do work, although they need safeguards, look at the weimar republic. If they had the house of lords, hitler would never have happened.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by elijah
It isnt necessarily coalition, although that is always preferable. They do work, although they need safeguards, look at the weimar republic. If they had the house of lords, hitler would never have happened.

Nope. That is not an option. What they need is a strong government and not a weak coalition ones. Usually coalition governments are weak. There are one or two strong ones but that is because the parties in the coalition agree strongly with each other. That is rare.

Anyways.. I think there must be a strong leader in a more authoritarian state. The masses are usually never right. Leave it to those who know how to get things done.

[Whaleboy]

"The masses are usually never right. Leave it to those who know how to get things done"

Doesnt mean an authoritarian state, you can have a highly liberal state, that is a democracy, with an elected government, thus eliminating the consensus and democracy fallacies.

"Nope. That is not an option"

Why not? Its always an option.

"Usually coalition governments are weak"

Ideally, they are compromised governments that become more representative of everybody who votes. Rounded to the nearest number of seats in parliament of course.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by elijah
Doesnt mean an authoritarian state, you can have a highly liberal state, that is a democracy, with an elected government, thus eliminating the consensus and democracy fallacies.

I am no democrat or an advocate of strong democracy. I never have been. Always a strong republic with various authoritarian elements in it.

[Whaleboy]

" I am no democrat or an advocate of strong democracy. I never have been. Always a strong republic with various authoritarian elements in it."

That is fine (for you), I was merely stating that one can have a strong government, in even the most liberal of nations!

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by elijah
That is fine (for you), I was merely stating that one can have a strong government, in even the most liberal of nations!

I must disagree. I have nothing further to say on this topic.

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by Fez
Anyways.. I think there must be a strong leader in a more authoritarian state. The masses are usually never right. Leave it to those who know how to get things done.

Uncle Joe knows.

[Whaleboy]

" I must disagree. I have nothing further to say on this topic"

Why? Theoretically, one can have a nation at the apex of liberty even without the existence of democracy in the first place!!! Whether it is prudent or not is a different matter, but being liberal is no stop to having a strong government.

Unless of course, by strong you mean trampling on rights, in which case I agree, but then, I dont accept that a strong government has to trample on rights, look at various US governments that were popular and thus strong and had great civil rights.

I take strong to mean the degree to which a government can run a nation without having to delegate its responsibilities, via referendums, elections, etc. Needless to say, I think that a government ideally should have a certain degree of strength but not too much, but that is of course, irrelevant to the issue of liberal nations having strong governments.

[Whaleboy]

"Uncle Joe"

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by elijah
" I must disagree. I have nothing further to say on this topic"

Why? Theoretically, one can have a nation at the apex of liberty even without the existence of democracy in the first place!!! Whether it is prudent or not is a different matter, but being liberal is no stop to having a strong government.

Well you can call me if given power, a democratic dictator. I wouldn't limit the press and allow some demonstrations. But the moment civil unrest occurs I will be fast to crush it.

Unless of course, by strong you mean trampling on rights, in which case I agree, but then, I dont accept that a strong government has to trample on rights, look at various US governments that were popular and thus strong and had great civil rights.

I never said anything about rights. People can have their rights but they should keep to themselves. Some people who like protesting shouldn't prevent others from getting to work and damaging the economy. That is unacceptable.

I take strong to mean the degree to which a government can run a nation without having to delegate its responsibilities, via referendums, elections, etc.

Finally you get something right about me.

Needless to say, I think that a government ideally should have a certain degree of strength but not too much, but that is of course, irrelevant to the issue of liberal nations having strong governments.

Liberal nations usually don't have strong governments in my opinion.

[Whaleboy]

"Liberal nations usually don't have strong governments in my opinion"

Britain has a very strong government, is a capitalist state yet is pretty liberal.

I believe you are confusing political and civil rights. The former is only a slice out of the pie of the other.

mmmm pie!!

One could have dictators or other strong governments that fully allow the right to protest, the right to do anything, run nude down the street etc (up to the Mill Limit, see link in sig), to express their views in a full manner, and otherwise give much more civil rights than you, and still be considered a strong government.

However, I do not think a government should be too strong. Democracy is quite important to me, it is thus important to keep governments accountable, and ultimately, an instrument of the delegation of power from the people. I call greater political rights the "conduit of influence", and the wider the conduit is, in the long term, the more stable, dynamic, progressive and economically sound a society becomes, because people can change things legitimatally, and not resort to revolutions and riots with have a tendency to become violent. Protests of course I feel are rather important, asides from the great, healthy fun of being in one, they help to advertise a cause to the general public. Of course, is one going to take away my right to walk down the street? Most protests dont involve smashing stuff.

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by elijah
"The electoral college actually has all the power. The national popular vote means nothing. When a candidate wins the most votes in a state, that states' electoral votes, which are based on population, are all given to the candidate. Thus, if a state as 10 electoral votes, all 10 go to the winner. They are not split"

So its like a first past the post system, but for each state, then the states combined votes in the electoral colleges are combined to form the national figure, in other words, if a politician wins 51% of the vote in all states, he ends up with 100% in government?

My American friends, you need proportional representation!

Actually in two states they are split:

The two exceptions to this are Maine and Nebraska where two Electors are chosen by statewide popular vote and the remainder by the popular vote within each Congressional district.

Found this at:

http://www.fec.gov/pages/ecworks.htm

It seems that if all the states did it this way, the electoral college would be a little more representative of the popular vote.

ACK!

[Whaleboy]

Nice one Tuberski!

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by elijah
"Liberal nations usually don't have strong governments in my opinion"

Britain has a very strong government, is a capitalist state yet is pretty liberal.

I believe you are confusing political and civil rights. The former is only a slice out of the pie of the other.

mmmm pie!!

One could have dictators or other strong governments that fully allow the right to protest, the right to do anything, run nude down the street etc (up to the Mill Limit, see link in sig), to express their views in a full manner, and otherwise give much more civil rights than you, and still be considered a strong government.

However, I do not think a government should be too strong. Democracy is quite important to me, it is thus important to keep governments accountable, and ultimately, an instrument of the delegation of power from the people. I call greater political rights the "conduit of influence", and the wider the conduit is, in the long term, the more stable, dynamic, progressive and economically sound a society becomes, because people can change things legitimatally, and not resort to revolutions and riots with have a tendency to become violent. Protests of course I feel are rather important, asides from the great, healthy fun of being in one, they help to advertise a cause to the general public. Of course, is one going to take away my right to walk down the street? Most protests dont involve smashing stuff.

Thanks for explaining yourself. However you are not changing my views.

I don't think so though. Because I believe a strong leader is required to maintain full economic productivity.

You think in your idea of a state, there will be less revolution than mine? I think mine would have far less protests and revolutions, if any.

[Whaleboy]

"Thanks for explaining yourself. However you are not changing my views"

Thats cool, its good that we can have a reasoned debate. If anything, I'm sure we're both finding it most interesting.

"I don't think so though. Because I believe a strong leader is required to maintain full economic productivity"

That goes without saying, one can have a strong leader in a liberal state, who can have a generally free hand in economics. Having said that, I think business should be more or less left alone, until it starts hurting people which is where the state should intervene. Hardly communist am I ?

"I think mine would have far less protests and revolutions, if any"

Perhaps in the short term. However, with a larger conduit of the influence, the will of the people is more accurately reflected, reducing the need for revolution. Not allowing protest will not silence dissent, it will only serve to push it underground, like a sort of pressure cooker. Whilst you gain stability in the short term, you also gain rigidness and inability to change, and ironically in the long term, the society becomes unstable for the very same reasons, as people react violently against what they see as oppression. Humanity has the natural tendency in cultures to move towards more liberty.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by elijah
That goes without saying, one can have a strong leader in a liberal state, who can have a generally free hand in economics. Having said that, I think business should be more or less left alone, until it starts hurting people which is where the state should intervene. Hardly communist am I ?

In my state, there will be a strong government which gets involved in civil rights but stays out of the economy.

Perhaps in the short term. However, with a larger conduit of the influence, the will of the people is more accurately reflected, reducing the need for revolution. Not allowing protest will not silence dissent, it will only serve to push it underground, like a sort of pressure cooker. Whilst you gain stability in the short term, you also gain rigidness and inability to change, and ironically in the long term, the society becomes unstable for the very same reasons, as people react violently against what they see as oppression. Humanity has the natural tendency in cultures to move towards more liberty.

I again disagree. If there is a problem send in soldiers. But to prevent the army from getting involved, there must be a secret police foundation to counter any underground thing.

I again completely disagree with every bit you are saying. You are almost saying it as fact and forcing it down my throat.

I DO NOT THINK SO.