Originally posted by Gruntboy Lets stick to facts. If Iraq didn't want to get bombed they could have not had 100% of its population vote for Mr Hussein. Or he could have (since he was voted in) complied fully with the weapons inspectors.
I don't see how this is any less believable than the Florida polling stations. Odd.
Well, they voted for "Hussein" or "Else", not "Hussein+Bombed sh!t over head" or "Possible freedome if you survive long enough+ ...err, bombs", didn't they?
As for the weapon inspection, the US and UK threatened them to attack regardless the findings of the weapon inspectors. It is silly if you know you are going to be attacked, and decide to hand over all the weapon beforehand.
For most of us, democracy means the person with more vote than others wins. Even if you count the Florida votes as it standed, Bush didn't get more votes than Gore, but got majority votes of electrate college (or something, I've already forgotten. Sorry), which is alien concept for people outside of the US. Listening to the lovely president calling for democracy sounds just.... well, I'm a satirist and can be cynical at a time.
"Strength without wisdom falls by its own weight."
A word to the wise is sufficient Minerva (Semi-retired SYMer)
Originally posted by James Mason Let's stick to the facts. Hussein did comply with the weapons inspectors.
Did start to comply...if we are going to stick to facts.
The threat of 250,000 troopson his border could had been the reason....this can't be shown to be a fact. But it would be a good bet this is why.
Or Saddam could had a change of heart...can't be shown to be a fact. This wouldn't be a good bet.
As for the weapon inspection, the US and UK threatened them to attack regardless the findings of the weapon inspectors.
And some country said no matter what, they would veto.
As to the election results in Florida, Bush had the advantage of 327 which trigger a automatic recount..with machines, Gore asked for a hand recount which cuts Bushs lead to 286 votes. Then on November 18, absentee ballots are counted, uncertified results 930 votes for Bush.
Now the court cases start, Harris the AG for Florida steps in and after Supreme Court deadline expires, giving Bush a 537-vote lead over Gore.
Gore then asks for another hand count, which is finally given by the Florida Supreme Court 4/3.
Bush appeals to the US Supreme Court which in a 5-4 ruling, halts the manual recounts. Which give Bush the Electoral Votes of Florida.
Electoral College
"Each state is entitled to a number of electors equal to the total number of senators and representatives it sends to the Congress of the United States. Thus, each state has at least three electors." Explaination of the workings
"Vile and evil, yes. But, That's Weasel" From BS's book, MD 20/20: Fine Wines of Rocky Flop.
Originally posted by Weasel And some country said no matter what, they would veto.
That didn't matter, did it? Bush said he would send troops regardless the result of the vote in UN. Only reason he even considered to go through the UN was Blair's plea to make look more credible towards other countries, mainly Arab nations.
As for the presidential election, it didn't matter if it were 286 or 537. "Total" number of votes in the whole of the US was in favour of Gore. That's how other countries count their votes in democratic election, and wonders how the man got less votes from the whole nation was declared winner.
"Strength without wisdom falls by its own weight."
A word to the wise is sufficient Minerva (Semi-retired SYMer)
Originally posted by Minerva That didn't matter, did it? Bush said he would send troops regardless the result of the vote in UN. Only reason he even considered to go through the UN was Blair's plea to make look more credible towards other countries, mainly Arab nations.
As for the presidential election, it didn't matter if it were 286 or 537. "Total" number of votes in the whole of the US was in favour of Gore. That's how other countries count their votes in democratic election, and wonders how the man got less votes from the whole nation was declared winner.
It mattered to Blair. Not to Bush.
Blair staked his political life on getting a UN vote...with the thought it might slip thru. France ended any chance of it happening, even if the vote were there. None are free of guilt.
US doesn't work on Total votes. The US divide into states (Where each will have some say) and from these states, the population is divided in representive areas.. seats in the house. This numbers are not set in stone because each area cannot have the same exact amount of people. This is why some states have more electoral votes than others.
(A rough example)
Meaning an area with 100,001 people get one electoral vote and another area with 100,200 people get one electoral vote.
199 people have not had any effect on the election in one group even though they voted.
Now spread this over the whole US and you can see how a person with less total votes can win by taking more areas with less people.
"Vile and evil, yes. But, That's Weasel" From BS's book, MD 20/20: Fine Wines of Rocky Flop.
Originally posted by Weasel It mattered to Blair. Not to Bush.
Blair staked his political life on getting a UN vote...with the thought it might slip thru. France ended any chance of it happening, even if the vote were there. None are free of guilt.
It's not France's failure, is it, unless you mean France could not stop this war? I have posted in another thread that the use (or the threat to use) veto in UN is one of the diplomatic tactics for the five nations. The USA is the most veto used country in past 15 years, for example, followed by UK. (In the whole UN history, USSR/Russia is by far the most, but nearly the half of their veto came in the first 10 years of UN). It was diplomatic failure of Bush administration (and Blair's, to some extent) to allow France threatening them with her veto. And not be able to include France in the first place.
"Strength without wisdom falls by its own weight."
A word to the wise is sufficient Minerva (Semi-retired SYMer)
Originally posted by Minerva It's not France's failure, is it, unless you mean France could not stop this war? I have posted in another thread that the use (or the threat to use) veto in UN is one of the diplomatic tactics for the five nations. The USA is the most veto used country in past 15 years, for example, followed by UK. (In the whole UN history, USSR/Russia is by far the most, but nearly the half of their veto came in the first 10 years of UN). It was diplomatic failure of Bush administration (and Blair's, to some extent) to allow France threatening them with her veto. And not be able to include France in the first place.
The failure of the three.
Bush for going to the UN in the first place. A trap laid, which he fell into. His staff is not known for diplomatic working and this just proved.
Blair for backing his hopes on another resolution. With opinion against this war, he should had known the second resolution wouldn't have worked. He had no other plan to fall back on.
France for saying in public it would veto it. Letting the vote go ahead and then vetoing it would had been the smart thing. And I don't believe there were enough votes to pass it, meaning France wouldn't have to veto. Gave Blair a out/ way to push the blame.
"Vile and evil, yes. But, That's Weasel" From BS's book, MD 20/20: Fine Wines of Rocky Flop.
Where are these facts coming from? Somewhere the sun doesn't shine.
He didn't comply with the inspectors. He could have stepped down. Look what ruin he has brought to himself.
And democracy isn't "more people voted than other people". That's majority rule/tyranny. Democracy can be defined in many ways, all different to the original Greek meaning of the word.
"Greater love hath no man than this, that he lay down his pants for his friends."
Enchantress is my Goddess.
Few survive in the Heart of Fury...
Gamebanshee: [url="http://www.gamebanshee.com/"]Make your gaming scream![/url]
Originally posted by Gruntboy He didn't comply with the inspectors. He could have stepped down. Look what ruin he has brought to himself.
It doesn't justify sending invading force, or whatever you call it. This war is in danger of making Saddam a martyr.
A former CIA officer said, "Osama bin Ladin is watching this war and hoping it will be long and bloody. So that he'll be guaranteed more recruits." I agree with him.
"Strength without wisdom falls by its own weight."
A word to the wise is sufficient Minerva (Semi-retired SYMer)
Originally posted by Gruntboy He didn't comply with the inspectors. He could have stepped down. Look what ruin he has brought to himself.
The exact text of the UN resolution regarding Iraq's disarmament does not state any specific penalty if the nation is out of compliance. The next legal step would have been a SC agreement that Iraq was, indeed, violating the terms of the resolution irrevocably, followed by an authorization to topple the nation's leadership through physical force.
But there was no agreement at that time about either compliance or force. Hussein didn't bring this upon himself; the US decided to invade without any mandate.
To the Righteous belong the fruits of violent victory. The rest of us will have to settle for warm friends, warm lovers, and a wink from a quietly supportive universe.
@Grunty: even if you accept the fact that the Bush administration does have the intention of democratic regime change in Iraq, the track record of the US and UN is pretty poor. In 19 countries I looked at (in the Nation Building thread), only 4 became democratic. A success rate of ~20%. The countries where regime change succeeded had the following things in common: prior history of democracy, well-educated populace, democratic neighboring countries (as opposed to non-democratic countries who will view any change in their neighbors as a threat to their own regimes), presence of a middle class (as opposed to a few powerful families who own most of the land/resources), and a military that has not had a history of controlling the country, and whose power is kept separate. If you look at Iraq, it does not meet any of the criteria above. Democratic regime change is extremely unlikely IMHO.
What we probably will see:
Elections (although Iraq already had elections) - which will probably be corrupt in some way. Either through rigging from within, or from without (as in El Salvador, where the US contributes $ to the ultra-right Arena party).
Constitution (although Iraq already has one) - written by the USA.
Meaningless piece of paper if not accompanied by true checks and balances within the system, and if its tenets are not enforced.
Land reform - highly unlikely. The only scenarios in which this seems to occur is countries that change from agricultural to industrial (e.g., Japan). Without land reform, a few wealthy families will continue to control the country, and the elections.
Military - what to do with them. In Guatemala (where I lived for a while) - the UN had the military partially dismantled after the Peace Accords. The military not only oppressed the people of Guatemala, but they also were their police force. Dismantling the military is all well and good, however, the country is full of ex-military who are unemployed, accustomed to a middle class lifestyle, angry, and have guns. The police force is laughable, totally corrupt, and the country has been unable to pay them adequately and set up a system where they are not prone to corruption. Right now, crime is totally rampant. The last time I was there, I was mugged every time I went walking around Guatemala City - in broad daylight, surrounded by people. Friends of mine were mugged by the police and the ex-military (who are doing armed robberies of buses). Currently, vigilante groups are prevalent, and there have been widespread incidents of thieves being killed by mobs (who have also attacked the police who tried to stop them). My prediction - they will re-elect a former military dictator (such as Rios Montt - the architect of the scorched earth policy), because they long for a return to a time without so much crime. Will we have better success in Iraq? Sorry, but I'm very skeptical.
The Religion - separation of church and state (at least to Americans) seems to be a crucial element of a democracy. Will Iraqi's be accepting of this? Christian fundamentalists in the USA haven't been... There is some precedent in Turkey.
“I became insane, with long intervals of horrible sanity.” - Edgar Allen Poe
Dont know if this is actuall truth of CNN style must get it out before we can prove crap news.
I just figure if this is true it will justify our actions to all those anti war protesters. Because if it is true than he didn't work with the UN and has lied and had reason or intent of why he would.
KERBALA, Iraq (Reuters) - First tests on substances found at a military training camp in central Iraq (news - web sites) suggest they contain a ****tail of banned chemical weapons, including deadly nerve agents, U.S. officers said on Monday
A snippet
Jackie Treehorn: People forget the brain is the biggest sex organ.
The Dude: On you maybe.
Well in History of Art today, we studied an artist that absolutely despised war, and depicted that within his art. This, "May 3, 1808" was probably his LEAST graphic of a series of paintings and etchings dedicated to showing the horrors of war. He was a talent.
As I said, this is "May 3, 1808" by Fransisco de Goya
As you can plainly see, the gunmen are simply a faceless unit. No courage, no looks of a human being inside. Just a cold unit shooting innocents. The viewer will look upon the victims as just that, victims. And they will have sympathy for the victims, but they have no nobility or stand for no martyrs of war. They gracelessly are shot down. There is no courage, no honor. The line of the dead leads off the page, implying there is, seemingly, no end to the death. And the church cannot reach to them....the church is blacked out in the background, and a monk is also in the line of people about to be shot. The light, acts as a spotlight effect on the victims, but look how cruel and sharp the light is. It indicates the cruelty of this situation.
de Goya never approved of war. And while I wouldnt go quite as far as he did sometimes, I do agree to some points he brought up, 200 years ago.
Just wanted to share, and thought this was the most appropriote place to put it.
“Caw, Caw!” The call of the wild calls you. Are you listening? Do you dare challenge their power? Do you dare invade? Nature will always triumph in the end.
[color=sky blue]I know that I die gracefully in vain. I know inside detiorates in pain.[/color]-Razed in Black
No soldier is faceless. Atrocities aren't either. Putting the face of atrocity on war, something that is waged between armies, does something to me. No soldier is faceless. Of the men who selflessly gave their lives in war for the sake of others - people like you and me - their faces shall always be remembered by me. They are men who battled against powers that committed atrocities such as the one displayed in that painting. Many lost their lives. Put the face of atrocity on those soldiers, and the time-honored profession of their calling, and you forfeit the rights you possess right now. War has indeed served freedom.
CYNIC, n.:
A blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be. -[url="http://www.alcyone.com/max/lit/devils/a.html"]The Devil's Dictionary[/url]
Originally posted by Chanak No soldier is faceless. Atrocities aren't either. Putting the face of atrocity on war, something that is waged between armies, does something to me. No soldier is faceless. Of the men who selflessly gave their lives in war for the sake of others - people like you and me - their faces shall always be remembered by me. They are men who battled against powers that committed atrocities such as the one displayed in that painting. Many lost their lives. Put the face of atrocity on those soldiers, and the time-honored profession of their calling, and you forfeit the rights you possess right now. War has indeed served freedom.
Hrm...my intent was not to diminish the individuals of war...rather the people in charge of the war. You must look at the painting as something that isnt just focusing on this individual atrocity. While the soldiers may have a face, the orders that call them out to that land has no face. It is a negative action that could, simbolically represent what is being shown in de Goya's painting.
“Caw, Caw!” The call of the wild calls you. Are you listening? Do you dare challenge their power? Do you dare invade? Nature will always triumph in the end.
[color=sky blue]I know that I die gracefully in vain. I know inside detiorates in pain.[/color]-Razed in Black
Originally posted by Minerva That didn't matter, did it? Bush said he would send troops regardless the result of the vote in UN. Only reason he even considered to go through the UN was Blair's plea to make look more credible towards other countries, mainly Arab nations.
As for the presidential election, it didn't matter if it were 286 or 537. "Total" number of votes in the whole of the US was in favor of Gore. That's how other countries count their votes in democratic election, and wonders how the man got less votes from the whole nation was declared winner.
You have to consider here the intent of the founding fathers in drawing up the process. At the time the presidential election was instituted there were a number of things to consider. First of all, the disparity between the educational level of the 'common folk' and the intelligentsia was a huge gulf. The founder felt, and probably with good reason, that the 'common' man lacked the ability to choose wisely, and would fall prey to the charismatic. There was concern about the possibility of mass confusion due to the sheer number of individuals who would try to campaign on the local level, with out the means to campaign nation wide. There were concerns that the needs of the rural community would be over run by the needs of the more populace urban centers. These needs and ideals were often very much at odds with one another, and still are today. As a way to answer these concerns, they provided that the president be chosen by representatives from each state, as these representatives would be informed, able to travel, understand the needs of the states they represented, and accountable. It was left to the states how to choose these representatives. The electoral collage is the result of this process, and still serves a very real need. In a country as huge and diverse as the US, with the people here very much affected by the area in which they live, it is important now, more than ever to protect the needs of the rural areas, from the masses of voters in the urban centers who have very different needs, and little understanding of one another.
Scayde Moody
(Pronounced Shayde) The virtue of self sacrifice is the lie perpetuated by the weak to enslave the strong
The electoral collage is the result of this process, and still serves a very real need. In a country as huge and diverse as the US, with the people here very much affected by the area in which they live, it is important now, more than ever to protect the needs of the rural areas, from the masses of voters in the urban centers who have very different needs, and little understanding of one another.
I can accept a host of reasons given for the creation of the electoral college, but there is simply no reason that justifies its existence today, @Scayde--with the exception of the fact that friends of politicians regard it as a favor to be in that group, paid to cast a vote that everybody else without pay. We have an extremely fast means of transmitting votes--faster than any other nation; and the electoral college has repeatedly proven over the years that it is an inexact method of determining anything. The fact that it actually tipped the election against the popular vote in 2000 is only the second best reason for removing it. The fact that the governor of Florida declared publically that if his state went to Gore, he'd instruct the electoral college to vote for Bush, is the first. And I'd say that no matter who won, as I think you know.
To the Righteous belong the fruits of violent victory. The rest of us will have to settle for warm friends, warm lovers, and a wink from a quietly supportive universe.
Originally posted by fable The electoral collage is the result of this process, and still serves a very real need. In a country as huge and diverse as the US, with the people here very much affected by the area in which they live, it is important now, more than ever to protect the needs of the rural areas, from the masses of voters in the urban centers who have very different needs, and little understanding of one another.
I can accept a host of reasons given for the creation of the electoral college, but there is simply no reason that justifies its existence today, @Scayde--with the exception of the fact that friends of politicians regard it as a favor to be in that group, paid to cast a vote that everybody else without pay. We have an extremely fast means of transmitting votes--faster than any other nation; and the electoral college has repeatedly proven over the years that it is an inexact method of determining anything. The fact that it actually tipped the election against the popular vote in 2000 is only the second best reason for removing it. The fact that the governor of Florida declared publically that if his state went to Gore, he'd instruct the electoral college to vote for Bush, is the first. And I'd say that no matter who won, as I think you know.
I do understand your points and you share the perspective of many. For them abolishing the college is the only logical position, but to me it is still a justified and necessary institution. The urban centers are so very densly populated that to go strictly by popular vote would be very unfair to the more sparsely populated Mid-West, South, South-Central, and North-West portions of the nation whose interests and needs still remain very different from their urban couterpoints. I for one, would hate to see the system abandoned. It may need some revisions, but I believe it to be a necessary safety net for the farmer and rancher and small town citizen and the people who share the areas where they make their livings.
Scayde Moody
(Pronounced Shayde) The virtue of self sacrifice is the lie perpetuated by the weak to enslave the strong
Originally posted by fable I can accept a host of reasons given for the creation of the electoral college, but there is simply no reason that justifies its existence today...
No, there is no reason for it in our own era. With everything computerized and so forth, it is ultra-easy to tabulate the popular vote. Basically, the electoral system is completely unfair and, may I dare suggest, unjust. It causes candidates to focus on a handful of states rather than look around to see what issues other states struggle with. This isn't restricted to electon times, either -- assistance given to big electoral states throughout all four years is remembered at the next election time.
So, when that election time approaches, it's like the USA consists entirely of New Hampshire, New York, and the other "chosen few."
I live in a state with a paltry number of electoral votes (can't remember exactly how many); and I and others in my state have fallen away from voting because of the electoral college system. We feel that our voices don't even matter because our few votes get bulldozed by all the attention paid to the bigger electoral states.
"I wish the Ring had never come to me. I wish none of this had happened."
"So do all who live to see such times; but that is not for them to decide. All you have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to you."
Originally posted by Scayde The urban centers are so very densly populated that to go strictly by popular vote would be very unfair to the more sparsely populated Mid-West, South, South-Central, and North-West portions of the nation whose interests and needs still remain very different from their urban couterpoints.
State by state this may be true; but taken together, I think regions counterbalance the population of the cities. Especially nowadays, when more and more people are abandoning the cities and their problems to live in and telecommute from the suburbs (and even the remote countryside). I think we're probably going to start seeing a much more even population distribution in the next few years.
I just don't think the concept of an electoral college fits the true definition of democracy. If the leaders aren't elected by popular vote, then the peopole aren't electing the leaders. IMO, only if the true popular vote is followed will there be a true democratic system in operation.
Then again, the founders created the electoral college in order to prevent "mob mentality" from carrying elections. They felt that a "majority" in a nation was dangerous, and if government was strictly chosen by majority vote, chaos would ensue. Very forward-thinking, actually. So I guess that makes the question: Is there still a danger of "mob mentality" taking people over and influencing the vote, as there was in the 18th century?...
"I wish the Ring had never come to me. I wish none of this had happened."
"So do all who live to see such times; but that is not for them to decide. All you have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to you."
Originally posted by Der-draigen I just don't think the concept of an electoral college fits the true definition of democracy. If the leaders aren't elected by popular vote, then the peopole aren't electing the leaders. IMO, only if the true popular vote is followed will there be a true democratic system in operation.
Then again, the founders created the electoral college in order to prevent "mob mentality" from carrying elections. They felt that a "majority" in a nation was dangerous, and if government was strictly chosen by majority vote, chaos would ensue. Very forward-thinking, actually. So I guess that makes the question: Is there still a danger of "mob mentality" taking people over and influencing the vote, as there was in the 18th century?...
Finally someone who understands. The US is not a true democratic system. No matter what a President of the US says, it is not. Now this is not to say it is not a fair system to go by at this time. (Continue my thoughts below)
I for one believe there is still a chance of "mob mentality", (the reason I put 'this" above) or what I considered "mob mentality". An example, look at how many people ran out and bought gas mask and duct tape. I seriously wonder about the education in the US sometimes. Or maybe education isn't the right word...maybe plain common sense would be better.
Will there come a day when the Electoral College is not needed, I would say yes. But I cannot tell when.
"Vile and evil, yes. But, That's Weasel" From BS's book, MD 20/20: Fine Wines of Rocky Flop.