Is US ready for Democracy?

[IEatFood]

BTW, Saddam is/was 65 years old and would have soon died from old age.

Upon what was that assesment based? The predication that “soon” is tantamount to several decades?

Saddam is/was an extremely wealthy man. Barring an anureysm (sp?), on the pot, heart attack, etc, he could have easily lived into the realm of centogenarianism. No doubt he would have access to the kind of health care ordinary american citizens could only dream of.

But let’s say you’re right, and he dies in his sleep hours before our invasion was to start.
Do you know who was there to take his place? You don’t have to take my word for it that those sadistic Beavis & Buttheads over there would only have made dear old dad look like a fond memory.

To put it another way, if you could compare evilness in Dictators to speed in a car, you would essentially be replacing an aging Chevy Camero with a Formula One Racer.

I can therefore only refer you to the case of the Frying Pan vs Fire…

[Little_Nemo]

I don’t know where he got the rest of his information, but I’d like Wake up call to give us a cite for the fact that “the number of thugs with cowboy hat mentality in the US” is four. Hell, I’ve met more than that myself.

[asterion]

BTW, Saddam is/was 65 years old and would have soon died from old age.

Haven’t people been saying that about Castro for decades now?

[Captain_Amazing]

*Originally posted by asterion *
**Haven’t people been saying that about Castro for decades now? **

Castro’s been 65 for decades now? Wow.

[Marius]

Frankly, I was happy to see the post about the US NOT being a democracy. It isn’t. It is a Republic, and there is a BIG difference! Frankly, I’m rather fond of the Constitutional Monarchy I enjoy, but that’s likely a point for another area.
While I do believe that the US is running on a one party system masquerading as a two party system, I also think that there IS enough of a difference between them to give the votes a choice when they do in fact decide to go vote.
What I mean by this is the old American adage about wanting a Democrat in peacetime and a Republican in wartime. To me, that pretty much sums it up. Democrats tend to be great leaders in peacetime, and Republicans in war. (Of course, there are always acceptations.)
However, there are of course more parties rallying for position. Ross Perot was/is a prime example. The problem is that when the media reports them, they are always lumped as “Independents”, Never the "Purple Women with three breasts for a better smelling America Party” Thusly, leading the rest of the planet to believe it really is a two party system.
I don’t agree with the statement that Independents made a big impact in the last election. If I am taking that hint right, they are referring to the trouble in Florida. Let’s face it, the independent tickets didn’t matter a hill of beans in Florida. It was not their points, views or stances that made any sort of difference. It was some kid as some printing shop contracted by the Government who doesn’t know how to design a proper punch card.
I am no fan of the Americans. I am no fan of Bush. But you have to give credit where credit is due.
A warmonger takes of some third world country, and (usually) after the Security Council has decided to remove said warmonger, who is the first one in harms way? The Yanks.
A massive flood/earthquake/other such act of God happens anywhere in the world, who are the first people rushing troops over to help rebuild and throwing more money at the ravaged country then some governments make in a decade? The Yanks.
And yet, when a flood hits the US, who helps them? No one. When any real disaster strikes the mainland US, 9 times out of 10, they are on their own.
9-11 is the first time in modern American History that they have had a disaster and any the rest of the western world countries went running to help them in any REAL MEANING FULL way.
The Canadians sent fleets of Ambulances and Medical personal. They accepted almost all of the redirected flights and Canadians put thousands of Americans (and others) up in their own homes until they could get home.
The British had the SAS in Afghanistan with in a few days of the attacks. The Israelis where pumping intelligence information to the Yanks with in hours of the attacks.
At that point, it seemed to me, that the Yanks had finally gotten some of the sympathy they deserved and help they paid out in the past.
Then, the (IMHO) illegal war on Iraq.
I think they shot themselves in the foot there.
I guess what I am trying to say is that it’s tough to live next to the big kid on the block like I do, but if I have to live next to him, I’m glad it’s the Americans, and not someone like Saddam.

[Asylum]

Does anyone else think that since the U.S. is referred to as a democracy so often that they should just add another definition to the OED?

[smiling_bandit]

If the Iraqi people did not want his son to take over after dad’s death, they would pour in the streets and change the regime by themselves.

Except for all the Baathists with tanks and guns. You know, people have tried revolting before in iraq. It got them dead.

Do you know why European countries have not single handedly invaded other countries since World War II?

Since they have done so I’ve got no idea what you’re on about.

It is because they have learned through their long history of imperialism that you do not invade a country to topple regimes, to liberate the people from their dictatorship nor to install democracy.

Interesting how you ignore the history Britain, Czechoslovakia, and France from that picture. Plus many others.

The OP then goes on to say that if we are so good at installing democracy, why don’t we try it at home first. We have a lot of big problems here, least of which is the lack of medical care/insurance, decent paying jobs, affordable housing and a livable pension for our aging population. When and how are we going to liberate ourselves from this mess?

This is quite possiubly the least coherent peice of quasi-leftist claptrap I’ve heard in a while. What does the state of American democracy have to do with the domestic choices elected politicians make, which apparently are quite acceptable to the voters, and what do either of those have to do with temporary chaos in Iraq caused by the rapid fall of the Baathist regime.

Is it just me or is this OP leftist whining, and not even very good leftost whining, that the world doesn’t bow at his feet?

[asterion]

*Originally posted by Captain Amazing *
**Castro’s been 65 for decades now? Wow. **

Okay, good point. What I meant was, hasn’t the US been waiting around for decades for Castro to die, or be assassinated, or the CIA to finally do the job right, or something?

[scotandrsn]

the old American adage about wanting a Democrat in peacetime and a Republican in wartime.

To hijack for a moment, I agree this is the conventional wisdom, but I’ve often wondered why. I attribute it to the Republican Party being much better at talking a good sabre-rattle than actual combat statesmanship.

Republicans are great at suggesting military action against all and sundry, but are notoriously bad at solidifying our aims during wartime, all the way back to Lincoln’s initial “We’re fighting the South but we’re not planning on ending slavery” platform, which he put forth for a time before he realized that it was never going to fly.

Democrats (LBJ excepted) are much less likely to draw first (sometimes to their detriment), but are much better at bringing things to a satisfying end, and even more importantly, cleaning up afterward.

Wilson brought America onto the world stage in high style with our conduct during WWI, and our attempts to help Europe reconstruct itself afterward.

As morally questionable as Truman’s use of the Bomb was, it did bring a decisive end to the conflict, and our rebuilding of the German and Japanese economies afterward made us the toast of the world. While the Korean War’s “we declare we won, let’s get out of here” ending left a lot to be desired, South Korea has gone on to become a world economic power.

Contrast this with Nixon, elected in 1968 with a “secret plan” to end the Viet Nam War, who instead decided to let a few thousand more soldiers die so America would not be burdened with a war that ended without an “honorable peace”.

Or Reagan’s answer to the growing questions about why we were doing so badly in Lebanon, which was to invade Grenada (sound similar to anyone’s answer to the bogged-down War on Terrorism?)

Or Bush I, whose aborted Persian Gulf War was so inconclusive that we are now in today’s situation. Plus his deft handling of post Cold War Russia, which if handled the right way at the right time could have set that nation on the road to German- or Japanese- style prosperity.

Now we have Shrub, who’s plan was apparently to bring the Iraqi people Total Liberty with No Guarantees, which in every political book but his, equals anarchy. No matter, on to Syria.

Democrats generally don’t like war, going into it slowly, getting out of it quickly, and attempting to fix the mess left behind. Republicans like to stay at war, mucking about in it like it’s the best sandbox a kid ever came across.

Guess who I’d rather have in office during wartime. Or peacetime.

[Wake_up_call]

*Originally posted by smiling bandit *
**You know, people have tried revolting before in iraq. It got them dead. **

When things get real bad, people will revolt and change the regime themselves, no matter how much bloodshed. Look at all the Shah’s tanks and guns in 1979, or go back and take a look at all history’s successful revolutions and civil wars resulting in regime change.

I repeat again: No European country has single handedly invaded another country since World War II. If you can cite a European country single handedly invading another country since World War II, please do. They learnt their lesson. Obviously, the young 200 years old country like US has not.

I do not ignore the history. I know what France and Britain did in Africa, Middle East and Asia prior to World War II. And the Soviet Union did not invade Czechoslovakia to liberate them and install democracy, as we portend to do in Iraq. The Soviet aim was to expand their empire, which looks like what US is trying to do in Iraq.

As for your statement: ** What does the state of American democracy have to do with the domestic choices elected politicians make, which apparently are quite acceptable to the voters**. Here is my response:

1- Bush was not elected. He was selected. Remember who got the majority vote.
2- When you have a single party regime (The Capitalist Party), you do not have true democracy. As you witnessed, the single party regime (Baath Party) in Iraq got 100% of the vote. Does that mean it was a democracy?
3- Domestic choices, made by the selected politician in the US, are largely to pay back those who paid to get them “selected” at the first place. The politics of this country belongs to the corporations and the rich individuals. It has very little to do with ordinary citizens who are basically powerless.
4- No politician is saying that we should not have better health care, better educational system, better infrastructure and environmental conditions. It just happens that when it comes to spend the taxpayers money, they give $500 billion to the defense department. When it comes to voting to declare war, our elected politicians delegate their constitutional responsibility to the executive branch run by PNAC.

I thought democracy meant that people go to the poles to vote for their own interest. It seems that we go every two years to the poles and vote against our own best interest, simply because the corporations give us our choices of who to vote for. I take it you have no problem with this being called a “democracy”.

[BF]

1- Bush was not elected. He was selected. Remember who got the majority vote.
2- When you have a single party regime (The Capitalist Party), you do not have true democracy. As you witnessed, the single party regime (Baath Party) in Iraq got 100% of the vote. Does that mean it was a democracy?

This isn’t a re-incarnation of that devoted Marxist whose name completely escapes me at the moment, is it? Because this tripe bears an eerie resemblance.

[El_Kabong]

2- When you have a single party regime (The Capitalist Party), you do not have true democracy. As you witnessed, the single party regime (Baath Party) in Iraq got 100% of the vote. Does that mean it was a democracy?

But the US does NOT have a single party regime. You have still not addressed the fact that there are more than fifty active political parties in the US, and anyone can affiliate with whichever party they choose. Nor have you answered the questions as to why, in your view, yet another party, needs to be created or what their platform should be.

But, hey, a democracy isn’t defined by the number of political parties anyway. The US is a republic, not, strictly speaking, a democracy.

This isn’t a re-incarnation of that devoted Marxist whose name completely escapes me at the moment, is it? Because this tripe bears an eerie resemblance.

No, he already said he’s not Chumpsky, in another thread. People who get all their news from ZMag and Pacifica Radio tend to sound like this, that’s all.

[Little_Nemo]

No offense, Wake up, but it appears your definition of a democracy is a government where everyone agrees with you. But in a democracy as it’s generally understood, one of the downsides is that occasionally the majority of the people will favor something you oppose. For what it’s worth I agree with you that we should be spending more money on education and health care and we should have tighter environmental regulations. Unfortunately most people don’t agree. But the problem is not a lack of democracy.

[BF]

No, he already said he’s not Chumpsky, in another thread. People who get all their news from ZMag and Pacifica Radio tend to sound like this, that’s all.

Thanks, El_Kabong. Whew, that’s a relief…

[Soup_du_jour]

When things get real bad, people will revolt and change the regime themselves, no matter how much bloodshed.

In Nazi Germany, there was no civil uprising amongst the German people. Thus, the Nazi regime wasn’t bad? Surely you can concede that this is not true.

I repeat again: No European country has single handedly invaded another country since World War II. If you can cite a European country single handedly invading another country since World War II, please do. They learnt their lesson. Obviously, the young 200 years old country like US has not.

Since when does USA+UK+others=unilateral?

I do not ignore the history. I know what France and Britain did in Africa, Middle East and Asia prior to World War II. And the Soviet Union did not invade Czechoslovakia to liberate them and install democracy, as we portend to do in Iraq.

So, because both states have the same stated goals, it makes everything else about them the same?

1- Bush was not elected. He was selected. Remember who got the majority vote.

So go out and lobby for the abolishment of the electoral college. If a candidate wins a majority of the electoral votes, in this country, the candidate wins.

2- When you have a single party regime (The Capitalist Party), you do not have true democracy. As you witnessed, the single party regime (Baath Party) in Iraq got 100% of the vote. Does that mean it was a democracy?

So who was the Capitalist Party candidate again? Where was its convention? What is its stated platform? Also, do you believe that the Libertarian Party and the Green Party are vast conspiracies of the press?

Sheesh. Lobby for the changing of electoral rules. Apparently, most of the US likes Capitalism, too.

3- Domestic choices, made by the selected politician in the US, are largely to pay back those who paid to get them “selected” at the first place. The politics of this country belongs to the corporations and the rich individuals. It has very little to do with ordinary citizens who are basically powerless.

4- No politician is saying that we should not have better health care, better educational system, better infrastructure and environmental conditions. It just happens that when it comes to spend the taxpayers money, they give $500 billion to the defense department. When it comes to voting to declare war, our elected politicians delegate their constitutional responsibility to the executive branch run by PNAC.

You are forgetting the massive amounts of money put in for foreign aid, infastructure, education, sanitation, and so on. Our food regulations are among the most strict in the world. Why would the evil cost-cutting corporations pass these bills? Our drug approval process is quite strict. We have low-flow toilet laws so much that folks up north are smuggling high-flush toilets from Canada. Corporations do this why?

Oh, and I agree with you to the extent that war should still be declared only by an act of congress. It was so much simpler that way.

I thought democracy meant that people go to the poles to vote for their own interest. It seems that we go every two years to the poles and vote against our own best interest, simply because the corporations give us our choices of who to vote for. I take it you have no problem with this being called a “democracy”.

Tell me. What are the interests of the American people?

[zwaldd]

Originally posted by Wake up call *
** We have a lot of big problems here, least of which is the lack of medical care/insurance, decent paying jobs, affordable housing and a livable pension for our aging population. When and how are we going to liberate ourselves from this mess?*

Wait a minute…it’s coming to me…liberal arts major!

[errata]

Wake up call,

I agree with some of your sentiments, but you’ve got to focus your frustration a little better in this forum. You’ve extended yourself on too many fronts without having a clear objective. Your going to be arguing too many points that in the end may not support your case anyway.

*Originally posted by Wake up call *
I repeat again: No European country has single handedly invaded another country since World War II. If you can cite a European country single handedly invading another country since World War II, please do. They learnt their lesson. Obviously, the young 200 years old country like US has not.

How about France in Vietnam? Does Russia count as European? Does this really support your point about democracy anyway?

1- Bush was not elected. He was selected. Remember who got the majority vote.

Well if you want to assert we have a 1 party system why do you care if tweedle-dum was selected over tweedle-dee?

2- When you have a single party regime (The Capitalist Party), you do not have true democracy. As you witnessed, the single party regime (Baath Party) in Iraq got 100% of the vote. Does that mean it was a democracy?

Hey, Nader got a few votes. It wasn’t 100%.

Look I think there are a lot of problems with capitalism, but you have to face the fact that people will vote for it. Now if you want to attack the reasons that people are capitalists then go ahead, but you don’t have to drag democracy into it.

3- Domestic choices, made by the selected politician in the US, are largely to pay back those who paid to get them “selected” at the first place. The politics of this country belongs to the corporations and the rich individuals. It has very little to do with ordinary citizens who are basically powerless.

Your best point so far, IMHO you should stick with this.

4- No politician is saying that we should not have better health care, better educational system, better infrastructure and environmental conditions.

Bill Clinton did win his first election promising universal health care. Al Gore had an environmental agenda even if he was softer than Nader.

I thought democracy meant that people go to the poles to vote for their own interest. It seems that we go every two years to the poles and vote against our own best interest, simply because the corporations give us our choices of who to vote for. I take it you have no problem with this being called a “democracy”.

There was a good thread in here not too long ago about instituting multi-party democratic reforms in the US. There are positive approaches that can be taken to assure a more adequate representation of minority views. What reforms would you propose?

[Alien2022]

I think Wake Up is just trying to further his commie propoganda… LOL… Honestly, what other party is there besides Capitalism? The freakin country is based on Capitalism, you cant just change the economy and our society over night without completely overthrowing the government…

Communists shakes head … lol…

[Wake_up_call]

*Originally posted by El_Kabong *
**
Hey, wait a minute. This page claims there are at least fifty registered political parties in the US, not just one. Don’t any of these do it for you at all?

Oh, well, tell you what. Come up with a snappy name and some sort of platform, then get back to us.**

My local cable company offers at least fifty channels of Shit. The fact that I neither have the money, nor the know-how to set up an alternative TV channel, does not mean there is no need for an alternative to Corporate media’s “embedded journalism”.

Frankly, I do not have to come up with a snappy name and some sort of platform. The increasing gap between the rich and the poor will take care of that by itself. People do not need a “Wake up call” to eventually recognize how their livelihood is being bundled by corporations that select and finance the “election” of their Democrat/Republican candidates.

[Bryan_Ekers]

*Originally posted by Wake up call *
Frankly, I do not have to come up with a snappy name and some sort of platform.

Hey, you can be head of the “Kvetch About Everything Party” with a self-explanatory platform.

There, I’ve done your work for you. I’ll expect a personal tax cut after you get elected.