Welsh said:
The President is supposed to work for all the people, not just some of the people, and not for the majority of the people.
No, he's not. It's the very principle of representative democracy, really: the president is there to work for the people who voted for him. The majority. And that's why discrimination is unavoidably inherent in democracy.
It's even worse in the American system, really. If here in Belgium a party gets over its 'electoral treshold' (or whatever) of 5% of the votes, they get seats in the parliament. Therefore, at least those 5% of the people also have a political voice, whereas in the American system only 'Republicans' and 'Democrats' are represented in the parliament, who are - let's face it - mostly white, christian, heterosexual, capitalistic and right-wing people.
Now, about Bush being a terrorist:
Dictionary.com said:
ter·ror·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (tr-rzm)
n.
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.
Now, the fact that the war on Iraq was unlawful can hardly be disputed. It went against the UN regulations, and basically the USA lacked any lawful casus belli. And especially now that the Geneva convention has not been upheld in American military prisons, one can easily say that, yes, George W. Bush's administration has been comitting acts of terrorism in Iraq.
CCR said:
Just because the dumbfucking UN gives France, a nation of 50 million, as much power as China, a nation of 1.2 Billion, or America, a nation of 280 Million and the most pwerful in history, means that there's going to be problems with it, as it's totally flawed.
We might as well al face it: the UN was based on economics and militaristic strength. The economically most powerfull countries were basically the ones who had the most to say.
One might also argue, though, that it was also based on ideological reasons. The Sovjet union was the only communist country who was given a seat in the central council. So why did the Sovjet Union not protest against the fact that they were outnumbered in that council, and demand China to be admitted too?
Because they had a quarrel with China as well.
So basically, nobody wanted China to be there. The capitalistic countries were all to glad no second communist countries were admitted, and the SU wasn't going to make a fuss China wasn't represented either...
Also, the UN was for a large part founded and delegated by those who had played a role in WWII, and since China hadn't, nobody probably considered them either.
But all these reflections aside, it still wouldn't have made a damn difference. China was against the war in Iraq too.
Hà!
CCR said:
- He takes prisoners and god knows what he is doing to them
Not even Stalin did that in person. Nor Hitler. What do you think Bush is, Two Face from Batman?
That is absolutely no excuse. While it were indeed other people than Bush or his administration that have comitted those facts, the responsability lies with the government also, as the people who tortured those poor prisoners were representatives of the United States government.
Hell, Osama Bin Laden wasn't the one who flew those planes! Therefore, (according to your logic) he's not the one to blame!
CCR said:
Truth is that torture-in certain situations-is allowed in the US military, and some times that is taken to extremes. Like obviously in this situation.
The USA has signed the Geneva convention, and are therefore bound by its rules. No matter what the hell the US military top "approves" or not, it's illegal.
CCR said:
But Bush apologized for it, as did everybody else, and he is severly repirmanding everyone involved.
Doesn't make a bleeding difference. Apologising isn't enough. Apologising is NEVER enough.
Somebody at the Bush administration should take up his responsability. But, as always, it's the "small timer" that gets the burn...
And Bush washes his hands in innocence.
CCR said:
- Only solution seems to be war
The establishment of a pro western, semi-Kemalist (as in kinda democracy) Arab goverment is the most important goal to US policy in the world. The Iraq war was nessicary to accomplish this goal.
Hà!
And where does the US government have the right to install governments as they see fit? And what the hell is so 'democratic' about that? And how did this war help the Westen cause in the Arab world?
Plus, let's face it, it's not like he exhausted every other recource before going to war.
CCR said:
Stop and...........do what? Give up? Let the Terrorists think they won again? No fucking way. Not even John Doublethink Kerry agrees with you here.
Stop using illegal means for reaching the American upper layers' goals.
CCR said:
What about cilvilians in iraq?
You mean the hundreds of thousands who died under Saddam Hussien? Or the thousand that have died as a result of accidental US involvment?
That's another prime example of flawed logic.
All of the arguments toward 'collateral damage' are extremely stupid in this war anyway. After all, after it was obvious no WMD's were going to be found, the reason for the war was to give Iraqi's a better life, no?
Now how the hell will they have a better life if they're dead?
Also, it's like saying that if the Allies would've accidentaly dropped a nuke on Israel during WWII, and killed five million Jews, it wouldn't have been an issue!
After all, Hitler killed more!
Sjeesh.
CCR said:
Are you forgetting that 9/11 took place BEFORE the Iraq war?
I swear to god: one day I'm going to buy brass knuckles, engrave "
THERE IS NO LINK BETWEEN 9/11 AND IRAQ" on it in mirror writing, and punch you in the forehead if you ever bring this up again.
