Why Democracy Is Wrong

[midcan5]

This is an example that usually brings a lot of debate, hopefully it makes some think. Is the author correct given his argument?

"In a large ocean there are two neighbouring islands: faultless democracies with full civil and political rights. One island is extremely rich and prosperous, and has 10 million inhabitants. The other is extremely poor: it has 100 million inhabitants, who live by subsistence farming. After a bad harvest last year, there are no food stocks, and now the harvest has failed again: 90 million people are facing death by starvation. The democratically elected government of the poor island asks for help, and the democratically elected government of the rich island organises a referendum on the issue. There are three options: Option A is a sharp increase in taxes, to pay for large-scale permanent structural transfers to the poor island. Option B is some increase in taxes, to pay for immediate and sufficient humanitarian aid, so that famine will be averted. Option C is no extra taxes and no aid. When the votes are counted, 100% of the voters have chosen Option C. After all, who wants to pay more taxes?

So 90 million people starve. Yet all electoral procedures on both islands are free and fair, the media are free, political campaigning is free, there is no political repression of any kind. According to democratic theory, any outcome of this democratic process must be respected. Two perfect democracies have functioned perfectly: if you believe the supporters of democracy, that is morally admirable. But it clearly is not: there is something fundamentally wrong with democracy, if it allows this outcome."

http://web.inter.nl.net/users/Paul.Treanor/democracy.html

[MtnBiker]

The 100 million would have invaded the 10 million.

[Yurt]

thank goodness i live in a republic

[MtnBiker]

thank goodness i live in a republic

there are plenty to have yet to grasp that reality

[Noir]

This is an example that usually brings a lot of debate, hopefully it makes some think. Is the author correct given his argument?

"In a large ocean there are two neighbouring islands: faultless democracies with full civil and political rights. One island is extremely rich and prosperous, and has 10 million inhabitants. The other is extremely poor: it has 100 million inhabitants, who live by subsistence farming. After a bad harvest last year, there are no food stocks, and now the harvest has failed again: 90 million people are facing death by starvation. The democratically elected government of the poor island asks for help, and the democratically elected government of the rich island organises a referendum on the issue. There are three options: Option A is a sharp increase in taxes, to pay for large-scale permanent structural transfers to the poor island. Option B is some increase in taxes, to pay for immediate and sufficient humanitarian aid, so that famine will be averted. Option C is no extra taxes and no aid. When the votes are counted, 100% of the voters have chosen Option C. After all, who wants to pay more taxes?

So 90 million people starve. Yet all electoral procedures on both islands are free and fair, the media are free, political campaigning is free, there is no political repression of any kind. According to democratic theory, any outcome of this democratic process must be respected. Two perfect democracies have functioned perfectly: if you believe the supporters of democracy, that is morally admirable. But it clearly is not: there is something fundamentally wrong with democracy, if it allows this outcome."

http://web.inter.nl.net/users/Paul.Treanor/democracy.html

But this just isn't right, otherwise there would be no socialist parties in the world, the torries in the UK always have tax cuts at the helm of there general election campaigns, while labour normally have tax rises, and they've won the last 3 elections, to assume that people make their minds up based purely on taxes is wrong.

Also in this story look for the alternatives, for example a dictatorship, they would of increased the taxes to ensure that the government didn't starve.

[midcan5]

thank goodness i live in a republic

Then imagine your representatives voting the same way. Example still holds. Based of course on your democratic input.

[Yurt]

Then imagine your representatives voting the same way. Example still holds. Based of course on your democratic input.

what is the point of this thread? we don't live in a democracy, nor do i think pure democracies are a good idea, you will have mob rule. we could wax poetic all day about "maybes" and "what ifs"....

[diuretic]

The outcome in the example is morally wrong but the democratic process is neutral in terms of morality. So, there's nothing "wrong" with the democratic process as a process. After all, the US, a democracy, decided in a democratic fashion, to invade Iraq. That bad decision doesn't make the democratic process in the US bad.

[DragonStryk72]

The problem is that the scenario couldn't happen. Crap, you can't get 5 people to agree 100% on pizza toppings. Why is it always the hypothetical "there's no way this could ever possibly occur" questions that people deem as fit test of democracy?

I invent option, where in I begin a food drive with he help of others, as well as simply asking for donations, as opposed to the tax. I, along with as many of the friends that I can manage to beg or brow beat into helping, and as many others as possible, and go to the other country to help out personally.

[PostmodernProphet]

But it clearly is not: there is something fundamentally wrong with democracy, if it allows this outcome."

the error in your logic is the conclusion that it is somehow the fault of the system that they voted not to help.....if 100% of the voters did not want to help it wouldn't matter if they were a democracy or a commune, they wouldn't be helping.....

the fault is in the citizen, not the form of government.....

[theHawk]

This is an example that usually brings a lot of debate, hopefully it makes some think. Is the author correct given his argument?

"In a large ocean there are two neighbouring islands: faultless democracies with full civil and political rights. One island is extremely rich and prosperous, and has 10 million inhabitants. The other is extremely poor: it has 100 million inhabitants, who live by subsistence farming. After a bad harvest last year, there are no food stocks, and now the harvest has failed again: 90 million people are facing death by starvation. The democratically elected government of the poor island asks for help, and the democratically elected government of the rich island organises a referendum on the issue. There are three options: Option A is a sharp increase in taxes, to pay for large-scale permanent structural transfers to the poor island. Option B is some increase in taxes, to pay for immediate and sufficient humanitarian aid, so that famine will be averted. Option C is no extra taxes and no aid. When the votes are counted, 100% of the voters have chosen Option C. After all, who wants to pay more taxes?

So 90 million people starve. Yet all electoral procedures on both islands are free and fair, the media are free, political campaigning is free, there is no political repression of any kind. According to democratic theory, any outcome of this democratic process must be respected. Two perfect democracies have functioned perfectly: if you believe the supporters of democracy, that is morally admirable. But it clearly is not: there is something fundamentally wrong with democracy, if it allows this outcome."

http://web.inter.nl.net/users/Paul.Treanor/democracy.html


How about option D) Donate to a charity organization that will help the people in need with much more effiency than the government.

[avatar4321]

You've based your hypothetical on false assumptions. Namely that the only way to help the poor is through government taxation and programs. In fact, this is by far the least effective methods.

More effective methods:

Capitalism
Churches
Charities
Conservatives.

[diuretic]

I'm starting to think that this is a little experiment in drawing out ideology from posters.

[midcan5]

I'm starting to think that this is a little experiment in drawing out ideology from posters.

Yes, but also a test of thinking about how complicated things become if our focus is too narrow. Diuretic, it's a secret so don't tell anyone, but I'm trying to make them all liberals. LOL

[midcan5]

The outcome in the example is morally wrong but the democratic process is neutral in terms of morality. So, there's nothing "wrong" with the democratic process as a process. After all, the US, a democracy, decided in a democratic fashion, to invade Iraq. That bad decision doesn't make the democratic process in the US bad.

I wonder if Iraq had been voted on would we have invaded a sovereign nation? I would hope enough people would have voted no, but you raise an interesting point. I wonder how the spin would have spun given a vote? 911 made people blind to reason.

[Hagbard Celine]

You've based your hypothetical on false assumptions. Namely that the only way to help the poor is through government taxation and programs. In fact, this is by far the least effective methods.

More effective methods:

Capitalism
Churches
Charities
Conservatives.

"Conservatives" are a method of helping the poor?

[Gaffer]

I wonder if Iraq had been voted on would we have invaded a sovereign nation? I would hope enough people would have voted no, but you raise an interesting point. I wonder how the spin would have spun given a vote? 911 made people blind to reason.

iraq would have happened sooner or later. The difference is he didn't have his WMD's available. We can't have 300 million commanders in chief. Nothing would get done and we would be decimated by the first one to build a Navy and land on the beaches. That's also why the congress is not the commanders in chief. Decisions have to be made, not discussed and voted on. Intelligence and actions of other countries in the world are taken into consideration. Things the average citizen knows nothing about.

Sometimes you do things because its the right thing to do, other times you things because its the logical thing to do. But emotions should never play a part in it.

[Little-Acorn]

"So 90 million people starve. Yet all electoral procedures on both islands are free and fair, the media are free, political campaigning is free, there is no political repression of any kind. According to democratic theory, any outcome of this democratic process must be respected. Two perfect democracies have functioned perfectly: if you believe the supporters of democracy, that is morally admirable. But it clearly is not: there is something fundamentally wrong with democracy, if it allows this outcome."

The author makes the usual leftist mistake of assuming that if government doesn't help the stricken, no one will help the stricken.

This leftist ideology shines through in nearly everything they do, and goes a long way toward explaining why they can't understand either democracy or republics. They can see only government and government power. Individual initiative, compassion, responsibility and resourcefulness count for nothing to them. The idea that millions on the wealthy island might reach out themselves to help the other island, as so many millions did on their own after Hurricane Katrina, never occurs to the leftists. And this despite repeated example and billions in aid and work given by private individuals and groups, after every disaster that comes.

[avatar4321]

I wonder if Iraq had been voted on would we have invaded a sovereign nation? I would hope enough people would have voted no, but you raise an interesting point. I wonder how the spin would have spun given a vote? 911 made people blind to reason.

Iraq was voted on twice.

your "reason" requires people to be blind to 9/11. We were attacked. You can pretend it didnt happen all you want. But until you are willing to view what we are really facing, you will always be wrong.

[Hagbard Celine]

Iraq was voted on twice.

your "reason" requires people to be blind to 9/11. We were attacked. You can pretend it didnt happen all you want. But until you are willing to view what we are really facing, you will always be wrong.

Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

[LOki]

This is an example that usually brings a lot of debate, hopefully it makes some think. Is the author correct given his argument?

"In a large ocean there are two neighbouring islands: faultless democracies with full civil and political rights. One island is extremely rich and prosperous, and has 10 million inhabitants. The other is extremely poor: it has 100 million inhabitants, who live by subsistence farming. After a bad harvest last year, there are no food stocks, and now the harvest has failed again: 90 million people are facing death by starvation. The democratically elected government of the poor island asks for help, and the democratically elected government of the rich island organises a referendum on the issue. There are three options: Option A is a sharp increase in taxes, to pay for large-scale permanent structural transfers to the poor island. Option B is some increase in taxes, to pay for immediate and sufficient humanitarian aid, so that famine will be averted. Option C is no extra taxes and no aid. When the votes are counted, 100% of the voters have chosen Option C. After all, who wants to pay more taxes?

So 90 million people starve. Yet all electoral procedures on both islands are free and fair, the media are free, political campaigning is free, there is no political repression of any kind. According to democratic theory, any outcome of this democratic process must be respected. Two perfect democracies have functioned perfectly: if you believe the supporters of democracy, that is morally admirable. But it clearly is not: there is something fundamentally wrong with democracy, if it allows this outcome."

http://web.inter.nl.net/users/Paul.Treanor/democracy.html

Faulty premise = It is fundamentally wrong that 90 million people starve.

I think it might be fundamentally wrong to bail out 90 million incompetent subsistence farmers.

[avatar4321]

Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

First, nothing in my post suggested it.

Second, simply repeating your mantra again and again is not going to make it true. If you are going to have a serious discussion, you might want to consider getting new material.

[Hagbard Celine]

First, nothing in my post suggested it.

Second, simply repeating your mantra again and again is not going to make it true. If you are going to have a serious discussion, you might want to consider getting new material.

How is it not true? Iraq really didn't have anything to do with 9/11. They were 100 percent beyond refute innocent with regards to 9/11.

[avatar4321]

How is it not true? Iraq really didn't have anything to do with 9/11. They were 100 percent beyond refute innocent with regards to 9/11.

Im so tired of this straw man. We are in Iraq already. get over it

[Hagbard Celine]

Im so tired of this straw man. We are in Iraq already. get over it

"Straw man?" You're awfully cavalier about the fact that 3500 US troops have died in a fight against an enemy we created out of thin air.
Also nothing you can say changes the fact that the war is illegal according to international law and that Iraq was invaded because it had been accused of something it had absolutely zero percent involvement in and was 100 percent innocent of. We might as well have invaded French Guyana. It's just as guilty of being involved in 9/11 as Iraq was.

[Gaffer]

"Straw man?" You're awfully cavalier about the fact that 3500 US troops have died in a fight against an enemy we created out of thin air.
Also nothing you can say changes the fact that the war is illegal according to international law and that Iraq was invaded because it had been accused of something it had absolutely zero percent involvement in and was 100 percent innocent of. We might as well have invaded French Guyana. It's just as guilty of being involved in 9/11 as Iraq was.

iraq had no wmd's when we went in. They did not take part in 911. But they were looking to build wmd's and use them in the future. 911 made us take note of that possibility and the potential threat that was developing there. We took out the potential threat because iraq could have been 100% involved in the next 911. It was not done unilaterally as you libs love to say. 40 other countries were involved. The only ones against the invasion were the ones making tons of money from iraq which included the un itself.

And of course the dems were for it until it was determined it would make Bush look good and he would be unbeatable in 2004. So they revoked their initial support and began to blatantly lie about the war and their part in it. And the lib fools followed like the useful idiots they are.

It's not about the war. It's all about Bush hatred. That is the sole focus of all the libs. It's very obvious in the lib posters on this board and in the media. Make Bush look bad at any cost and tie everything to the war in iraq. Even innocent people getting killed in the war means nothing except as political propaganda. A soldier gets killed and its all Bush's fault. 400 enemy troops get killed and there's not a mention of it. It's liberal propaganda in it's most blatant form. And so many silly people buy into it.

Try stepping out of the fog of Bush hatred and look at the facts once in a while.

[diuretic]

Yes, but also a test of thinking about how complicated things become if our focus is too narrow. Diuretic, it's a secret so don't tell anyone, but I'm trying to make them all liberals. LOL

Not a chance - but the attempt is worth it :laugh2:

[diuretic]

I wonder if Iraq had been voted on would we have invaded a sovereign nation? I would hope enough people would have voted no, but you raise an interesting point. I wonder how the spin would have spun given a vote? 911 made people blind to reason.

Blatant opportunism by the administration, but it won't be the last time it happens. I mean I don't want to sound overly cynical but all governments of any persuasion will always, in a democracy, use opportunities as they present themselves. In authoritarian or totalitarian societies governments don't do it. They don't need to.

[avatar4321]

"Straw man?" You're awfully cavalier about the fact that 3500 US troops have died in a fight against an enemy we created out of thin air.
Also nothing you can say changes the fact that the war is illegal according to international law and that Iraq was invaded because it had been accused of something it had absolutely zero percent involvement in and was 100 percent innocent of. We might as well have invaded French Guyana. It's just as guilty of being involved in 9/11 as Iraq was.

It's the truth. If you cant handle that, its not my problem.

Your argument is a straw man. we are talking about democracy. No one commented about Saddam being responsible for 9/11. It's an argument that no one has ever made. Which is why talking to liberals about this subject is so damn frustrating. You keep insisting in knocking down an argument that no one is making to ignore the real issues going on. And you do this on purpose, because, when it comes to the merits of argument, you can't win and you know it.

So yes. I am sick and tired of hearing about your stupid straw man that has absolutely nothing to do with the topic on hand. I don't give a damn whether you are upset that Iraq wasnt responsible for 9/11 when no one claimed it was. Your stupidity is absolutely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. And repeatedly chanting your mantra showing you have absolutely no intellectual honesty on the issue does not help your cause. You are not morally superior for knocking down an argument no one made. So stop patting yourself on the back get in touch with reality.

As for the rest of your post, we never made Saddam Hussien up in mid air. We didn't make him invade Kuwait. We didnt make him ignore resolution after resolution. We didnt make him fail to provide evidence dismantling his weapons program. We didnt make him flip off the world community by defying his responsibilities. Nor did we make him encourage and support terrorist activities.

Any international law that applies to the United States is considered federal law. And all Federal law is subservient to the Constitution of the United States. I know you might not be familiar with the document, but in order for a legal war, all that is required is for Congress to approve it. And they did.

Iraq was not invaded because anyone accused it of being responsible for 9/11. Seriously it wasnt that difficult to understand why we were going into Iraq. If you havent figured it out correctly by now, i dont think you ever will.

[Yurt]

It's the truth. If you cant handle that, its not my problem.

Your argument is a straw man. we are talking about democracy. No one commented about Saddam being responsible for 9/11. It's an argument that no one has ever made. Which is why talking to liberals about this subject is so damn frustrating. You keep insisting in knocking down an argument that no one is making to ignore the real issues going on. And you do this on purpose, because, when it comes to the merits of argument, you can't win and you know it.

So yes. I am sick and tired of hearing about your stupid straw man that has absolutely nothing to do with the topic on hand. I don't give a damn whether you are upset that Iraq wasnt responsible for 9/11 when no one claimed it was. Your stupidity is absolutely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. And repeatedly chanting your mantra showing you have absolutely no intellectual honesty on the issue does not help your cause. You are not morally superior for knocking down an argument no one made. So stop patting yourself on the back get in touch with reality.

As for the rest of your post, we never made Saddam Hussien up in mid air. We didn't make him invade Kuwait. We didnt make him ignore resolution after resolution. We didnt make him fail to provide evidence dismantling his weapons program. We didnt make him flip off the world community by defying his responsibilities. Nor did we make him encourage and support terrorist activities.

Any international law that applies to the United States is considered federal law. And all Federal law is subservient to the Constitution of the United States. I know you might not be familiar with the document, but in order for a legal war, all that is required is for Congress to approve it. And they did.

Iraq was not invaded because anyone accused it of being responsible for 9/11. Seriously it wasnt that difficult to understand why we were going into Iraq. If you havent figured it out correctly by now, i dont think you ever will.

tried to rep :clap:

[Gaffer]

tried to rep :clap:

I did it for you.

[Kathianne]

"Conservatives" are a method of helping the poor?

Yes, actually. They are the ones that overwhelming support those listed above. They believe and support programs that aid the 'poor' immediately, more importantly empower them through education and support to succeed on their own. Succeed, not become dependent, that is the difference.

[Kathianne]

iraq had no wmd's when we went in. They did not take part in 911. But they were looking to build wmd's and use them in the future. 911 made us take note of that possibility and the potential threat that was developing there. We took out the potential threat because iraq could have been 100% involved in the next 911. It was not done unilaterally as you libs love to say. 40 other countries were involved. The only ones against the invasion were the ones making tons of money from iraq which included the un itself.

And of course the dems were for it until it was determined it would make Bush look good and he would be unbeatable in 2004. So they revoked their initial support and began to blatantly lie about the war and their part in it. And the lib fools followed like the useful idiots they are.

It's not about the war. It's all about Bush hatred. That is the sole focus of all the libs. It's very obvious in the lib posters on this board and in the media. Make Bush look bad at any cost and tie everything to the war in iraq. Even innocent people getting killed in the war means nothing except as political propaganda. A soldier gets killed and its all Bush's fault. 400 enemy troops get killed and there's not a mention of it. It's liberal propaganda in it's most blatant form. And so many silly people buy into it.

Try stepping out of the fog of Bush hatred and look at the facts once in a while.On point and succinct. I tried to rep, couldn't. Can someone help me out? I'll pay back.

[Little-Acorn]

Yes, but also a test of thinking about how complicated things become if our focus is too narrow.
You demonstrated that well, by completely missing the idea that charity starts at the home, and that private people and groups can give massive aid without "help" from government. A too-narrow focus indeed.


Diuretic, it's a secret so don't tell anyone, but I'm trying to make them all liberals. LOL

By telling a story about how, when people rely exclusively on government to help the helpless, 90 million people will starve?

You may have a problem achieving your objective. You might want to work on your technique a little. :laugh2:

[manu1959]

you know 100% of americans could vote not to give money to foreign countries and instead invest in america and dollars to doughnuts our politicians would still send cash to hamas.....

[midcan5]

iraq would have happened sooner or later. The difference is he didn't have his WMD's available. We can't have 300 million commanders in chief. Nothing would get done and we would be decimated by the first one to build a Navy and land on the beaches. That's also why the congress is not the commanders in chief. Decisions have to be made, not discussed and voted on. Intelligence and actions of other countries in the world are taken into consideration. Things the average citizen knows nothing about.

Sometimes you do things because its the right thing to do, other times you things because its the logical thing to do. But emotions should never play a part in it.

That constitutes for me some of the dumbest thinking I have read recently. Why did we not nuke Russia? Or North Korea? Or China, now before they are the next world power. That sort of thinking is why our soldiers are dying, their children are crying, and Iraqis are dying. Sad how primitive man is.

[Silver]

That constitutes for me some of the dumbest thinking I have read recently. Why did we not nuke Russia? Or North Korea? Or China, now before they are the next world power. That sort of thinking is why our soldiers are dying, their children are crying, and Iraqis are dying. Sad how primitive man is.

In this country, leaders do what they think is the right thing to do, after considerable debate with those thought to be knowledgeable about the pertinent issue...

soldiers are dying, their children are crying, and Iraqis are dying because of fanatics using terrorism as a means to get what they want....
and that makes the rest of the world totally innocent of causing any of it....:fu:

[avatar4321]

That constitutes for me some of the dumbest thinking I have read recently. Why did we not nuke Russia? Or North Korea? Or China, now before they are the next world power. That sort of thinking is why our soldiers are dying, their children are crying, and Iraqis are dying. Sad how primitive man is.

You know, I know you really believe all that. You see things through your liberal lenses. You see the world how you think it should be rather than how it actually is.

Conservatism is simply experience at work.

[DragonStryk72]

iraq had no wmd's when we went in. They did not take part in 911. But they were looking to build wmd's and use them in the future. 911 made us take note of that possibility and the potential threat that was developing there. We took out the potential threat because iraq could have been 100% involved in the next 911. It was not done unilaterally as you libs love to say. 40 other countries were involved. The only ones against the invasion were the ones making tons of money from iraq which included the un itself.

And of course the dems were for it until it was determined it would make Bush look good and he would be unbeatable in 2004. So they revoked their initial support and began to blatantly lie about the war and their part in it. And the lib fools followed like the useful idiots they are.

It's not about the war. It's all about Bush hatred. That is the sole focus of all the libs. It's very obvious in the lib posters on this board and in the media. Make Bush look bad at any cost and tie everything to the war in iraq. Even innocent people getting killed in the war means nothing except as political propaganda. A soldier gets killed and its all Bush's fault. 400 enemy troops get killed and there's not a mention of it. It's liberal propaganda in it's most blatant form. And so many silly people buy into it.

Try stepping out of the fog of Bush hatred and look at the facts once in a while.

As opposed to North Korea and Iran, who both had open programs to create WMDs? We picked out Iraq cause everyone recognized Saddam Hussein as being evil. Second, This is Bush's war, and we've seen the intel, the intel that said Iraq had nothing to do with it, the intel that said that Saddam was not a threat. If he is the commander-in-chief, and the responsbility falls to him, then yes, he is responsible for not listening to the top guys who said all of this, and he is responsible for not putting together a post-war strategy, and giving his generals only half of the troops they told him they would need.

It isn't about Bush hate, Gaffer, the man has just fucked up so many times that we don't even react anymore when he does it.

[midcan5]

It isn't about Bush hate, Gaffer, the man has just fucked up so many times that we don't even react anymore when he does it.

Bravo.

[Gaffer]

As opposed to North Korea and Iran, who both had open programs to create WMDs? We picked out Iraq cause everyone recognized Saddam Hussein as being evil. Second, This is Bush's war, and we've seen the intel, the intel that said Iraq had nothing to do with it, the intel that said that Saddam was not a threat. If he is the commander-in-chief, and the responsbility falls to him, then yes, he is responsible for not listening to the top guys who said all of this, and he is responsible for not putting together a post-war strategy, and giving his generals only half of the troops they told him they would need.

It isn't about Bush hate, Gaffer, the man has just fucked up so many times that we don't even react anymore when he does it.

One of Bush's mistakes was concentrating militarily only on iraq. He should have gone after iran and NK at the same time. Or at least one after the other. He picked iraq because saddam had already proven himself to be an aggressor. He was still shooting at our aircraft. World intelligence said saddam had wmd's. Bush is in charge of conducting the war. It is America's war. Bush is responsible with making decisions based on information and advice given to him. He made decisions and some of them were wrong. All those posting here that have never made a bad decision in their life please raise your hand.

I would also like to see hands of all posters that took part in talks with the generals and who heard what was said by the generals and the president. Bush has fucked up. He's probably fucked up in ways we will never hear about because of the secrecy involved. But the democrats are purely playing politics with this war. Their anti war policies and media support have caused a division and encouraged the enemy. All this does is prolong the fighting, because the enemy thinks they can win.

It is Bush hatred. A hatred so strong that it takes precedence over the welfare of the country.

[DragonStryk72]

One of Bush's mistakes was concentrating militarily only on iraq. He should have gone after iran and NK at the same time. Or at least one after the other. He picked iraq because saddam had already proven himself to be an aggressor. He was still shooting at our aircraft. World intelligence said saddam had wmd's. Bush is in charge of conducting the war. It is America's war. Bush is responsible with making decisions based on information and advice given to him. He made decisions and some of them were wrong. All those posting here that have never made a bad decision in their life please raise your hand.

I would also like to see hands of all posters that took part in talks with the generals and who heard what was said by the generals and the president. Bush has fucked up. He's probably fucked up in ways we will never hear about because of the secrecy involved. But the democrats are purely playing politics with this war. Their anti war policies and media support have caused a division and encouraged the enemy. All this does is prolong the fighting, because the enemy thinks they can win.

It is Bush hatred. A hatred so strong that it takes precedence over the welfare of the country.

And what about the generals who've retired, and have spoken out? Do they get to count? Iraq had nothing to do with the welfare of the country. Now, to be clear, yes, the world is better for not having Saddam in it. And when did it start happening that we ignore our own intelligence people, who are amongst the best in the world? Why did we not fact-check the intel being handed to us by other countries?

Dems and Reps have both politicized the war, they've both used it in horrible ways to push their own agendas. For the republicans, they lambasted anyone who disagreed with the war as being against the troops, pushing for the equation that if you are against the war, you obviously must be against the troops, because nobody could be against the war on moral grounds, and just not want to see our troops over there dying for a war built on false premises. there's been slogan after slogan, "They hate us for our freedom", "We're fighting them over there, so we don't have to fight them over here", that complete horsecrap.

No terrorist army is coming into America, we're probably better armed here than we are in Iraq, so there goes that house to house fighting tactic. They'd make it as far as New York, or most of the southern states, and get stopped dead. Let's not even get started on the problems associated with taking Texas.

Bush himself has used this war as rationalization for tearing down personal liberty, as well as to try and order congress to do things. He is not a king, he does no rule by divine right, he rules by the will of the people, but he's apparently forgotten that.

[Gaffer]

I haven't seen much from retired generals speaking out about meetings held with Bush. I have seen a few complain that they weren't listened too. What their recommendations were was not published. The few that were real our spoken had political agendas and plans.

As for intelligence. The whole worlds intelligence agencies were wrong on saddam. Our own agencies apparently went along with this opinion as they had nothing to counter it. The wmd's were one factor among many that Bush acted on. If the intel agencies were that wrong on the wmd's what have they been wrong on concerning other countries.Their credibility took a big dip.

We are in the middle of a world war. The dems want to pretend there is only one war and that's in iraq, when iraq is just a front in the larger war. We took down hussein and over the years have eliminated his followers. Now it is irans turn. We are fighting them by proxy in iraq now. We have two enemies. AQ and iran. AQ is looking for a place to sponsor its operations. iran is already sponsoring its own.

The terrorist armies are already here. We are not going to deal with an invasion. We have to deal with individuals and small groups shooting people, setting of bombs and attacking our infrastructure. They live among us protected by the Constitution and political correctness. They came in on visas or snuck in over the borders. They are just waiting for orders from their handlers to strike.

As for repubs and dems pointing the finger. How about they all get together and say we have to see this war through and stand united. It won't happen as long as the Bush hatred prevails. It's all about undermining Bush, defeating Bush in anything he does and making him look bad at any cost.

The dems are a lot like the mullahs of iran who want to bring back the 12th imam at any cost to the world. Including the annihilation of iran. Destroy Bush at any cost is the battle cry of dems. The country can go to hell because of their actions and they will just blame Bush.

[DragonStryk72]

I haven't seen much from retired generals speaking out about meetings held with Bush. I have seen a few complain that they weren't listened too. What their recommendations were was not published. The few that were real our spoken had political agendas and plans.

As for intelligence. The whole worlds intelligence agencies were wrong on saddam. Our own agencies apparently went along with this opinion as they had nothing to counter it. The wmd's were one factor among many that Bush acted on. If the intel agencies were that wrong on the wmd's what have they been wrong on concerning other countries.Their credibility took a big dip.

We are in the middle of a world war. The dems want to pretend there is only one war and that's in iraq, when iraq is just a front in the larger war. We took down hussein and over the years have eliminated his followers. Now it is irans turn. We are fighting them by proxy in iraq now. We have two enemies. AQ and iran. AQ is looking for a place to sponsor its operations. iran is already sponsoring its own.

The terrorist armies are already here. We are not going to deal with an invasion. We have to deal with individuals and small groups shooting people, setting of bombs and attacking our infrastructure. They live among us protected by the Constitution and political correctness. They came in on visas or snuck in over the borders. They are just waiting for orders from their handlers to strike.

As for repubs and dems pointing the finger. How about they all get together and say we have to see this war through and stand united. It won't happen as long as the Bush hatred prevails. It's all about undermining Bush, defeating Bush in anything he does and making him look bad at any cost.

The dems are a lot like the mullahs of iran who want to bring back the 12th imam at any cost to the world. Including the annihilation of iran. Destroy Bush at any cost is the battle cry of dems. The country can go to hell because of their actions and they will just blame Bush.

We created the AQ in Iraq, and our tactics are their recruiting poster. We had no postwar, under-equipped our troops (people had to buy their own sidearms and body armor), under=manned our attempt to take the place. This war is an exploding cluster fuck, and yes, it is Bush's fault, he's the CIC, the buck stops there.

Of course they're pissed about the war, why shouldn't they be? They got lied to repeatedly (not a trace of WMDs anywhere, and "there are no black sites"), have been given orders by the president (because what you really love is someone not in your chain of command deciding he has the right to tell you what to do). He crammed WMDs down our throats for over a year, Gaff, no getting around that.

I never pictured you as being the type to get spooked. These guys that are supposedly everywhere in the country? They will fail, even if they were here, it wouldn't matter. It would be the damned dumbest move they could make, because the second that they hit us here, they've seen what happens (See Japan and Afghanistan), they're not going for a repeat.

Our own intel agencies did put out the word, just like they informed Bush that the levees wouldn't hold, and that there was a plan to jack planes in the works before 9/11. Bush doesn't listen if it doesn't suit what he wants. He is a fuck up, yes he's had some slight points where he managed to accidentally do the right thing, but that doesn't improve things at all.

[Gaffer]

We created the AQ in Iraq, and our tactics are their recruiting poster. We had no postwar, under-equipped our troops (people had to buy their own sidearms and body armor), under=manned our attempt to take the place. This war is an exploding cluster fuck, and yes, it is Bush's fault, he's the CIC, the buck stops there.

We created nothing in iraq. AQ was already there. More rushed into iraq for a chance to fight our troops. That's a good thing cause it focuses everything in one area. And our troops are there to fight. Bush screwed up in the post war phase as he didn't plan for the chaos that followed.

Most of the equipment problems were fixed early on. Some things were just not available at the time. Over all the equipment shortages were another attempt at victimization of the troops.


Of course they're pissed about the war, why shouldn't they be? They got lied to repeatedly (not a trace of WMDs anywhere, and "there are no black sites"), have been given orders by the president (because what you really love is someone not in your chain of command deciding he has the right to tell you what to do). He crammed WMDs down our throats for over a year, Gaff, no getting around that.

There were wmd's found. There were also rockets and shells ready to be armed with the wmd agents. There were laboratories sitting ready for use in preparing wmd's.They just didn't find them in the quantity they expected. Bush didn't cram anything any more than the dems did since 1996. There were also eyewitnesses and documents saying the wmd's were shipped to syria. But then who's going to believe a couple of iraqi generals and documents and satellite photo's. No proof there.


I never pictured you as being the type to get spooked. These guys that are supposedly everywhere in the country? They will fail, even if they were here, it wouldn't matter. It would be the damned dumbest move they could make, because the second that they hit us here, they've seen what happens (See Japan and Afghanistan), they're not going for a repeat.

I don't get spooked. I'm a realist. I know what I would do if I was in their situation. They are not everywhere in the country. They are in key cities and areas where they can keep a low profile. Their purpose is to disrupt this country. And they would all claim to be individual acts. The government would go along with it to avoid panicking the population.

AQ and iran are both going for a repeat of 911. On a much larger scale. They are not concerned about consequences or retaliation. They have agents in play and sympathizers all over the country. When they deem the time is right they will strike. That's why wire tapping and interrogations at gitmo are so important.


Our own intel agencies did put out the word, just like they informed Bush that the levees wouldn't hold, and that there was a plan to jack planes in the works before 9/11. Bush doesn't listen if it doesn't suit what he wants. He is a fuck up, yes he's had some slight points where he managed to accidentally do the right thing, but that doesn't improve things at all.

You always have intelligent posts and make logical arguments. I can't believe you are expanding in the conspiracy theory bullshit. The NO levies broke because they were made to withstand up to category 3 hurricanes. The federal money given to NO to improve the levies was spent on other things by the La governor and NO mayor. And the intelligemce agencies had nothing to do with advising Bush on levies.

The FBI and the CIA had information about planned high jackings even before Bush took office. They weren't allowed to share this information, due to clinton establishing a wall between them. A wall meant to impeded investigations into his own nefarious actions and those of his wife. Each of the agencies had a piece of the puzzle but were not legally able to put those pieces together.

Want to get into conspiracies. Take a look back at all the major events that have occurred since 2000. They all have roots in the clinton years.

Bush at least does something even if its wrong. Which is better than doing nothing which is what the last administration did. And the two dems running now promise to do again.

[mundame]

This is an example that usually brings a lot of debate, hopefully it makes some think. Is the author correct given his argument?

"In a large ocean there are two neighbouring islands: faultless democracies with full civil and political rights. One island is extremely rich and prosperous, and has 10 million inhabitants. The other is extremely poor: it has 100 million inhabitants, who live by subsistence farming. After a bad harvest last year, there are no food stocks, and now the harvest has failed again: 90 million people are facing death by starvation. The democratically elected government of the poor island asks for help, and the democratically elected government of the rich island organises a referendum on the issue. There are three options: Option A is a sharp increase in taxes, to pay for large-scale permanent structural transfers to the poor island. Option B is some increase in taxes, to pay for immediate and sufficient humanitarian aid, so that famine will be averted. Option C is no extra taxes and no aid. When the votes are counted, 100% of the voters have chosen Option C. After all, who wants to pay more taxes?

So 90 million people starve. Yet all electoral procedures on both islands are free and fair, the media are free, political campaigning is free, there is no political repression of any kind. According to democratic theory, any outcome of this democratic process must be respected. Two perfect democracies have functioned perfectly: if you believe the supporters of democracy, that is morally admirable. But it clearly is not: there is something fundamentally wrong with democracy, if it allows this outcome."

http://web.inter.nl.net/users/Paul.Treanor/democracy.html


This example has nothing at all to do with democracy.

It's about national sovereignty: you want One-Worldism, world government.

And that would prey on the United States to our ruin, to redistribute all we have to the corrupt and incompetent governments of Africa, Asia, and Muslim nations.

[DragonStryk72]

We created nothing in iraq. AQ was already there. More rushed into iraq for a chance to fight our troops. That's a good thing cause it focuses everything in one area. And our troops are there to fight. Bush screwed up in the post war phase as he didn't plan for the chaos that followed.

That one little base we could have taken out with a single SEAL team? And he never even slowed down afterward. Christ, there were articles laying out how they weren't securing anything as the went, the one in mind that stands out being the missile silo they left behind.

When they started mass-surrendering to tourists and cameramen, that should have been an indication that maybe we needed to rethink things a bit, but again, that wasn't done, and again, that does come down on Bush, he's th one in charge. Now, had we fully secured Iraq minus just a little bit of guerilla fighting against stragglers, and things had come together like he'd envisioned, then yeah, he would be responsible for that as well.

Most of the equipment problems were fixed early on. Some things were just not available at the time. Over all the equipment shortages were another attempt at victimization of the troops.

Yeah, except I remember dropping the coin for my girlfriend's brother's kevlar. How the hell do you walk into a ground war without enough body armor? that seem like one of the main things you'd want extras of.

There were wmd's found. There were also rockets and shells ready to be armed with the wmd agents. There were laboratories sitting ready for use in preparing wmd's.They just didn't find them in the quantity they expected. Bush didn't cram anything any more than the dems did since 1996. There were also eyewitnesses and documents saying the wmd's were shipped to syria. But then who's going to believe a couple of iraqi generals and documents and satellite photo's. No proof there.

By ready, you mean the ones we found buried in the sand from when we disarmed them? Those were the only rockets and such that were found, and they were completely dead, just shells. We didn't even find anything in the facilities that we were looking into.

I don't get spooked. I'm a realist. I know what I would do if I was in their situation. They are not everywhere in the country. They are in key cities and areas where they can keep a low profile. Their purpose is to disrupt this country. And they would all claim to be individual acts. The government would go along with it to avoid panicking the population.

That, by nature, is getting spooked. And that isn't realism, it's pessimism. It also doesn't address the point I made, they would fail, plain and simple.

AQ and iran are both going for a repeat of 911. On a much larger scale. They are not concerned about consequences or retaliation. They have agents in play and sympathizers all over the country. When they deem the time is right they will strike. That's why wire tapping and interrogations at gitmo are so important.

Honestly, AQ I think is staying the hell away from that for a while. Even if they are prepared for martyrdom, that doesn't mean they'll let their own side get wiped clean out doing something stupid.

And how many terrorist have we turned up with that wiretapping? So far, nothing, because come on, I don't how much media bias is out there, if we'd nailed a cell using the wiretaps, Bush would have been all over that shit. Beyond that, how many more of our rights do we give up, how much more like them do we become to go after them?

You always have intelligent posts and make logical arguments. I can't believe you are expanding in the conspiracy theory bullshit. The NO levies broke because they were made to withstand up to category 3 hurricanes. The federal money given to NO to improve the levies was spent on other things by the La governor and NO mayor. And the intelligemce agencies had nothing to do with advising Bush on levies.

Yes, and Mike Brown, as head of FEMA, still informed bush days ahead of time that those levees wouldn't hold, and still he didn't move on it. Hurricanes aren't. like it is with tornadoes, you get a good length of time to track it. I'm sorry to say it, too, cause I cussed out Brown pretty bad, and if I ever run into him, I owe him an apology on that one.

And do you think there's a person out there in the government who didn't know the NO government was corrupt and pissing away the money?

The FBI and the CIA had information about planned high jackings even before Bush took office. They weren't allowed to share this information, due to clinton establishing a wall between them. A wall meant to impeded investigations into his own nefarious actions and those of his wife. Each of the agencies had a piece of the puzzle but were not legally able to put those pieces together.

Yes, and then they had the one from August of 2001. As to the wall between the bureaus, those walls existed before then as well, since each before has a separate chain of command and jurisdiction.

Want to get into conspiracies. Take a look back at all the major events that have occurred since 2000. They all have roots in the clinton years.

As well as in Bush Sr. years, and Reagan years.

Bush at least does something even if its wrong. Which is better than doing nothing which is what the last administration did. And the two dems running now promise to do again.

Not always, and he's proven that one pretty well. As for the current campaigning people, really, let's be honest, all three are going to be another fuck up. We've fucked up all the way to the right, and now we need to go all the way left. Once that smoke clears, I think we'll finally see that there's a point of equilibrium.

;

[Gaffer]

That one little base we could have taken out with a single SEAL team? And he never even slowed down afterward. Christ, there were articles laying out how they weren't securing anything as the went, the one in mind that stands out being the missile silo they left behind.

The "little base" contained over two hundred fighters. And it was taken out by a special forces team.

Things weren't secured because they were moving to fast to secure anything. It was a mobile thrust through the lines and designed to take baghdad. There were no tourists in iraq when the war began. The surrendering to reporters was done during the Gulf War.

Areas that needed to be secured were secured. The thing that went wrong was the mind set of the people. Bush, like so many Americans, expected the iraqi's to be greatful. Not understanding that they don't think like us. He didn't look at the history of iraq or the region. He thought, with saddam gone everyone would get on board the peace train. That's where he went wrong. The military part was handled by the commanders in the field.


Yeah, except I remember dropping the coin for my girlfriend's brother's kevlar. How the hell do you walk into a ground war without enough body armor? that seem like one of the main things you'd want extras of.

My nephew was there. He was a Bradley driver in the initial invasion as part of the 3rd ID. They were issued what was available at the time. And most of the soldiers hated wearing the kevlar because of the heat. Kevlar is relatively new as far as the military use goes. The military still doesn't issue cans of silly string, which the soldiers that do house to house searches prize highly. It has nothing to do with Bush, it has everything to do with the people that handle the appropriation of equipment.


By ready, you mean the ones we found buried in the sand from when we disarmed them? Those were the only rockets and such that were found, and they were completely dead, just shells. We didn't even find anything in the facilities that we were looking into.

By ready I mean they were empty and sitting in storage areas ready to be filled with whatever was to go in them. The labs found were ready for production. saddam could have had a full arsenal once again in a matter of months. And there are still hundreds of tons of stuff unaccounted for.


Honestly, AQ I think is staying the hell away from that for a while. Even if they are prepared for martyrdom, that doesn't mean they'll let their own side get wiped clean out doing something stupid.

And how many terrorist have we turned up with that wiretapping? So far, nothing, because come on, I don't how much media bias is out there, if we'd nailed a cell using the wiretaps, Bush would have been all over that shit. Beyond that, how many more of our rights do we give up, how much more like them do we become to go after them?

Your thinking in western and American terms. AQ is staying away from nothing. They worship death. It's what they exist for. Their whole religion is about how to die for allah. iran's stated goal is to start a cataclysmic war that will bring back the hidden imam. ahmalittlehitler in iran has said he doesn't care if iran is sacrificed to achieve this goal.

A lot of terrorist have been caught due to wire tapping. Including cells in NY, FL and MI. And a lot are not reported on nationally. The less publicity the less the cells and individuals know about what's going on around them.

As for your rights. Please list what rights you have lost since 9/11.


Want to get into conspiracies. Take a look back at all the major events that have occurred since 2000. They all have roots in the clinton years.

As well as in Bush Sr. years, and Reagan years.

Those years don't apply to this conversation. That's an mfm style misdirection and your a better debater than that.


Not always, and he's proven that one pretty well. As for the current campaigning people, really, let's be honest, all three are going to be another fuck up. We've fucked up all the way to the right, and now we need to go all the way left. Once that smoke clears, I think we'll finally see that there's a point of equilibrium.

I think Bush has fucked up in a lot of things and areas. But I don't believe swinging far left is going to help the situation. It will only make a bad situation worse.

The problem with people elected as president is not them as much as who they appoint to their cabinet and advisers. Once they take office its time to pay the supporter debt. And that's the weak link in any presidency.