And that is just plain wrong. Anyone who can't see that is either blind or a fool, and those who know it but won't admit it are just plain evil.
It's the quest for world domination that's taking America straight to Hell in a handbasket.
Thanks, Rich
Didn't find your answer? Ask the community — no account required.
J
John Larkin
Silly. We have no colonies, not even in Europe where we had absolute military domination not long ago. We pay market prices for everything. We export aid, wealth, and jobs to places that, frankly, need them a lot worse than we do. Puerto Rico and other affiliates can vote to become fully independent if they want to. The US doesn't want to dominate the world, we want to spread wealth and democracy. What's wrong with that?
I suppose amoral is the new "moral."
John
E
Eeyore
In nay case, the USA most certainly doesn't dominate Iraq in any useful way.
Graham
J
John Larkin
The point is that the Iraqui people should dominate Iraq, creating the novel idea of a democracy in the Middle East.
You (I assume) enjoy the benefits of representative government; why should't everyone?
John
J
John Larkin
Describing Noam Chomsky as a "scholar" is enough to make a mockery of that site. I bet you buy his books, with the money you don't spend on actually helping people.
John
J
James Arthur
America's quest for world domination? By that you must mean fast- food and the internet right?
Hell in a handbasket? Heck, the deficit's down another $50 billion, despite all the money we're dumping into Iraq. The economy's been so strong that revenues are outstripping even Congress' abilty to spend them. (Don't expect that to last...neither the boom, nor Congress' restraint.)
Certainly we do, if you consider what the murderous-types would do once unleashed. We owe the Iraqis better than that.
Remember, by and large they're not attacking Americans, they're not fighting another army representing a different political point of view, they're attacking their own civilians. That's nasty.
Best, James Arthur
R
Richard The Dreaded Libertaria
They've had THREE elections, and the invaders (Bush et al) don't like the outcome, because it's always "Yankee Go Home".
Thanks, Rich
E
Eeyore
And how precisely does America think it can change that ? They weren't doing it before you lot invaded !
Graham
R
Richard The Dreaded Libertaria
And your idea to stop the killing is to go in and do some more killing? That's either insane or evil.
Thanks, Rich
E
Eeyore
If you can call them a single people of course !
It claims to be representative. I'm not convinced any more. Hang on, I'm convinced it's not.
Fine by me. It's not a crime to suggest that some countries may not be entirely ready for it though ( I know an Indian businessman who thinks democracy in India is a farce for example ).
Graham
J
John Larkin
As far as I know, democracy is always a farce. But it pretty much works. Maybe that's *why* it works.
John
J
John Larkin
Of course they were, as the skeletons in the trenches demonstrate. The slaughter was just more organized, and now it's, well, more democratic.
John
R
Richard The Dreaded Libertaria
India
What was it somebody said? "It's the worst form of government except for all of the others."?
Problem is, it gets out of hand, like: "Let's vote on what everybody's favorite color is!"
Another thing the Constitution tries to prevent is mob rule, but apparently the Constitution has fallen out of favor these days, more's the pity.
Sigh. Rich
E
Eeyore
entirely
India
What do you think of the Swiss version with their regular referendums ?
Graham
J
John Larkin
entirely
India
Never heard of that. The Swiss are awfully quiet from here.
The UK parliamentary thing has always confused me. Calling early elections, forming a government, shadow ministries, dissolving governments, all that. What if something important happens while there is no government?
John
E
Eeyore
entirely
India
formatting link
" Through referenda, citizens may challenge any law voted by federal parliament and through initiatives introduce amendments to the federal constitution, making Switzerland a direct democracy. "
Fixed terms would be better I think. No possibility of holding a snap election to suit events.
Shadow Ministers not ministries.
there
The existing incumbents deal with it. I've always though it funny that your newly elected president has to wait a couple of months to take office btw !
Graham
J
John Larkin
entirely
in India
and
Switzerland
California works like that, too. There have been a number of popular referenda in recent years that ran contrary to what the Legislature wanted, like Prop 13 (property tax reduction) and Prop 209 (forbidding most state institutions from taking race into account.)
to suit
there
newly
It does give him a while to get organized, find some cabinet members, stuff like that. Not to mention recover from the election. Seems like a good idea to me.
And it gives the outgoing President and his wife time to steal furniture and pardon a bunch of criminals before he leaves.
John
J
James Arthur
AIUI, their results are the same as here: "We want you guys to leave, but PLEASE don't leave us NOW!"
Cheers, James Arthur
J
James Arthur
Those are false choices. Many times doing something is a lot better than doing nothing at all.
Take Darfur, for example.
Best wishes, James Arthur
Join the Discussion
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Didn't find your answer?
Ask the community — no account required
Report Content
You are reporting this content to the moderators. They will look at it
ASAP.