NationStates Jolt Archive

I hear a lot of people, especially from places like Germany and France, say that it's not the "American people" they hate, it's the "American government."

In a democracy ( which is what the American government is, despite all the rhetoric on both sides about it being "a republic." ) the government, in effect, is the people. The people vote for their leaders, petition them when needed, vote to re-elect or eject them, some even work for them to get elected.

So is trying to separate the government of a democracy from the people a valid thing to do? Is it simply an attempt to drive a wedge between the people and their government? Is there really any validity to this sort of statement?

but its not the people who are directly creating the policies that so many europeans dislike so much. the administration is accountable and responsible, not the people (who can be forgiven for being misguided or something)

after all the democracy we are talking about is a representative democracy

You know, that means that anti-Americanism can't be considered that bad then. If the only thing to hate is the people because since they elected the government, they are the ones responsible, then there should be less bitching about anti-Americanism, since it's directed at the right people...

So is trying to separate the government of a democracy from the people a valid thing to do?
Perhaps...hating a people is a strong thing to say, and an even stronger thing to feel. If there may be different stages of hate, then one could say I hate "the American voters" (which of course doesn't include all Americans :p ), but not to the extent that a Bin Laden may hate them.

Is it simply an attempt to drive a wedge between the people and their government?
No, it certainly isn't for me.

Is there really any validity to this sort of statement?
I would say so. I don't think all voters on Bush's side voted with the intention of validating the kind of foreign policy that is the cause of all this "hatred". Perhaps (or certainly) domestic issues were most important for most.
Then there are vested- and corporate interests too, which in the US should probably be seperated from the average voter.

That being said, if you find an American that completely and utterly agrees with Bush's foreign policies, and shares Bush's disdain of other nations, beliefs and cultures as well as his dogmatism, then my dislike for them may very well go as far as hatred...

Ugh, i hate to Godwin so early but...

You can hate a fascist govt (ie Nazi Germany, Il Duce, Franco) and not hate the people.

Simple :D

You can draw the parallels yourself. You don't have to 'hate' anything- disagreement is enough. Democracy or not. You can disagree with your own govt and still not hate your own people.

I hear a lot of people, especially from places like Germany and France, say that it's not the "American people" they hate, it's the "American government."

In a democracy ( which is what the American government is, despite all the rhetoric on both sides about it being "a republic." ) the government, in effect, is the people. The people vote for their leaders, petition them when needed, vote to re-elect or eject them, some even work for them to get elected.

So is trying to separate the government of a democracy from the people a valid thing to do? Is it simply an attempt to drive a wedge between the people and their government? Is there really any validity to this sort of statement?
Um, America is not a democracy, and you really need to get used to that simple fact because you insult the efforts of the Founding Fathers every time you claim otherwise...they put so much time and energy into making sure America would never be a pure democracy*, and now you go and spit on their efforts. Saying that "America is not a democracy" = "rhetoric" is pointless, like telling us it's "rhetoric" for somebody to insist that Chicago does not rest within a tropical climate zone. You simply are misusing terms, and it really impacts this topic.

In a democracy, the government IS the people. In a republic, representatives are ELECTED by the people. A representative may not do what he promises when he's finally in office. A representative may switch gears, wuss out, or betray the values of the people who elected her. Hell, he may have lied about his intentions to begin with. Furthermore, in the American system, there's usually only a couple of choices for people to vote on, and I think we all can remember a case or two where we were forced to pick the lesser of two evils.

If you take the time to understand how the American government is formed, and how it functions, it's quite easy to understand how a person could like the American people while disliking the American government.

*"Democracy is the most vile form of government... democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention: have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property: and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths."-James Madison
"Remember democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide." - John Adams
"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine." -Thomas Jefferson

You know, that means that anti-Americanism can't be considered that bad then. If the only thing to hate is the people because since they elected the government, they are the ones responsible, then there should be less bitching about anti-Americanism, since it's directed at the right people...
I tend to agree with this. If we the people elected someone which they the Europeans ( etc. ) don't like, then they need to take it up with US! :D

Well there are only certain types of people that can actually be sucessful in a democracy, the charismatic for example however also remember it's not like you can vote for anyone, you can only vote for whoever makes it into the list of candidates so it all depends how far you want to take things.

I hear a lot of people, especially from places like Germany and France, say that it's not the "American people" they hate, it's the "American government."

In a democracy ( which is what the American government is, despite all the rhetoric on both sides about it being "a republic." ) the government, in effect, is the people. The people vote for their leaders, petition them when needed, vote to re-elect or eject them, some even work for them to get elected.

So is trying to separate the government of a democracy from the people a valid thing to do? Is it simply an attempt to drive a wedge between the people and their government? Is there really any validity to this sort of statement?Hey, I'm an American who loves (most of) his fellow citizens and who hates the government. There is a distinct divide between the government and the people, even if we are ostensibly in charge of our own government, and part of the reason for that divide is the fact that individuals aren't in charge of their selections or policies anymore. The fact is that corporations and big businesses exert far more influence over politics than we as voters do. They've got the access and the influence and the control of the media. We (the individual voters) are at war and we're getting our asses kicked.

Perhaps...hating a people is a strong thing to say, and an even stronger thing to feel. If there may be different stages of hate, then one could say I hate "the American voters" (which of course doesn't include all Americans :p ), but not to the extent that a Bin Laden may hate them.
Nice post! I essentially agree with most of what you said. :)

Being that less than have of voting age Americans vote, it's really less than a majority of voting age Americans than would be hated even if you couldn't separate the government from the people.

I tend to agree with this. If we the people elected someone which they the Europeans ( etc. ) don't like, then they need to take it up with US! :DThen again, the American people don't elect the government. They only give advisory opinions to the electoral college...

And what about me?! I'm both European and American!

Hey, I'm an American who loves (most of) his fellow citizens and who hates the government. There is a distinct divide between the government and the people, even if we are ostensibly in charge of our own government, and part of the reason for that divide is the fact that individuals aren't in charge of their selections or policies anymore. The fact is that corporations and big businesses exert far more influence over politics than we as voters do. They've got the access and the influence and the control of the media. We (the individual voters) are at war and we're getting our asses kicked.
But controlling the media dosn't force you to vote for someone you don't like or for whom you do not want to vote. How does the fact that most media are owned by corporations prevent you from voting for whomever you like, or from working to make changes to the system?

Then again, the American people don't elect the government. They only give advisory opinions to the electoral college...

And what about me?! I'm both European and American!
What about you? That's for YOU to determine! ;)

Casting all the blame on the Electoral College is specious. The College is now little more than a rubber stamp for the electorate.

I hear a lot of people, especially from places like Germany and France, say that it's not the "American people" they hate, it's the "American government."

In a democracy ( which is what the American government is, despite all the rhetoric on both sides about it being "a republic." ) the government, in effect, is the people. The people vote for their leaders, petition them when needed, vote to re-elect or eject them, some even work for them to get elected.

It's valid because there is more to a person than their politics.

But controlling the media dosn't force you to vote for someone you don't like or for whom you do not want to vote. How does the fact that most media are owned by corporations prevent you from voting for whomever you like, or from working to make changes to the system?
its a little something called influence
are you really trying to deny that mass media has no influence on the voting patterns of ordinary people? :confused:

Being that less than have of voting age Americans vote, it's really less than a majority of voting age Americans than would be hated even if you couldn't separate the government from the people.
So what are you going to do about that? Just sit back and let the relative minority of the population who actually bother to vote decide everything? Hmmm? :)

its a little something called influence
are you really trying to deny that mass media has no influence on the voting patterns of ordinary people? :confused:
I suspect, although I cannot prove this statistically, that mass media have far, far less influence over the average voter than you seem to think.

What about you? That's for YOU to determine! ;)

Casting all the blame on the Electoral College is specious. The College is now little more than a rubber stamp for the electorate.I recall a certain president losing the electorate for the first time ever...
Some rubber stamp.

It's valid because there is more to a person than their politics.
Um ... wouldn't it be just as valid to say that "there is more to our government than its politics?"

I actually think it is a good sign that many folks are willing to seperate the actions of a country's goverment from that of its people. Goverments, even when directly elected by the people, do not always follow what the people want or think should happen.

Sometimes because of knowledge that the population in general does not have (greater good), sometimes due to personal ideologies that override what the people want, sometimes because they just don't listen.

Personally, being overseas, I'm just as happy that most folks don't automatcially judge me, being an American, by the actions of the Bush administration, or any administration for that matter.

I suspect, although I cannot prove this statistically, that mass media have far, far less influence over the average voter than you seem to think.Eut, the mass media are pretty much the only way of getting to know the candidate before election day for most people. Of course they have an influence on the average American voter.

I recall a certain president losing the electorate for the first time ever...
Some rubber stamp.
I suspect you recall incorrectly. As *I* recall, that "certain President" was shown to have a majority of the popular vote even after numerous recounts and retallies, most of them by those who oppose him vociferously. Hmmm? :)

I hear a lot of people, especially from places like Germany and France, say that it's not the "American people" they hate, it's the "American government."

In a democracy ( which is what the American government is, despite all the rhetoric on both sides about it being "a republic." ) the government, in effect, is the people. The people vote for their leaders, petition them when needed, vote to re-elect or eject them, some even work for them to get elected.

So is trying to separate the government of a democracy from the people a valid thing to do? Is it simply an attempt to drive a wedge between the people and their government? Is there really any validity to this sort of statement?


You are mistaken in assuming that voting for a certain administration is an endorsement of all their policies. There can be many reasons why someone voted for a certain candidate. Perhaps someone voted for Bush despite being strongly against his foreign policy because they feared liberal nominations for the supreme court, or because to them abortion is the #1 issue and they agree with his pro-life stance, or because they view him as the lesser evil. The few people I know who admitted to voting for Bush said they would have voted for any democratic candidate but John Kerry, in other words they didnt vote for Bush in their mind they voted against Kerry. You could argue that people couldve voted for a third party candidate, but the electoral college system is a two party system, heavily stacked against the introduction of any third parties. A vote for a third party candidate is a wasted vote in the US system. So, I disagree with you, I think it is possible to be against the government and not the people.

As for whether the US is a democracy or not, thats just semantics. The US is a democracy under the modern definition of democracy. In classical terms it is a republic. However, language has evolved and a republic is now known as a democracy. I dont think its rhetoric so much as semantics.

I suspect you recall incorrectly. As *I* recall, that "certain President" was shown to have a majority of the popular vote even after numerous recounts and retallies, most of them by those who oppose him vociferously. Hmmm? :)Bush lost the popular vote in 2000. There's no denying that. I think you're referring to Florida while I'm referring to America. ;)

But controlling the media dosn't force you to vote for someone you don't like or for whom you do not want to vote. How does the fact that most media are owned by corporations prevent you from voting for whomever you like, or from working to make changes to the system?
It doesn't change who I vote for, but that's not the point.

If there's legislation before my elected representatives, and it involves benefiting 100,000 poor people, none of whom have money to give to the candidate in the form of campaign donations, or money to give to activist groups, or lobbyists, and there's a corporation on the other side of that legislation that can "suggest" to its Board and the upper tier of management that they give the max while simultaneously hiring lobbying firms, who is that representative going to listen to the majority of the time? And how is a grassroots candidate going to compete against that kind of money when that incumbent comes up for re-election? There's a reason we have something like a 94% incumbency rate in this country, and it has nothing to do with the quality of our representation. It's because the game is stacked against reformers (of any political stripe) and against citizen involvement in favor of big business and insiders.

And there really is something to the notion that there's little difference between the Democrats and the Republicans--not as much as people like Nader argue there is, but there's some substance to the argument. That abomination of a bankruptcy bill is an example of that.

I recall a certain president losing the electorate for the first time ever...
Some rubber stamp.
No, Bush won, in 2000, the electorate, he LOST the popular vote. This wasn't the first time it had happened either. Technically, the election SHOULD have been tossed to the House of Representatives, but 5 years later, here we are.

Edit: Sorry, forgot. In 2004, he took both the popular and electorial vote.

I suspect, although I cannot prove this statistically, that mass media have far, far less influence over the average voter than you seem to think.
well ok there may be big differences between the UK and the US, but over here elections are decided primarily by a few hundered thousand swing voters who have no particular party affiliation and are evidently heavily swung by the media. its primarily for their benefit that politicians and parties put on so much of a media circus and so much electioneering at election time. many voters are fixed in their ways, sure in their heads as to who they are going to vote for, etc, and the media won't have much of an influence on them at election time, obviously. but the swing voters are definatley affected by this.

besides, the media is the eyes and ears of the people. if the media has a particular bias, then it may not report on certain things that may be likely to change either these swing voters' minds, or even change the minds of decided voters. its painfully obvious imho.

i think mass media has far, far more influence over the average voter than you seem to think

This is how it works...

The people vote for their representatives...

Those representatives decide who they want as their president (I believe there is a process to get people into the electoral college first though, which is what literally votes on the president)...

The vote, by the people, for the president, is the "popular vote." It has no bearing on who becomes president. The electoral college decides who our president will be.

You can see quite easily how the elections don't go the way people want them to go. Especially when you involve businesses etc. in the whole work of things.

I suspect, although I cannot prove this statistically, that mass media have far, far less influence over the average voter than you seem to think.
Wow, that's shockingly niave.

In a democracy ( which is what the American government is, despite all the rhetoric on both sides about it being "a republic." ) the government, in effect, is the people. The people vote for their leaders, petition them when needed, vote to re-elect or eject them, some even work for them to get elected.

If we are to follow this logic then on the basis of an approval rating of GWB* only 39 percent approve of themselves...



* http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/09/10/bush.poll.ap/

No... Only 39% of the people approve of 50-something percent of the people...

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush's job approval has dipped below 40 percent for the first time in the AP-Ipsos poll, reflecting widespread doubts about his handling of gasoline prices and the response to Hurricane Katrina.

Nearly four years after Bush's job approval soared into the 80s after the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, Bush was at 39 percent job approval in an AP-Ipsos poll taken this week. That's the lowest since the the poll was started in December 2003.

As you can see the poll reflects an opinion based on a very small parameter , mostly reguarding handling of the hurricane and high gas prices..
It also says " this week " ;) It is not representative of what the people think of POLICY . The policy of the US government in most aspects reflects the views and the desires of the people of the United States .
When the government acts , they do so IN THE NAME OF the people of the United States . We elect our representatives to do just that " represent us " Its bullshit to say you hate our government but like the people ...that means you "hate" at least 51 % or more of us at any time . Eighty percent of Americans wanted to kick Iraqs ass when the US declared war . When Europeans decried that action they were in opposition to 80 % of the people of the US ...is it any wonder why we went in WITHOUT the UN ?
If 80 % of your electorate want you to go...YOU GO...you dont wait for France and Germany and the rest .

If 80 % of your electorate want you to go...YOU GO...you dont wait for France and Germany and the rest .
So now that the majority of Americans think this was a mistake, does that mean we should get the hell out then?

The American system doesn't allow citizens to be represented to the same extent as other systems...

Um, America is not a democracy, ...

You are 100% correct. There is yet another issue to this topic.

There are people who hate others. To my mind, they are ignorant or mean-spirited people who base their hatred on cultural differences or historical incidents. Having lived in the USA a very long time, I find that the people here are for the most part kind, decent, and honest. Obviously, there are certain cultural traits that I do not like but, in general, the people are no better and no worse than other peoples.

Um ... wouldn't it be just as valid to say that "there is more to our government than its politics?"
But there isn't.

I suspect, although I cannot prove this statistically, that mass media have far, far less influence over the average voter than you seem to think.
The media have all the influence, since they are the medium of interaction between voters and candidates. Where else do you get information and news about politics?

I suspect, although I cannot prove this statistically, that mass media have far, far less influence over the average voter than you seem to think.

I'm afraid that the politicians disagree with you on that one, and they're the ones who make a living out of getting elected. If the media has very little influence over how the public vote, would you care to explain

1) the demonstrable statistical link in state and federal elections between advertising budgets and winning margins

2) the way good or bad stories breaking in the news can cause swings of several percentile points for or against a candidate in opinion polls?

3) the way political parties go to extreme lengths to try and minimise the damage caused by bad press? (which of course they wouldn't waste time on if the press had no influence on the voting public)

4) a noticable trend among viewers of Fox News (which depending on how you look at it is the only unbiased news source in an otherwise liberal-dominated media environment, or a conservative news source far to the right of the unbiased mainstream) to be more likely to vote Republican than people who get their news elsewhere?

I think the thing is that the American people choose their government based on domestic policy, however the rest of the world tends to form opinions of the american government based on their foreign policy. Both are fair enough to the respective parties as their opinions are based on what matters to them, however it goes some way to explaining that someone can hate the government and not the people as they tend to hate an aspect of the government that the people did not base their choice of government on.

I hear a lot of people, especially from places like Germany and France, say that it's not the "American people" they hate, it's the "American government."

In a democracy ( which is what the American government is, despite all the rhetoric on both sides about it being "a republic." ) the government, in effect, is the people. The people vote for their leaders, petition them when needed, vote to re-elect or eject them, some even work for them to get elected.

So is trying to separate the government of a democracy from the people a valid thing to do? Is it simply an attempt to drive a wedge between the people and their government? Is there really any validity to this sort of statement?
Ummm the Current Government doesn't Represent the people, just a select few people, to the government most of the people can go screw themselves. At least with this Adminstation.

So now that the majority of Americans think this was a mistake, does that mean we should get the hell out then?

Yes as soon as its safe to leave and the job is done you go home .

Ummm the Current Government doesn't Represent the people, just a select few people, to the government most of the people can go screw themselves. At least with this Adminstation.


Since when do you get to invalidate our elections ?

Since when do you get to invalidate our elections ?
Since he founded his own nation...

Since when do you get to invalidate our elections ?
Nice straw man there--now try asking a question that makes sense.

As you can see the poll reflects an opinion based on a very small parameter , mostly reguarding handling of the hurricane and high gas prices..

The initial reaction of the federal government to the plight of the victims of the hurricane was grossly inept if not mean-spirited; the high gas prices seem to be the result of the federal government permitting price gouging by the oil companies. What is very sad, I think, is to see the self-centered nature of the electorate in the USA. If it concerns their own pocket, they are angered. If it concerns the destruction of another country, that doesn't much matter. That is an unfortunate indictment of the US electorate.
You say:
Eighty percent of Americans wanted to kick Iraqs ass when the US declared war .

I would venture that 80% of Americans knew nothing of Iraq before the Bush régime unleashed its propaganda machine against it. It is a tribute to the nations who resisted Bush that they did not swallow his lies. And it is a great shame for those nations in the Coalition of the Unwilling who supported the unprovoked and brutal attack on an ill-armed Iraq. And all Americans, once they discovered the delights of the American Gulag, should hang their heads in shame at what has been done in their name. Bush has forever ended the notion that America stands on the moral high ground.

I tend to agree with this. If we the people elected someone which they the Europeans ( etc. ) don't like, then they need to take it up with US! Osama did take it up with us...didnt He?

Eighty percent of Americans wanted to kick Iraqs ass when the US declared war .


When did the USA declare war on Iraq?

The PEOPLE elected Bush? With that score (yes, even the one in 2004)?
The thing that made the difference was the allegience of Jesusland. I don't think that anyone who says "I don't hate the people" would have any problem backing me when I say this:
I HATE JESUSLAND!

I hear a lot of people, especially from places like Germany and France, say that it's not the "American people" they hate, it's the "American government."

In a democracy ( which is what the American government is, despite all the rhetoric on both sides about it being "a republic." ) the government, in effect, is the people. The people vote for their leaders, petition them when needed, vote to re-elect or eject them, some even work for them to get elected.

So is trying to separate the government of a democracy from the people a valid thing to do? Is it simply an attempt to drive a wedge between the people and their government? Is there really any validity to this sort of statement?

A few points on this one E....

1) The US hasn't been a democracy for some time. What we are is a Capitalist Oligarchy. Only the rich can become political leaders.

2) The government is also, not the people. Generally, we have a choice between two or possibly 3 people that honestly are little different from each other, if truly at all.

Since these are true, it is easy to say I love the people of America, but the governement, I hate.

The PEOPLE elected Bush? With that score (yes, even the one in 2004)?
The thing that made the difference was the allegience of Jesusland. I don't think that anyone who says "I don't hate the people" would have any problem backing me when I say this:
I HATE JESUSLAND!the NeoCon Judges "elected" Bush

You are wrong to hate a religion Group....any religion Group...

the NeoCon Judges "elected" Bush
Thought disputed, I'd tend to agree. Whoever it was (conservative judges, Jesusuland, apathy, the two-party system) it was not the people.
I don't hate them as a relgion, I hate them as a corrupt lobby and a political hijacker. I don't care what they believe in.

1) The US hasn't been a democracy for some time. What we are is a Capitalist Oligarchy. Only the rich can become political leaders.The US has never been a democracy. The electoral college was put in place to prevent such silly things as the people truly being the ones deciding the election, since they were reckoned to be too stupid to make the right choice.

I think that what people are referring to is the fact that the American government is perceived as being wholly money and military orientated- such as the amount one must raise to run for public office in America. To everyone I know, America is seen as living in a bubble, with no sense of depth of the outside world.

Example: when my dad was in America in 1993, Yugoslavia disintegrated into civil war. However, that news story barely featured in American news, behind the death of a baseball player.

What America needs to do is to develop a sense that she is no longer the only superpower in the world, and she needs a government that realises this and acts in line with reality. Bush's whole 'black-and-white' diplomacy is not what America, or the world needs. The American people are seen as being mis-represented in a country whose government is - unfortunately for the people it represents - almost universally hated in many quarters.

Unspecificstan, Laerod... you rule.

To my knowledge, lobbying is illegal anywhere but in the US. That should tell you something.

To my knowledge, lobbying is illegal anywhere but in the US. That should tell you something.

The only thing it tells me is that you are misinformed.

The only thing it tells me is that you are misinformed.
Wher is it legal, then? It's not in my country, it's not in Europe for all I know, etc. I'm not so sure about the Philippines and Puerto Rico.

I hear a lot of people, especially from places like Germany and France, say that it's not the "American people" they hate, it's the "American government."

In a democracy ( which is what the American government is, despite all the rhetoric on both sides about it being "a republic." ) the government, in effect, is the people. The people vote for their leaders, petition them when needed, vote to re-elect or eject them, some even work for them to get elected.

So is trying to separate the government of a democracy from the people a valid thing to do? Is it simply an attempt to drive a wedge between the people and their government? Is there really any validity to this sort of statement?


So, you are saying that 100% of people voted for GW and enthousiastically cheer his every belch?

Were that the case you might have a valid point. However people understand that

1) LEss than what - about 25% of the people actually participated to vote in this administration, and that

2) Even if they did decide that he was the better option that some of that might just be Mr. KErry's piss-poor campaign, while

3) looking at poll numbers for the President at well under 50% indicates that his administration is NOT fullfilling it's mandate according to the people.




A better question might be "why is it hard for YOU to seperate the two?"

I mean, I've seen you claim that you don't agree with all of his policies. Does that not imply that you manage to differentiate your own self from your government?


And you think that this is an extraordinary leap of logic for others to make?


Every person living in a democracy understand that sometimes you are picking between what you perceive to be the lessor of two (or more) evils at the polling booth. And everyone understands that almost no-one finds a political party to support that they agree with on all issues, but that someone has to win the election.


What I am finding hard to understand is why you seem to think that other people don't understand this phenomenon....... because it's pretty frickin' basic really.

Wher is it legal, then? It's not in my country, it's not in Europe for all I know, etc.

It is legal in Europe, but not completely unregulated.

Legal but regulated?

Can you both clarify your statements? (links are are welcomed ;) )

Osama did take it up with us...didnt He?
Yup, thus precipitating an invasion of Afghanistan and another of Iraq.

The PEOPLE elected Bush? With that score (yes, even the one in 2004)?
The thing that made the difference was the allegience of Jesusland. I don't think that anyone who says "I don't hate the people" would have any problem backing me when I say this:
I HATE JESUSLAND!
Care to locate "Jesusland" on the map for me?

The US has never been a democracy. The electoral college was put in place to prevent such silly things as the people truly being the ones deciding the election, since they were reckoned to be too stupid to make the right choice.
You couldn't possibly be more wrong. :(

You couldn't possibly be more wrong. :(Eut, that's why the founding fathers instituted the electoral college, to make sure one of their kind and not some common man got elected. Andrew Jackson is reputedly the first case where it failed it's purpose.

Legal but regulated?

Meaning that there are certain limits upon how lobbying can take place.

Can you both clarify your statements? (links are are welcomed ;) )

A web search for +EU +lobbying would probably do the job for you - I've got to head now.

You couldn't possibly be more wrong. :(

Are you claiming that it is not a constitution based federal republic?

So, you are saying that 100% of people voted for GW and enthousiastically cheer his every belch?

Were that the case you might have a valid point. However people understand that

1) LEss than what - about 25% of the people actually participated to vote in this administration, and that

2) Even if they did decide that he was the better option that some of that might just be Mr. KErry's piss-poor campaign, while

3) looking at poll numbers for the President at well under 50% indicates that his administration is NOT fullfilling it's mandate according to the people.

A better question might be "why is it hard for YOU to seperate the two?"

I mean, I've seen you claim that you don't agree with all of his policies. Does that not imply that you manage to differentiate your own self from your government?

And you think that this is an extraordinary leap of logic for others to make?

Every person living in a democracy understand that sometimes you are picking between what you perceive to be the lessor of two (or more) evils at the polling booth. And everyone understands that almost no-one finds a political party to support that they agree with on all issues, but that someone has to win the election.

What I am finding hard to understand is why you seem to think that other people don't understand this phenomenon....... because it's pretty frickin' basic really.
Why do you rant? I asked several questions to start a discussion on this topic, not a polemic to piss people off. :(

Why do you rant? I asked several questions to start a discussion on this topic, not a polemic to piss people off. :(

All you bastard americans do is piss people off, what did you expect?

:sniper: :sniper: :sniper: :sniper: :sniper:

Eut, that's why the founding fathers instituted the electoral college, to make sure one of their kind and not some common man got elected. Andrew Jackson is reputedly the first case where it failed it's purpose.
No, the Electoral College was instituted to insure there would be no "mob rule" here as happened after the French Revolution. ( and just so you don't try to say I don't know my history, I realize that the French Revolution happened AFTER the American Revolution. I was using it as an example of what can happen if a mob gets into control of a government )

Are you claiming that it is not a constitution based federal republic?
Not at all.

I dont dislike "americans", with a good few million people, any sweeping term like that is always going to be inaccurate.

I dislike the government system, I am not overly fond of the current government (not exactly subtle are they?) And quite a lot of the things about the country I also dislike. (pledge, over religeousness, all the guns)


But I have no doubt that most people who live in america are decent people, just in a bad situation right now and not educated enough about certain things (For the most part, again, not all)

After all, foreign policy isnt the whole thing. (admittedly some of the domestic policy is probably out of whack too).

Shit happens. All governments are a bit shite and the same type of people get in power again and again. So just relax, enjoy what you can and dont worry.

All you bastard americans do is piss people off, what did you expect?

:sniper: :sniper: :sniper: :sniper: :sniper:Bush is clearly Losing the World-wide battle for the "Hearts and Minds" of the peoples.

No, the Electoral College was instituted to insure there would be no "mob rule" here as happened after the French Revolution. ( and just so you don't try to say I don't know my history, I realize that the French Revolution happened AFTER the American Revolution. I was using it as an example of what can happen if a mob gets into control of a government )Which basically means that the founding fathers didn't trust the voting population, doesn't it?

Hey, I'm an American who loves (most of) his fellow citizens and who hates the government. There is a distinct divide between the government and the people, even if we are ostensibly in charge of our own government, and part of the reason for that divide is the fact that individuals aren't in charge of their selections or policies anymore. The fact is that corporations and big businesses exert far more influence over politics than we as voters do. They've got the access and the influence and the control of the media. We (the individual voters) are at war and we're getting our asses kicked.

...as consumers and investors, however, we control those corporations ultimately (without our money they'd shrivel up and die).

hehe

seriously, though, businesses are people too, in many respects... they employ a lot of people, provide investment opportunities for a lot of people, provide products or services for people.

as far as news impact goes, it isn't much: there is, and has always been, a strict division between business and editorial/news functions in a media outlet... IE, the folks in advertising don't mess around in the affairs of the talking heads/editors.

which is probably why the only (still) right-leaning television news medium is Fox News... ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN (et al.) lean left, even though they're all owned by huge corporations/conglomerates who are hurt more by leftist/democrat economic policy than they are business-friendly righties.

owners do not direct content.

Bush is clearly Losing the World-wide battle for the "Hearts and Minds" of the peoples.

Bush is loosing the battle with intellegence and common sense, too, not to mention the rest of facist america

Which basically means that the founding fathers didn't trust the voting population, doesn't it?
Not at all. It means that they didn't want to run the risk of mob rule.

Not at all. It means that they didn't want to run the risk of mob rule.Oh, come on. What would that mob be made of? This clearly shows the mistrust the ruling "elite" had towards the voting population.

All you bastard americans do is piss people off, what did you expect?

:sniper: :sniper: :sniper: :sniper: :sniper:

If you're going to continue on in NS, you're going to need to knock off the trolling. Continuing on with posts like these will get you deleted again, so either you quit it or you won't be here too long.

Not at all. It means that they didn't want to run the risk of mob rule.

Like america isnt under mob rule now, wiht all those neocons and shit.

NUKE EM!!!

I hear a lot of people, especially from places like Germany and France, say that it's not the "American people" they hate, it's the "American government."

In a democracy ( which is what the American government is, despite all the rhetoric on both sides about it being "a republic." ) the government, in effect, is the people. The people vote for their leaders, petition them when needed, vote to re-elect or eject them, some even work for them to get elected.

So is trying to separate the government of a democracy from the people a valid thing to do? Is it simply an attempt to drive a wedge between the people and their government? Is there really any validity to this sort of statement?

Ya but I don't like the government but I like the people. I like the Irish people, I am one, but I don't liekt he Irish government. So get over it! :D

Bush is loosing the battle with intellegence and common sense, too, not to mention the rest of facist america

"facist" america? are you talking about socialist Hollywood?

do you hate business?

just curious

Like america isnt under mob rule now, wiht all those neocons and shit.

NUKE EM!!!

we have the guns, commie, remember that.

If you're going to continue on in NS, you're going to need to knock off the trolling. Continuing on with posts like these will get you deleted again, so either you quit it or you won't be here too long.

Fuck you, Euroslavia!

:upyours: :upyours: :upyours: :upyours: :upyours:

Why do you rant? I asked several questions to start a discussion on this topic, not a polemic to piss people off. :(


You thought that was a rant?

Or is that just a way to avoid answering the basic premise that I tossed back at you, which is

"Do you think of yourself as being equivalent to your government? "


The answer to which, for most people, is a resoundong "Fuck no!"

So wondering why others can differentiate between you and your government seems a pretty dumb thing to do.

Doesn't it?


Especially for a country that supposedly prides itself on trying to live as free from government intrusion on your life as possible, which one should assume means that the government at best might reflect a current trend on a tiny subset of the issues that you face in life, or in how you live and who you are.



But hey - if you think that the face of the bureaucracy of the American Government is a true and complete reflection of your own soul and mind and being, then that's your right.

No, the Electoral College was instituted to insure there would be no "mob rule" here as happened after the French Revolution. ( and just so you don't try to say I don't know my history, I realize that the French Revolution happened AFTER the American Revolution. I was using it as an example of what can happen if a mob gets into control of a government )
You do realize that you just made Laerod's original point, right? That the purpose of the electoral college was to keep the mob (i.e. common people) from ruling and making decisions on national issues.

Yeah,

the US gov't always does things we don't know about or
find out about until decades later.
How accountable is that?


Plus, if you take a look at what % of the population they
get their votes from,
about 1/2 of the eligible voters actually vote,
to win one needs to get about 1/2 of that, so 1/4 of
the eligible voters. If one includes those under 18
even less % of the population. Further yet, there are many
who vote one way or another who do not owe allegiance to
any single party, whose leaders and candidates are chosen
on ability to win via money. So those with the gold make
the rules.
Same as any country/gov't.

The average person is so far removed from decision making
it makes the term democracy as a description for US society
sound quite hollow.

Oh, come on. What would that mob be made of? This clearly shows the mistrust the ruling "elite" had towards the voting population.

...the closest things to "mob rule" that come to mind are lynch mobs in the US and the proletariat in the French Revolution

neither warrants a ringing endorsement of mob rule.

I hear a lot of people, especially from places like Germany and France, say that it's not the "American people" they hate, it's the "American government."

In a democracy ( which is what the American government is, despite all the rhetoric on both sides about it being "a republic." ) the government, in effect, is the people. The people vote for their leaders, petition them when needed, vote to re-elect or eject them, some even work for them to get elected.

So is trying to separate the government of a democracy from the people a valid thing to do? Is it simply an attempt to drive a wedge between the people and their government? Is there really any validity to this sort of statement?
Of course there is, Eut...and shame on you for suggesting that criticising the US government is tantamount to criticising the American people.

Your government is not truly representative...no more than mine is, or France's is, or Germany's is. It's representative of a certain percentage of people...a percentage of a percentage actually...the percentage of people who actually vote, and the percentage among the voters that are represented by the candidate that they've chosen. Even those candidates are not truly representative of their constituents as much as they are of the particular party they belong to.

Looking at the US government does NOT tell you who the American people are. The policies that particular people find problematic do not necessarily reflect the views of the American people...not even half of them, if you take into account the many that don't make their wishes known during elections.

So is it accurate to separate the two? Absofuckinglutely. And I'll continue to do so. I bear no personal animosity towards anyone from the US. And even if I did, I wouldn't spread my dislike so thinly as to cover every other individual US citizen who I haven't met personally. But being indifferent to, or feeling positive toward the few USians I HAVE met does not equal support for your government or its policies. The two are very different issues.

we have the guns, commie, remember that.
Ignore it. It's about to be banned anyway. :)

Yeah,

the US gov't always does things we don't know about or
find out about until decades later.
How accountable is that?


Plus, if you take a look at what % of the population they
get their votes from,
about 1/2 of the eligible voters actually vote,
to win one needs to get about 1/2 of that, so 1/4 of
the eligible voters. If one includes those under 18
even less % of the population. Further yet, there are many
who vote one way or another who do not owe allegiance to
any single party, whose leaders and candidates are chosen
on ability to win via money. So those with the gold make
the rules.
Same as any country/gov't.

The average person is so far removed from decision making
it makes the term democracy as a description for US society
sound quite hollow.

we aren't a democracy

we are a representative republic

Ignor it. It's about to be banned anyway. :)

And then I'll come back! There is no way to be rid of me forever, NO WAY!!!

I never knew facing the trouth was that difficult for you bastard americans.

Of course there is, Eut...and shame on you for suggesting that criticising the US government is tantamount to criticising the American people.

Your government is not truly representative...no more than mine is, or France's is, or Germany's is. It's representative of a certain percentage of people...a percentage of a percentage actually...the percentage of people who actually vote, and the percentage among the voters that are represented by the candidate that they've chosen. Even those candidates are not truly representative of their constituents as much as they are of the particular party they belong to.

Looking at the US government does NOT tell you who the American people are. The policies that particular people find problematic do not necessarily reflect the views of the American people...not even half of them, if you take into account the many that don't make their wishes known during elections.

So is it accurate to separate the two? Absofuckinglutely. And I'll continue to do so. I bear no personal animosity towards anyone from the US. And even if I did, I wouldn't spread my dislike so thinly as to cover every other individual US citizen who I haven't met personally. But being indifferent to, or feeling positive toward the few USians I HAVE met does not equal support for your government or its policies. The two are very different issues.
Hi, Sin. [ waves ]

I'm kewl wid dat. :)

And then I'll come back! There is no way to be rid of me forever, NO WAY!!!

I never knew facing the trouth was that difficult for you bastard americans.
We don't. It's just that YOU wouldn't know the truth if it got in your face and called you names! :D

I hear a lot of people, especially from places like Germany and France, say that it's not the "American people" they hate, it's the "American government."

In a democracy ( which is what the American government is, despite all the rhetoric on both sides about it being "a republic." ) the government, in effect, is the people. The people vote for their leaders, petition them when needed, vote to re-elect or eject them, some even work for them to get elected.

So is trying to separate the government of a democracy from the people a valid thing to do? Is it simply an attempt to drive a wedge between the people and their government? Is there really any validity to this sort of statement?

Even if that were the case, it can't be directed at more than 51% of American voters.....

We don't. It's just that YOU wouldn't know the truth if it got in your face and called you names! :D

I know the truth. You americans have been so indocternated by your police state, that you deny yourselves any semebelence of free though.

HEIL BUSH!!!

Fuck you, Euroslavia!

:upyours: :upyours: :upyours: :upyours: :upyours:


Well that's that, then.


BTW, we've had way, way more memorable trolls being banned for our "top 100 moments" thread.


Bye.

And then I'll come back! There is no way to be rid of me forever, NO WAY!!!The mods actually have the possibility of IP banning people.

I never knew facing the trouth was that difficult for you bastard americans.Hm? Trout? Nah, I'm not scared of trout. :rolleyes:
And my parents were married before I was born, so I'm technically not a bastard.

I know the truth. You americans have been so indocternated by your police state, that you deny yourselves any semebelence of free though.

HEIL BUSH!!!
Poor lil guy. I feel so sorry for you. [ pats you on the head ]

...as consumers and investors, however, we control those corporations ultimately (without our money they'd shrivel up and die).

hehe


Unfortunately, without there products and services a large amount of people would also shrivel up and die, simply because they would not know how to live without them.

The mods actually have the possibility of IP banning people.

Hm? Trout? Nah, I'm not scared of trout. :rolleyes:
And my parents were married before I was born, so I'm technically not a bastard.
ROFLMAO!!! Be careful of dem trouts, man. Dey bees sumfin else! :D

The mods actually have the possibility of IP banning people.

Hm? Trout? Nah, I'm not scared of trout. :rolleyes:
And my parents were married before I was born, so I'm technically not a bastard.

I have ways around IP bans! You american bastard mods are so stupid.

Oh, and you american skum really need to pick at my grammer, just shous how foolish you really are!

I have ways around IP bans! You american bastard mods are so stupid.

Oh, and you american skum really need to pick at my grammer, just shous how foolish you really are!

Jeez man. Not all Americans are of the ignorant 'I voted for W' persuasion.....

Hm? Trout? Nah, I'm not scared of trout.

You can't handle the trout.

Jeez man. Not all Americans are of the ignorant 'I voted for W' type.....

Damn straight they are! they are all bastard children that exist for the expressed purpose of causing the rest of the world death and distruction.

NUKE EM!!!!

I have ways around IP bans! You american bastard mods are so stupid.

Oh, and you american skum really need to pick at my grammer, just shous how foolish you really are!Spelling, not grammar. And I'm not a mod. ;)

You can't handle the trout.Trout is in the eye of the beholder. :p

Damn straight they are! they are all bastard children that exist for the expressed purpose of causing the rest of the world death and distruction.

NUKE EM!!!!

Um......I'm an American.

And I'm misrepresented by the Bush administration.

Trout is in the eye of the beholder. :p

Ah, yes, but beauty is trout, trout beauty.

You can't handle the trout.

What the fuck is a trout?

Some damn american nuke, im sure...

The US has never been a democracy. The electoral college was put in place to prevent such silly things as the people truly being the ones deciding the election, since they were reckoned to be too stupid to make the right choice.

A MAJOR part of my argument I forgot to mention. Thanks!

Trout is in the eye of the beholder. :p :mad: What do you want??

:( I want the Trout...

:mad: You cant handle the Trout !!!

I solemnly swear to speak the trout, the whole trout, and nothing but the trout.

LOL I'm on teh internets!!




..

I have ways around IP bans! You american bastard mods are so stupid.

Oh, and you american skum really need to pick at my grammer, just shous how foolish you really are!
ROFLMAO! Well, let's see ...

grammer, punctuation, spelling, syntax, logic, reason, discussion ... all seem to be way beyond your capabilities. :D

I solemnly swear to speak the trout, the whole trout, and nothing but the trout.
ROFLMFAO!!!! :D

grammer, punctuation, spelling, syntax, logic, reason, discussion ... all seem to be way beyond your capabilities. :D

'grammar'

A MAJOR part of my argument I forgot to mention. Thanks!
Ah! Another Caribel I see! :D

Like america isnt under mob rule now, wiht all those neocons and shit.

NUKE EM!!!

Take 5 days off to realize that everything you post is trolling and that its against the rules to do so. If you want to stay here, I suggest you watch other debates, and learn how to respectfully have a discussion without resorting to bashing Americans in every post of yours.

Caribel II: 5-Day Forum ban for Trolling

'grammar'
Oh yeah. Thanks. :D

Take 5 days off to realize that everything you post is trolling and that its against the rules to do so. If you want to stay here, I suggest you watch other debates, and learn how to respectfully have a discussion without resorting to bashing Americans in every post of yours.

Caribel II: 5-Day Forum ban for Trolling
Far, far too lenient, IMHO. :(

Ah! Another Caribel I see! :D

You shouldn't let him speak for all of those that disagree with the US Gov't.

It's the equivilant of him saying all Americans think like you.

And that's just ignorant......

Far, far too lenient, IMHO. :(


Yeah my thoughts too, especially when compared to a few other bannings that habe happened (not to name anything specific).


Odds are though they they'll ignore the 5 days and come back earlier earning an instant IP ban, so perhaps it's all ok.

Far, far too lenient, IMHO. :(I'd agree, if only because there didn't seem to be anything but insults and that coincidentally was the MO of the original Caribel. I personally doubt that a forum ban will change anything.

I'd agree, if only because there didn't seem to be anything but insults and that coincidentally was the MO of the original Caribel. I personally doubt that a forum ban will change anything.
Which goes a long way toward explaining why some of us are not mods! ;)

we aren't a democracy

we are a representative republic
A republic can be a democracy at the same time, can't it? I translated a couple of words from my dictionary:

republic: a non-monarchy with a head-of-state (usually president) elected for a term. Exceptionally it can have a president elected for lifetime. There were republics similar to today's republics in the ancient Greek and Rome, but they became common in the 18th century.

democracy: a form of government in which the will of the majority has important influence. Democracy requires the right to vote for all adults. Members of parliament are elected in the election, parliament has the right to make laws and collect taxes. (Parliamentary democracy = the parliament elects a government.) Another form of democracy is the one in use in the U.S.A.: the head of state with executive power is elected.

So, at least the USA is SUPPOSED to be a democracy.

A republic can be a democracy at the same time, can't it? I translated a couple of words from my dictionary:

republic: a non-monarchy with a head-of-state (usually president) elected for a term. Exceptionally it can have a president elected for lifetime. There were republics similar to today's republics in the ancient Greek and Rome, but they became common in the 18th century.

democracy: a form of government in which the will of the majority has important influence. Democracy requires the right to vote for all adults. Members of parliament are elected in the election, parliament has the right to make laws and collect taxes. (Parliamentary democracy = the parliament elects a government.) Another form of democracy is the one in use in the U.S.A.: the head of state with executive power is elected.

So, at least the USA is SUPPOSED to be a democracy.Was that an American dictionary? :p
Anyway, at least the adults part is blatantly false. Citizens, maybe, but not adults. And there is no other form of Democracy than direct elections on issues. It's called a republic if it's democratic without being a democracy.

It's called a republic if it's democratic without being a democracy.

Personally I'd say that democracies are subsets of republics.

Was that an American dictionary? :p
Anyway, at least the adults part is blatantly false. Citizens, maybe, but not adults. And there is no other form of Democracy than direct elections on issues. It's called a republic if it's democratic without being a democracy.
I don't think any democracy ever has allowed children to participate in elections...
Over time, the meaning of 'democracy' has changed, and the modern definition has largely evolved since the 18th century, alongside the successive introduction of "democratic" systems in many nations.
The Finnish Wikipedia says democracy originally meant direct democracy in which the thing to decide was directly the target of voting. Since this doesn't work in big lands, the representative democracy is in use. Ever heard of that?

EDIT: It seems that (according to the English Wikipedia) the words "representative democracy" and "republic" are often used as synonymes. So, the entire debate has been unnecessary :)

EDIT2: It's sometimes hard to debate with foreigners; we may mean different things using the same words... :)

Care to locate "Jesusland" on the map for me?
Yes I can, It's called the Southeast US from Texas to North Carolina. Also known as the Bible Belt, Redneck Land, HickVille, NeoCon central. ;) (And for all of those who say I'm being mean because I don't know what it's like, I ****ing LIVE THERE!)

I don't think any democracy ever has allowed children to participate in elections...Never allowed non-citizen adults either. It didn't allow women for a long time either.
The Finnish Wikipedia says democracy originally meant direct democracy in which the thing to decide was directly the target of voting. Since this doesn't work in big lands, the representative democracy is in use. Ever heard of that?Yup. That's exactly why referring to the US as a democracy is false. It's a republic or representative democracy.

I hear a lot of people, especially from places like Germany and France, say that it's not the "American people" they hate, it's the "American government."

In a democracy ( which is what the American government is, despite all the rhetoric on both sides about it being "a republic." ) the government, in effect, is the people. The people vote for their leaders, petition them when needed, vote to re-elect or eject them, some even work for them to get elected.

So is trying to separate the government of a democracy from the people a valid thing to do? Is it simply an attempt to drive a wedge between the people and their government? Is there really any validity to this sort of statement?

The "government" of this particular country is a varied thing. There is local, state, and federal governments. The federal government is primarily responsible for foreign policy, but said policy is directed not only by the administration, but Congress also has some influence, especially in the funding area. Congress need not be controlled by the same political party as the administration, although currently it is.

In any event, both the Congress and president are elected by the people, but no candidate ever gets 100% of the popular vote, so basically the administration will always have a rather vocal opposition. To say that one hates the American government, however, does rather imply that one hates a majority of the American voters, as they're the ones who elected the government. However, a sizable minority of the voters obviously doesn't like our government, either.

I am not my governments foreign policy.Big bussines has more say than the American people.They buy our polititions with campaign contributions and perks.I did not vote for our current administration. I voted for the other guy the lesser of two evils.However Im still responible for the actions of my government.I am ashamed of our foreign policy.

I hear a lot of people, especially from places like Germany and France, say that it's not the "American people" they hate, it's the "American government."

In a democracy ( which is what the American government is, despite all the rhetoric on both sides about it being "a republic." ) the government, in effect, is the people. The people vote for their leaders, petition them when needed, vote to re-elect or eject them, some even work for them to get elected.

So is trying to separate the government of a democracy from the people a valid thing to do? Is it simply an attempt to drive a wedge between the people and their government? Is there really any validity to this sort of statement?
Here's a little rhetoric for you - "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the REPUBLIC for which it stands. One nation indivisible for liberty and justice for all."

I guess somebody else must of believed it was a republic also. In case you haven't looked it up. Yes, there is a significant difference between a direct democracy and a republic and it's germaine to the issue so you'd do well to go ahead and wrap yourself around the fact that the US is a republic and not a democracy.

Republic - 1 a (1) : a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president (2) : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government b (1) : a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law (2) : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government

I am not my governments foreign policy.Big bussines has more say than the American people.They buy our polititions with campaign contributions and perks.I did not vote for our current administration. I voted for the other guy the lesser of two evils.However Im still responible for the actions of my government.I am ashamed of our foreign policy.

You could whip yourself as expiation. ;)

Personally I'd say that democracies are subsets of republics.

Nope. This would require a new definition of democracy and republic. Democracies are direct, republics are not. They are both forms of democratic governments by they are opposite types.

Yes I can, It's called the Southeast US from Texas to North Carolina. Also known as the Bible Belt, Redneck Land, HickVille, NeoCon central. ;) (And for all of those who say I'm being mean because I don't know what it's like, I ****ing LIVE THERE!)
Well, I'm assuming you can see the "North Carolina" beneath my name, yes? :p

Here's a little rhetoric for you - "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the REPUBLIC for which it stands. One nation indivisible for liberty and justice for all."

I guess somebody else must of believed it was a republic also. In case you haven't looked it up. Yes, there is a significant difference between a direct democracy and a republic and it's germaine to the issue so you'd do well to go ahead and wrap yourself around the fact that the US is a republic and not a democracy.

Republic - 1 a (1) : a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president (2) : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government b (1) : a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law (2) : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government

Democracy is a rather broad term as it is used nowadays. Basically it just means that the ordinary citizen has some say as to who governs the country. There are several types of democracies. Republic is one type, Parliamentary government is another, Constitutional monarchy is yet another. I'd call England a democracy, even though they have a queen.

Well, I'm assuming you can see the "North Carolina" beneath my name, yes? :p
Which just proves my point even more.

Which just proves my point even more.
Um ... care to elaborate?

In my travels to the continent ive noticed that most of my fellow temporary expats are liberal and decent people.

I think this helps lead to the perception in some european countries that the american people are on the whole reasonable and decent.

The more conservative a person is, the less he seems to value foreign culture and the less he travels for pleasure. This acts as a sort of screen to present only the best elements of the american pody politic to our friends overseas.

I hear a lot of people, especially from places like Germany and France, say that it's not the "American people" they hate, it's the "American government."

In a democracy ( which is what the American government is, despite all the rhetoric on both sides about it being "a republic." ) the government, in effect, is the people. The people vote for their leaders, petition them when needed, vote to re-elect or eject them, some even work for them to get elected.

So is trying to separate the government of a democracy from the people a valid thing to do? Is it simply an attempt to drive a wedge between the people and their government? Is there really any validity to this sort of statement?
You are on to something that I have been thinking about lately. Everyone forgets that we govern ourselves. The government is all of us. It's the town councils and the state legislatures. There is a federal government, but it's not the sort of monolithic thing that can be characterized as 'the American Government'.

A lot of this is the fault of the media. Reporters keep shaking their fists at 'the government,' as if America were not a republic but a statist autocracy in which remote rulers can snap their fingers and make problems vanish for their subjects. That sends the wrong idea to, not only the rest of the world, but to our more gullible citizens.

I don't know what purpose it serves to separate the citizens from the government, but it has some awful effects. The main effect is to encourage a culture of victimization. America is not a bunch of victims, but what you read in the papers would make it seem so.

Well, I'm assuming you can see the "North Carolina" beneath my name, yes? :p

are you a tar heels fan?

Um ... care to elaborate?
You are very NeoCon at times. Very Neocon. I would say more but you'd run to the moderation forum and make a thread on how I'm opressing you.

Democracy is a rather broad term as it is used nowadays. Basically it just means that the ordinary citizen has some say as to who governs the country. There are several types of democracies. Republic is one type, Parliamentary government is another, Constitutional monarchy is yet another. I'd call England a democracy, even though they have a queen.

England has a queen but she has no rule in the country. And they are not a democracy either. It has democracy in the name but asexual has sexual in the name. The words that lead into the word democracy, like representative democracy, amend the word. Representative democracy does not mean democracy. A democracy is a direct government by the people. Anything else has a different name because it is not the same thing. More specifically, the correct name for our country's political system is a Republic. Eut suggested that calling it this is rhetoric. It's a very important part of the discussion because in a democracy there is no seperation between the government and the people, whereas in the US there very clearly is several levels of seperation. It is an distinct and wonderful part of our system because without this seperation slavery would still be legal and, if not, seperate but equal and laws against interracial marriage certainly would be.

You are very NeoCon at times. Very Neocon. I would say more but you'd run to the moderation forum and make a thread on how I'm opressing you.

Interesting. Uh, what's a "Neocon?" :confused:

In my travels to the continent ive noticed that most of my fellow temporary expats are liberal and decent people.

I think this helps lead to the perception in some european countries that the american people are on the whole reasonable and decent.

The more conservative a person is, the less he seems to value foreign culture and the less he travels for pleasure. This acts as a sort of screen to present only the best elements of the american pody politic to our friends overseas.

do you have statistics to back that up?

See, since most rich people in the US are (at least fiscally) conservative... I would think that the most travel among USians would be done by conservatives... not by number of people travelling, necessarily, but by number of total international trips made.

my grandpa bob, for instance, has been to something like 90 countries. now that grandpa is retired, he and grandma make probably at least 3-4 international trips per year (he's been retired maybe 10 years now).

I'm conservative (fiscally, anyway) and i've been to Europe twice (5 countries) and Mexico/Canada a slew of times (Mex and Can don't really count though... would be like a German bragging about going to Austria).

The more conservative a person is, the less he seems to value foreign culture and the less he travels for pleasure. This acts as a sort of screen to present only the best elements of the american pody politic to our friends overseas.
That's a whopper of a generalization. I suspect that a conservative person is less likely to take up a permanent residence abroad unless it is to avoid paying the awful share of taxes that we force upon the wealthy. I also suspect that the more conservative a person is, the less he values foreign input into our policy-making. But I don't see the link between conservatism and a lower opinion of foreign culture or travel. I, for one conservative, have enjoyed every minute of my vacation and business travel abroad. Especially in Italy and Spain.

England has a queen but she has no rule in the country. And they are not a democracy either. It has democracy in the name but asexual has sexual in the name. The words that lead into the word democracy, like representative democracy, amend the word. Representative democracy does not mean democracy. A democracy is a direct government by the people. Anything else has a different name because it is not the same thing. More specifically, the correct name for our country's political system is a Republic. Eut suggested that calling it this is rhetoric. It's a very important part of the discussion because in a democracy there is no seperation between the government and the people, whereas in the US there very clearly is several levels of seperation. It is an distinct and wonderful part of our system because without this seperation slavery would still be legal and, if not, seperate but equal and laws against interracial marriage certainly would be.

Well, we can always consult the dictionary, I guess:

de·moc·ra·cy ( P ) Pronunciation Key (d-mkr-s)
n. pl. de·moc·ra·cies
Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.
A political or social unit that has such a government.
The common people, considered as the primary source of political power.
Majority rule.
The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community.

We ARE a Republic! This isn't a true democracy, we don't vote for every governmental decesion, do we? We vote the person to make those decesions! If you are republican in a Democratic part in your state and you write or petition to your Representative about a stance he might make on a issue and your letter doesn't swing his vote you LIVE in a Republic.

do you have statistics to back that up?

See, since most rich people in the US are (at least fiscally) conservative... I would think that the most travel among USians would be done by conservatives... not by number of people travelling, necessarily, but by number of total international trips made.

my grandpa bob, for instance, has been to something like 90 countries.

I'm conservative (fiscally, anyway) and i've been to Europe twice (5 countries) and Mexico/Canada a slew of times (Mex and Can don't really count though... would be like a German bragging about going to Austria).

I think most travel for the sake of travel is probably among the rich, but most travel for educational purposes is done, obviously, by students. Students particularly students that study abroad seem to lean liberal.

Nope. This would require a new definition of democracy and republic. Democracies are direct, republics are not. They are both forms of democratic governments by they are opposite types.
No, not AT ALL.
There is nothing to say that a republic is democratic in its definition, even less to indicate thatit's indirect democracy.
The meaning of republic is sharing the power within a certain circle - that can be very restrictive (as in the Venitian Republic or the Roman one), just as is can be very inclusive. As such, it has a mening that has in itself no connection to democracy, be it direct or indirect.
"Democratic Republic" (although the title has been ill-used in countries behind the Iron Curtain) is NEITHER an oxymoron NOR a tautology.

Explaing even further: Republic is something to Monarchy, not to Democracy. Just as well, Democracy is not necessarily opposed to Monarchy (as it is not in Denmark, Belgium, the UK, Sweden, and on and on).

Amended slightly:

The US is a republic of states

The PEOPLE elected Bush? With that score (yes, even the one in 2004)?
The thing that made the difference was the allegience of Jesusland. I don't think that anyone who says "I don't hate the people" would have any problem backing me when I say this:
I HATE JESUSLAND!

Well,if we´re going that way...

Lemme pop in some satanic music and we can rock out \m/

"Kiss the Cross...SODOMY AND LUST!" \m/ :eek: \m/

On a serious note: As scary and wrong as the above statement may seem; in a way,he´s right.The religious fanatics,who have a considerate number, and other idiotic sheep bought into Bush´s "I´m so christian" propaganda and were probably what got Bush the popular vote in 2004.After all,who doesn´t like a holy war?
I´m well aware that there are many Christians who saw through the bullshit propaganda and didn´t vote Bush.Those I salute for their brave discernment between church and state.You people rock.

amended further:

The US is a representative republic of states

(the representative part conveys the influence of democratic principles)

You are all coconuts!

Well,if we´re going that way...

Lemme pop in some satanic music and we can rock out \m/

"Kiss the Cross...SODOMY AND LUST!" \m/ :eek: \m/

On a serious note: As scary and wrong as the above statement may seem; in a way,he´s right.The religious fanatics,who have a considerate number, and other idiotic sheep bought into Bush´s "I´m so christian" propaganda and were probably what got Bush the popular vote in 2004.After all,who doesn´t like a holy war?
I´m well aware that there are many Christians who saw through the bullshit propaganda and didn´t vote Bush.Those I salute for their brave discernment between church and state.You people rock.

what got Bush his second term (imo):

a)Iraq -- Bush was seen as the one who would stay and get the job done... Kerry as the one who would pull out before finishing the job, hence leaving Iraq a mess.

b)Taxes/Economy -- Kerry was seen the more socialist in terms of taxes... the vast majority of Americans still don't like to be taxed, and will favor lower taxes over higher.

c)Overall security -- Bush was seen as the one who would go after terrorism more aggressively.

Well, we can always consult the dictionary, I guess:

de·moc·ra·cy ( P ) Pronunciation Key (d-mkr-s)
n. pl. de·moc·ra·cies
Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.
A political or social unit that has such a government.
The common people, considered as the primary source of political power.
Majority rule.
The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community.

Fine, I'll give you that the meaning has, in fact, evolved to mean this. However, that doesn't change the fact that the US is a Republic even if you argue that a republic is a type of democracy. Also, I believe the US violates even the term representative democracy because we require a two thirds approval to amend the US Constitution and because an unelected group (the Supreme Court) interprets the Constitution.

Here's some more information about the distinction.

http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/AmericanIdeal/aspects/demrep.html

Democracy - A Democracy

The chief characteristic and distinguishing feature of a Democracy is: Rule by Omnipotent Majority. In a Democracy, The Individual, and any group of Individuals composing any Minority, have no protection against the unlimited power of The Majority. It is a case of Majority-over-Man.

This is true whether it be a Direct Democracy, or a Representative Democracy. In the direct type, applicable only to a small number of people as in the little city-states of ancient Greece, or in a New England town-meeting, all of the electorate assemble to debate and decide all government questions, and all decisions are reached by a majority vote (of at least half-plus-one). Decisions of The Majority in a New England town-meeting are, of course, subject to the Constitutions of the State and of the United States which protect The Individual’s rights; so, in this case, The Majority is not omnipotent and such a town-meeting is, therefore, not an example of a true Direct Democracy. Under a Representative Democracy like Britain’s parliamentary form of government, the people elect representatives to the national legislature--the elective body there being the House of Commons--and it functions by a similar vote of at least half-plus-one in making all legislative decisions.

Republic - A Republic, on the other hand, has a very different purpose and an entirely different form, or system, of government. Its purpose is to control The Majority strictly, as well as all others among the people, primarily to protect The Individual’s God-given, unalienable rights and therefore for the protection of the rights of The Minority, of all minorities, and the liberties of people in general. The definition of a Republic is: a constitutionally limited government of the representative type, created by a written Constitution--adopted by the people and changeable (from its original meaning) by them only by its amendment--with its powers divided between three separate Branches: Executive, Legislative and Judicial. Here the term "the people" means, of course, the electorate.

Well,if we´re going that way...

Lemme pop in some satanic music and we can rock out \m/

"Kiss the Cross...SODOMY AND LUST!" \m/ :eek: \m/

On a serious note: As scary and wrong as the above statement may seem; in a way,he´s right.The religious fanatics,who have a considerate number, and other idiotic sheep bought into Bush´s "I´m so christian" propaganda and were probably what got Bush the popular vote in 2004.After all,who doesn´t like a holy war?
I´m well aware that there are many Christians who saw through the bullshit propaganda and didn´t vote Bush.Those I salute for their brave discernment between church and state.You people rock.
Let me stress this: I don't hate Jesus, I don't hate Christianity, and I do not think that all Christians think (or, indeed, as you said it: vote) the same.
It is precisely about the state-church issue, and many Christians have learned that this is not targeteted at them, it is targeted at making the state work for a particular community - representing it primarily. I find it elloquent that it is no longer an issue in other societies.

I also believe in God, but I don't elect Him president.

I used "Jesusland" as the notion to make reference to the places in America where people cannot abandon the need to intervene in the political structures because they pretend it's God's Will. I believe it is a notion that was used by Democrat voters in America, before it was used by me.

Yeah,I know those were the issues that got a lot of americans to vote for Bush.Thing is,I´m ripping into people here who´ll vote for some dude just because their priest/TV preacher/cult leader(of all people) tells them to. Voting without thought is one of the worst things you can do to your country and fellow citizens and there is quite a number of people in America who do exactly that.Well,not just in America,in the whole world at that.

edit: @Argesia: Ah well,I didn´t think your wording was entirely serious anyways,but you raised a good point and I decided to expand on it in a serious fashion.I guess that also meant belittling your post a little beforehand. Wasn´t personal :)

Nope. This would require a new definition of democracy and republic. Democracies are direct, republics are not.

It all depends on the exact definitions of the pair that you care to use. We could both evoke equally valid authorities to back up our positions here, but that would just be needless semantic bickering with little real advantage to be gained.

Yeah,I know those were the issues that got a lot of americans to vote for Bush.Thing is,I´m ripping into people here who´ll vote for some dude just because their priest/TV preacher/cult leader(of all people) tells them to. Voting without thought is one of the worst things you can do to your country and fellow citizens and there is quite a number of people in America who do exactly that.Well,not just in America,in the whole world at that.
I totally agree. I was just making sure I wouldn't be misinterpreted.

It all depends on the exact definitions of the pair that you care to use. We could both evoke equally valid authorities to back up our positions here, but that would just be needless semantic bickering with little real advantage to be gained.
To end the semantic bickering: read post 151, please.

I hear a lot of people, especially from places like Germany and France, say that it's not the "American people" they hate, it's the "American government."

In a democracy ( which is what the American government is, despite all the rhetoric on both sides about it being "a republic." ) the government, in effect, is the people. The people vote for their leaders, petition them when needed, vote to re-elect or eject them, some even work for them to get elected.

So is trying to separate the government of a democracy from the people a valid thing to do? Is it simply an attempt to drive a wedge between the people and their government? Is there really any validity to this sort of statement?

If it was a DIRECT democracy, no it wouldn't be valid. But I hope you're not going to insist that the US is anything like a direct democracy.

What we have is a so-called "representative" democracy. In which our representatives try, and usually fail, to 'represent' the people. They don't try to BE the people, and in fact can't. So yeah, you can hate the government but love the people, much as you could hate Bill Clinton yet love America. Or did you love Clinton? ;)

Kudos :)

edit: Damn...That was to Argesia :D

we aren't a democracy

we are a representative republic



that doesn't mean gov't secrets are legit.





there's also the idea of: what if we wanted to evolve
into a democracy? Would the powers that be work
to prevent that?

It all depends on the exact definitions of the pair that you care to use. We could both evoke equally valid authorities to back up our positions here, but that would just be needless semantic bickering with little real advantage to be gained.

The point is that you may consider a Republic to be a subset of democracies but democracies can not be a subset of republics, which is what you said. I know of no definition of either term that makes your statement possibly correct.

No, not AT ALL.
There is nothing to say that a republic is democratic in its definition, even less to indicate thatit's indirect democracy.
The meaning of republic is sharing the power within a certain circle - that can be very restrictive (as in the Venitian Republic or the Roman one), just as is can be very inclusive. As such, it has a mening that has in itself no connection to democracy, be it direct or indirect.
"Democratic Republic" (although the title has been ill-used in countries behind the Iron Curtain) is NEITHER an oxymoron NOR a tautology.

Explaing even further: Republic is something to Monarchy, not to Democracy. Just as well, Democracy is not necessarily opposed to Monarchy (as it is not in Denmark, Belgium, the UK, Sweden, and on and on).

Nevermind, I reread your post and don't disagree with it.

The point is that you may consider a Republic to be a subset of democracies but democracies can not be a subset of republics, which is what you said. I know of no definition of either term that makes your statement possibly correct.

Would I be right in thinking that according to your definition Plato's Republic was not actually a republic?

Would I be right in thinking that according to your definition Plato's Republic was not actually a republic?

No, I would call that a book. Actually, I haven't read it, but my understanding of the book was that he is talking a lot about the nature of man and such. I didn't know that he describes a republican style of government. Could you elaborate?

Also, I stand corrected, neither could be a subset of the other.

No, I would call that a book.

That would be Plato's The Republic.


Actually, I haven't read it, but my understanding of the book was that he is talking a lot about the nature of man and such. I didn't know that he describes a republican style of government. Could you elaborate?

I'm fairly surprised at the fact you aren't familiar with it: it is pretty much the foundation of all political thought for the past two thousand plus years.

Anyhow, moving on to the germane parts... he describes a state which is divided into three classes - the philosopher-kings who rule/guide the state, the guardians who are effectively the armed forces and the producers/merchants/consumers who make up the rest of the population. The philosopher-kings are selected at birth by other philosopher-kings and are educated specifically for their role. The other two groups in society consent to rule by the philosopher-kings for various reasons but do not have a say in the decisions that the philosopher-kings make or who should be selected as a philosopher king.

Well then, if you want to put it that way, I only hate the American government and the people who voted for Bush, since 50% votes for the other guy and there is a very large % that don't vote at all, I can easily say I like most Americans.

That would be Plato's The Republic.




I'm fairly surprised at the fact you aren't familiar with it: it is pretty much the foundation of all political thought for the past two thousand plus years.

Anyhow, moving on to the germane parts... he describes a state which is divided into three classes - the philosopher-kings who rule/guide the state, the guardians who are effectively the armed forces and the producers/merchants/consumers who make up the rest of the population. The philosopher-kings are selected at birth by other philosopher-kings and are educated specifically for their role. The other two groups in society consent to rule by the philosopher-kings for various reasons but do not have a say in the decisions that the philosopher-kings make or who should be selected as a philosopher king.

I am familiar with the text of the book to degree. I know that he talked about the nature of man and how goverment can circumvent that nature and many other aspects that were actually used to create what is now a republic, but I didn't know he actually described an actual system.

I would not call that a republic. I would say that is a monarchy or oligarchy (depending on the number of philosopher-kings).

Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq





Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;

Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;

Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

Whereas in 1998 Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in "material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations" and urged the President "to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations" (Public Law 105-235);

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolutions of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens;

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001 underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688, and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949;

Whereas Congress in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) has authorized the President "to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677";

Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1)," that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and "constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region," and that Congress, "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688";

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to "work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge" posed by Iraq and to "work for the necessary resolutions," while also making clear that "the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable";

Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001 or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and

Whereas it is in the national security of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region;

Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SEC. 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the "Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq".

SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS

The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--

(a) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions applicable to Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and

(b) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to


(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION.

In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon there after as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq, and

(2) acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

(c) WAR POWERS RESOLUTION REQUIREMENTS. --


(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION. -- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS. -- Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS

(a) The President shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 2 and the status of planning for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are completed, including those actions described in section 7 of Public Law 105-338 (the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998).

(b) To the extent that the submission of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission of any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to the reporting requirements of Public Law 93-148 (the War Powers Resolution), all such reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the Congress.

(c) To the extent that the information required by section 3 of Public Law 102-1 is included in the report required by this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the requirements of section 3 of Public Law 102-1.

###



The people have spoken . Do you want a used dictator ? Only beaten twice and well kept in jail since being found in a hole . Get him before he's hung by the now free people of Iraq .

The people have spoken . Do you want a used dictator ? Only beaten twice and well kept in jail since being found in a hole . Get him before he's hung .

Am I to assume that this was in response to me asking when the US declared war on Iraq? If so it still hasn't answered the question.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES...etc.

didnt you read it ?

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES...etc.

didnt you read it ?

Authorizatin for use of the US armed forces is not a declaration of war.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES...etc.

didnt you read it ?

Yup. Did you?

The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--

(a) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions applicable to Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and

(b) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions.

It is an authorisation by Congress for the use of force, not a declaration of war. The last time the US declared war was in 1942.

Yep its an authorization to depose your leader , destroy your military , and occupy your country by force . they are saving the declaration of war for countrys that REALLY piss us off .

I have read every word countless times .

Call it what you will it was used for war ergo sum it is a declaration of war .
The semantics are a moot point . Wanna used dictator ?

they are saving the declaration of war for countrys that REALLY piss us off .

So, basically, you are admitting that the US didn't declare war on Iraq and that your earlier statement was in error then?

Eighty percent of Americans wanted to kick Iraqs ass when the US declared war .

Call it what you will it was used for war ergo sum it is a declaration of war .
The semantics are a moot point .

No it isn't. If there was no difference then the two would not exist as separate mechanisms within the US.

Yup. It is an authorisation by Congress for the use of force, not a declaration of war. The last time the US declared war was in 1942.

Well, not according to international law. According to the Hague Conventions on war (which USA is a signatory member) they did in fact declare war on Iraq and other wars in the past as well. The rules according to international law are basically.

1) You attack a country (check)

2) You give an ultimatum (check)

3) You declare war (disputed)

The USA do fall into 2 of the 3 categories that qualify as declaring war. So, yes, they did in fact declare war.

What the USA Congress has to say is quite irrelevant outside of USA boarders.

Well, not according to international law. According to the Hague Conventions on war (which USA is a signatory member) they did in fact declare war on Iraq and other wars in the past as well. The rules according to international law are basically.

1) You attack a country (check)

2) You give an ultimatum (check)

3) You declare war (disputed)

The USA do fall into 2 of the 3 categories that qualify as declaring war. So, yes, they did in fact declare war.

What the USA Congress has to say is quite irrelevant outside of USA boarders.

Do the Hague Conventions actuall stipulate that 2/3 is good enough?

Do the Hague Conventions actuall stipulate that 2/3 is good enough?

Actually only one is needed.

Do the Hague Conventions actuall stipulate that 2/3 is good enough?From Stephistan's wording I take it they stipulate that 1/3 is good enough.

From Stephistan's wording I take it they stipulate that 1/3 is good enough.

Yup any of the three used is indeed considered an act of war.

Heh. So any nation that gives an ultimatum is at war? Interesting... that's kind of like saying anyone who threatens another person is guilty of assault and battery with a deadly weapon.

Well, not according to international law. According to the Hague Conventions on war (which USA is a signatory member) they did in fact declare war on Iraq and other wars in the past as well. The rules according to international law are basically.


1) You attack a country (check)

2) You give an ultimatum (check)

3) You declare war (disputed)

The USA do fall into 2 of the 3 categories that qualify as declaring war. So, yes, they did in fact declare war.

Hang on here: according to your model it is possible to simultaneously both have declared war, and not have declared war.

x = -x?

I am familiar with the text of the book to degree. I know that he talked about the nature of man and how goverment can circumvent that nature and many other aspects that were actually used to create what is now a republic, but I didn't know he actually described an actual system.

I would not call that a republic. I would say that is a monarchy or oligarchy (depending on the number of philosopher-kings).
The name "Republic" for the book is imposed by a later, medieval tradition (it couldn't work in Greek, as for local reasons they had the same notion for "democracy" and "republic", and it is a fact that the system described by Plato was anything but a democracy - because of its ideals, because of its references to democracy - I have read it, by the way- and because Plato thought democracy is what killed Socrates).
I do agree with you, but I want to point out that the ideal state is described by Plato himself as Spartan-inspired "Timocracy" (I, for one, think Plato's ideas on this issue were horribly ill-inspired).

The war powers act .
SECTION 1. This joint resolution may be cited as the "War Powers Resolution".

PURPOSE AND POLICY

SEC. 2. (a) It is the purpose of this joint resolution to fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States and insure that the collective judgement of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicate by the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities or in such situations.
(b) Under article I, section 8, of the Constitution, it is specifically provided that the Congress shall have the power to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution, not only its own powers but also all other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

(c) The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

pertinent to

(c) WAR POWERS RESOLUTION REQUIREMENTS. --


(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION. -- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS. -- Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution

The war powers resolution from 1973 was put in place to defend against " wars " being fought by the President without congress . And to protect against " undeclared " wars being fought by american Presidents . See Vietnam for an example .

Yup any of the three used is indeed considered an act of war.

An act of war is a separate thing from a declaration of war.

Heh. So any nation that gives an ultimatum is at war?

No, but in saying that Saddam and his cronies had 48 hours to leave Iraq or the USA would attack and then followed through is in fact a declaration of intention/war. It's all in the Hague Conventions.

The name "Republic" for the book is imposed by a later, medieval tradition ...

Indeed, but the 'misused' term has become entrenched in political discourse.

Heh. So any nation that gives an ultimatum is at war? Interesting... that's kind of like saying anyone who threatens another person is guilty of assault and battery with a deadly weapon.

How about any country that bombs your citys blows your airforce out of the sky. Destroys your army and navy . Chases your leader into a hole in the ground and captures him. And then occupies your country and changes the government ? I think thats a safe definition of war .
Who cares if " use of force " was declared ? Kinda stupid is it not ..." let me go you didnt say war before you destroyed me , its not fair " cheater !
Whats the point ? Because they didnt say war its a do - over ? :D

Indeed, but the 'misused' term has become entrenched in political discourse.
I never heard of anyone actually using Plato's as a synonim of "republic". In fact, I hear people making sure that we do not believe it has anything to to with a republic.
So no, the name is not used as such.

So if hating the democratically elected government of a country translates to hating the people of a country, does that mean that right wingers of America hate the French, Spanish, Venuzalians (Right term?) and any others where a left of centre government is in power?

And they say that they aren't racist. Ho hum.

Well, not according to international law. According to the Hague Conventions on war (which USA is a signatory member) they did in fact declare war on Iraq and other wars in the past as well. The rules according to international law are basically.

1) You attack a country (check)

2) You give an ultimatum (check)

3) You declare war (disputed)

The USA do fall into 2 of the 3 categories that qualify as declaring war. So, yes, they did in fact declare war.

What the USA Congress has to say is quite irrelevant outside of USA boarders.

Acts of war and declarations of war are not the same. Those categories you listed are the definitions of acts of war. Unless you think declaring war is actually listed as one of the qualities of declaring war.

Your rhetoric astounds me :headbang:

No, but in saying that Saddam and his cronies had 48 hours to leave Iraq or the USA would attack and then followed through is in fact a declaration of intention/war. It's all in the Hague Conventions.

Could you actually post the applicable language here? I'd like to see where it says specifically what you claim.

Venuzalians (Right term?)
I think it's Venezuelians.

How about any country that bombs your citys blows your airforce out of the sky. Destroys your army and navy . Chases your leader into a hole in the ground and captures him. And then occupies your country and changes the government ? I think thats a safe definition of war .
Who cares if " use of force " was declared ? Kinda stupid is it not ..." let me go you didnt say war before you destroyed me , its not fair " cheater !
Whats the point ? Because they didnt say war its a do - over ? :D

Well, people seem to have objected to when Japan bombed Pearl Harbor before the declaration of war got in. And used this objection when justifying Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Nations, particularly ones as powerful as the US, shouldn't have to resort to sucker-punches to achieve victory. Or emulating the supposedly evil old Japanese Empire of old. I mean what's next, we storm through a nation and call it something like "Blitzkrieg" or "Shock and Awe?" ;)

They declared " use of force " its not the same as " war " right ? So whats the point ?

Acts of war and declarations of war are not the same. Those categories you listed are the definitions of acts of war. Unless you think declaring war is actually listed as one of the qualities of declaring war.

No, when Bush gave Saddam an ultimatum, or the threat of attack, it then became a declaration of war. The act of war is only valid if the threat is carried out. The declaration was most certainly made. Bush in fact declared war by saying Iraq would be attacked if Saddam did not follow the ultimatum. That girls and boys is in fact a declaration according to the Hague Conventions.

Don't take my word for it, go look it up. ;)

Well, people seem to have objected to when Japan bombed Pearl Harbor before the declaration of war got in. And used this objection when justifying Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Nations, particularly ones as powerful as the US, shouldn't have to resort to sucker-punches to achieve victory. Or emulating the supposedly evil old Japanese Empire of old. I mean what's next, we storm through a nation and call it something like "Blitzkrieg" or "Shock and Awe?" ;)

so waiting a year while you build up forces in front of the country to be attacked at the same time warning them that you will be attacking them and THEN giving them 48 hours to get out of dodge ....is a sucker punch ? :D :D :D

Nice argument ...you must be on the debate team..captain right ? :eek:

Well, people seem to have objected to when Japan bombed Pearl Harbor before the declaration of war got in. And used this objection when justifying Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Nations, particularly ones as powerful as the US, shouldn't have to resort to sucker-punches to achieve victory. Or emulating the supposedly evil old Japanese Empire of old. I mean what's next, we storm through a nation and call it something like "Blitzkrieg" or "Shock and Awe?" ;)Not that I enjoy doing this, but I have to point out that Saddam got an ultimatum from the US while the US didn't get one from Japan.

No, when Bush gave Saddam an ultimatum, or the threat of attack, it then became a declaration of war. The act of war is only valid if the threat is carried out. The declaration was most certainly made. Bush in fact declared war by saying Iraq would be attacked if Saddam did not follow the ultimatum. That girls and boys is in fact a declaration according to the Hague Conventions.

Don't take my word for it, go look it up. ;)

I won't take your word for it or look it up. If I look it up and find it not to be in there what do I do, make everyone else here read it to prove it's not in there. You can't support a negative. If I say the Bible uses the word helicoptors because it was so accurate in its prophesies, how are you going to show in this thread that it doesn't without posting the whole bible? It is for you to support your assertions or expect them to be ignored.

I say the Hague convention says that it is a declaration of war if you call the president of a nation names. You don't believe me? Prove me wrong or it stands. :rolleyes:

so waiting a year while you build up forces in front of the country to be attacked at the same time warning them that you will be attacking them and THEN giving them 48 hours to get out of dodge ....is a sucker punch ? :D :D :D

Nice argument ...you must be on the debate team..captain right ? :eek:

Politically it's a sucker punch. Nations aren't people, thats why they have things like "diplomats" to deliver little messages and such.

As for the debate team, I could give a shit. Really. Look, I can make smirky little emoticons too. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Not that I enjoy doing this, but I have to point out that Saddam got an ultimatum from the US while the US didn't get one from Japan.

Oh, so it's a completely different situation then. ;) Since an ultimatum is in fact a declaration of war. Oh no wait it isn't!

Hague convention info..

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/0/3c8e4f41c9ec904fc12563cd00422d7f?OpenDocument
http://www.lib.byu.edu/~rdh/wwi/hague.html

ARTICLE 2. -- APPLICATION OF THE CONVENTION


[p.27] Neither the Tenth Hague Convention of 1907 nor the Geneva Conventions of 1929 defined the conditions for their application. Their very titles and purpose made it clear that they were intended for use in war-time and that notion Heeded no defining. The Hague Convention relative to the Opening of Hostilities provided that "hostilities... must not commence without previous and explicit warning, in the form either of a declaration of war giving the reasons on which it is based or of an ultimatum with conditional declaration of war" (1). Since 1907, Parties to a conflict have in many instances contested the legitimacy of the Government of the adverse Party on various pretexts, or have refused to recognize the existence of a state of war. Now, the Geneva Conventions are not so much contracts concluded on a basis of reciprocity in the interest of the parties as a solemn affirmation of principles respected for their own sake, a series of unconditional commitments on the part of each of the Contracting Parties ' vis-à-vis ' the others.
Furthermore, as we shall see later, the application of the Hague Conventions was still subject to the lausula si omnes. If one of the belligerents was not a Contracting Party, the other belligerents were relieved from all their obligations.
Lastly, the Geneva Conventions have today achieved a much greater degree of universality than the 1907 Conventions.
For all these reasons, since the provisions applicable to maritime warfare have been embodied in the "Geneva law", their application is now more extensive (2).

PARAGRAPH 1. -- ARMED CONFLICTS INVOLVING
THE APPLICATION OF THE CONVENTION

By its general character, this paragraph deprives belligerents, in advance, of the pretexts they might in theory put forward for [p.28] evading their obligations. There is no need for a formal declaration of war, or for recognition of the existence of a state of war, as preliminaries to the application of the Convention. The occurrence of de facto hostilities is sufficient.
It remains to ascertain what is meant by "armed conflict". The substitution of this much more general expression for the word "war" was deliberate. It is possible to argue almost endlessly about the legal definition of "war". A State which uses arms to commit a hostile act against another State can always maintain that it is Hot making war, but merely engaging in a police action, or acting in legitimate self-defence. The expression "armed conflict" makes such arguments less easy. Any difference arising between two States and leading to the intervention of members of the armed forces is an armed conflict within the meaning of Article 2 , even if one of the Parties denies the existence of a state of war. It makes no difference how long the conflict lasts, or how much slaughter takes place. The respect due to the human person as such is not measured by the number of victims. Nor, incidentally, does the application of the Convention necessarily involve the intervention of cumbrous machinery. It all depends on circumstances. If there is only a single shipwrecked person as a result of the conflict, the Convention will have been applied as soon as he has been collected and tended, the provisions of Article 12 observed in his case, and his identity notified to the Power on which he depends. All that can be done by anyone; it is merely a case of taking the trouble to save a human life.




In no means is it a "sucker punch" by any reasonable definition of the words...politicaly or otherwise .

I hear a lot of people, especially from places like Germany and France, say that it's not the "American people" they hate, it's the "American government."

In a democracy ( which is what the American government is, despite all the rhetoric on both sides about it being "a republic." ) the government, in effect, is the people. The people vote for their leaders, petition them when needed, vote to re-elect or eject them, some even work for them to get elected.

So is trying to separate the government of a democracy from the people a valid thing to do? Is it simply an attempt to drive a wedge between the people and their government? Is there really any validity to this sort of statement?

Personally, I don't think that the US Government is particularly representative of the people with no proportional representation and a winner takes all executive. (Like us in the UK!) But if America's happy with it I've no problem since I don't exactly have a say on US constitutional affairs. (Not meant to be an attack on the Constitution, just Presidential and FPTP systems in general, so don't bite my head off! ;) )

However, it is quite a valid point. I've never been to the USA but I know plenty who have and (on reliable authority) tell me that Americans are polite, helpful and welcoming people, much more so than people back in Britain.

Come to think of it, I dislike the democratically elected Blair regime, but I like my bellow Britons and their tea drinking habits (Just kidding, we're all Lager Louts really!). If I dislike my own government but like my fellow countrymen, why can't I dislike the US government (along with many others) and like the good people, like most Americans are.

It's unfair to base an opinion of a nation - or a person based on politicians or their politics. People have personalities, too.

I guess the argument over government " of the people for the people by the people " is a good one . I guess you have to go back to the term UNITED STATES to understand how our government was supposed to work . Then argue over federalism vs States rights . It should be a good one ..its been going on now for over two hundred years .

I hear a lot of people, especially from places like Germany and France, say that it's not the "American people" they hate, it's the "American government."

In a democracy ( which is what the American government is, despite all the rhetoric on both sides about it being "a republic." ) the government, in effect, is the people. The people vote for their leaders, petition them when needed, vote to re-elect or eject them, some even work for them to get elected.

So is trying to separate the government of a democracy from the people a valid thing to do? Is it simply an attempt to drive a wedge between the people and their government? Is there really any validity to this sort of statement?

You make a fairly good point, but...

The fact is, American people do not choose their leaders. They have a choice between two people - two people who, furthermore, often agree on far more points than they disagree on. The American system, with one-round elections and two ultimately similar parties, is set up so there can never be any truly significant change, and the American people, whetever their political beliefs may be, always have very little choice.

Still, I suppose you're right in the sense that most Americans seem to have internalised the idea that politics is only Democrats v. Republicans. And obviously the electing of a President does reflect the opinions of the people to some degree.

Oh, and I don't "hate" anything. Hate is irrational. Rational thought never produces hatred. ;)

Thats funny all these years I have been voting and working on campaigns to get my candidates elected and I had NO IDEA WHATSOEVER that I did not choose the guy when he got elected . Being in America all my life I guess there must be another way of actually choosing the guy you get elected besides actually VOTING for him . Thank you very much for pointing it out .

Thats funny all these years I have been voting and working on campaigns to get my candidates elected and I had NO IDEA WHATSOEVER that I did not choose the guy when he got elected . Being in America all my life I guess there must be another way of actually choosing the guy you get elected besides actually VOTING for him . Thank you very much for pointing it out .

Thank you so much for pointing out the blindingly obvious. I was aware of that, and you know very well what I mean. At least, I hope so. But I'll clarify anyway.

In most Western democratic systems that I'm aware of, voters have a fairly limited choice in the end (and no, I can't think of a viable system that would amend this), but this is particularly true in the US, due to it being a one-round election and (partially as a consequence) a two-party system. Even though you select your candidates to some degree, my point stands.

I made that point to reply to Eutrusca's question, not (primarily) to criticise, so your remark ("I guess there must be another way of actually choosing the guy you get elected besides actually VOTING for him") is utterly beside the point. Worse, it suggests you've read the exact opposite of what I actually wrote.

Interesting. Uh, what's a "Neocon?" :confused:
Neo Conservative. They are afraid of change or anything that goes against their god. The Anti Gay marriage people, the Anti abortion protesters, the people who made their children get arrested by making them try and feed Terri. The ones who won't care what the government does as long as it keeps the 'values' the way they want it to be. "Gods will, and all that."

Thank you so much for pointing out the blindingly obvious. I was aware of that, and you know very well what I mean. At least, I hope so. But I'll clarify anyway.

In most Western democratic systems that I'm aware of, voters have a fairly limited choice in the end (and no, I can't think of a viable system that would amend this), but this is particularly true in the US, due to it being a one-round election and (partially as a consequence) a two-party system. Even though you select your candidates to some degree, my point stands.

I made that point to reply to Eutrusca's question, not (primarily) to criticise, so your remark ("I guess there must be another way of actually choosing the guy you get elected besides actually VOTING for him") is utterly beside the point. Worse, it suggests you've read the exact opposite of what I actually wrote.


I read every word . You discounted the primary system thats used to weed out potential candidates and the creation of the party platform that the final candidate of the party is supposed to represent . you discounted the campaign and the local and state level politics that contribute to the government of THE UNITED STATES . And you said " we do not choose our choose our leaders " The fact is, American people do not choose their leaders. now you tell me how else was I supposed to take it ?
Especially since I am an American and I have chosen my leaders ...you know the guys I voted for ?? help me out here ..what did I miss ?

http://www.gop.com/media/2004platform.pdf
http://www.democrats.org/pdfs/2004platform.pdf
http://www.lp.org/issues/platform_all.shtml

The series of U.S. presidential primaries is one of the first steps in the process of electing a President of the United States. The primary elections provide a method for U.S. political parties to nominate and unite behind one popularly chosen candidate for the Presidency.




[edit]
History
In most democracies, top-tier nominees are chosen by a relatively small number of political party leaders and activists. In the United States, however, citizens in many states may participate in a caucuses of candidate supporters or larger primary elections to select a national nominee. This has not always been the case, however; until the latter half of the 20th century, nominees were indeed chosen by a nominating convention of mostly party leaders. Direct primaries were first introduced at the local and state level as part of the Progressive Era reforms of the early 20th century

Here's a list of choices we had for president..just from the democratic side ..
Carol Moseley Braun
Former U.S. Senator, Ill.
http://www.moseley-braun.org/


Wesley Clark
Retired General
http://www.clark04.com/

Howard Dean
Former Vt. governor
http://www.deanforamerica.com/

John Edwards
U.S. Senator, N.C.
http://www.johnedwards2004.com/

Richard Gephardt
U.S. House, Mo.
http://www.dickgephardt2004.com/

Bob Graham
U.S. Senator, FL.
http://www.grahamforpresident.com

John Kerry
U.S. Senator, Mass.
http://www.johnkerry.com/site/PageServer

Dennis Kucinich
U.S. House, Ohio
http://www.kucinich.us/

Joe Lieberman
U.S. Senator, Conn.
http://www.joe2004.com/index.jsp

Rev. Al Sharpton
Civil rights leader
http://www.sharptonexplore2004.com/

A link that compares Howard Dean and Dennis Kucinich
http://www.bobharris.com/kucinichdean.html

All declared Democratic Presidential Candidates from: http://www.vote-smart.org/



They all ran for office that was the choices we had for Democrats alone !
You have not a clue do you ?

I dont dislike "americans", with a good few million people, any sweeping term like that is always going to be inaccurate.

I dislike the government system, I am not overly fond of the current government (not exactly subtle are they?) And quite a lot of the things about the country I also dislike. (pledge, over religeousness, all the guns)


But I have no doubt that most people who live in america are decent people, just in a bad situation right now and not educated enough about certain things (For the most part, again, not all)

After all, foreign policy isnt the whole thing. (admittedly some of the domestic policy is probably out of whack too).

Shit happens. All governments are a bit shite and the same type of people get in power again and again. So just relax, enjoy what you can and dont worry.
Wow, it took a new poster to say anything worthwhile about the topic on-hand. If I come right out and say I hate the French or Canadians, I'm a bigotted douchebag according to the same people who'd say the same about Americans. Well, what's good for the goose is just as fitting for the gander.

Besides, the majority of human beings are wankers and dickwads, whatever country you're in. Being a genuinely good human being has been (and probably always will be) a rarer trait than being an asshole, whatever nationality you are. Captain Obvious to the rescue!

Hague convention info..

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/0/3c8e4f41c9ec904fc12563cd00422d7f?OpenDocument
http://www.lib.byu.edu/~rdh/wwi/hague.html




In no means is it a "sucker punch" by any reasonable definition of the words...politicaly or otherwise .

This is not addressed to you, B&G, just based on your post.

By no means, does any of that language suggest that an ultimatum or any act of war amounts to a declaration of war. As they point on in the text there is much debate as to what amounts to war and such, so they left the necessity to define such an act out of the convention and only required the existence of armed conflict. In other words, the Hague Convention does not support your statements, there, Steph.

So is trying to separate the government of a democracy from the people a valid thing to do? Is it simply an attempt to drive a wedge between the people and their government? Is there really any validity to this sort of statement?
Yep.. Althought the people choose the man they dont choose his actions. I know my anut is VERY republican.. voted for bush, she regrets it now (disagrees on the "no child left behind" and i think she also didnt like the war). Anyways.. Its the people who gave the gov. workers their job, its the political people who screwed it up.

I read every word . You discounted the primary system thats used to weed out potential candidates and the creation of the party platform that the final candidate of the party is supposed to represent . you discounted the campaign and the local and state level politics that contribute to the government of THE UNITED STATES . And you said " we do not choose our choose our leaders " now you tell me how else was I supposed to take it ?
Especially since I am an American and I have chosen my leaders ...you know the guys I voted for ?? help me out here ..what did I miss ?

http://www.gop.com/media/2004platform.pdf
http://www.democrats.org/pdfs/2004platform.pdf
http://www.lp.org/issues/platform_all.shtml



Here's a list of choices we had for president..just from the democratic side ..

They all ran for office that was the choices we had for Democrats alone !
You have not a clue do you ?

Yes, that's a gigantic level of choice, a bunch of rich people. I wonder how many rich people we had to choose from on the other side. And, of course, you're aware of the system in place to prevent it from extending into a three party system, yes? The system they made democrats and republicans further entrenched after Ross Perot made them all look like idiots.

The current system is in place and stays in place because otherwise all these rich people couldn't get you to only vote for the lesser of the evils. In a different system, they'd actually have to put up a candidate that represents the people. Do you know what a large percentage of people selected as their reason for voting for Kerry for the democratic candidate? They thought he could beat Bush. Not, I really like his policies or his stance on this or that, but he might get that Bush fella out of office. What kind of sad, flubbed up system is that?

That situation, that system, created an election that was Bush and not Bush (Bush light). Those were the choices. Do you honestly think that John F. Kerry (rich, white guy whose father was a federal politician) and George W. Bush (another rich, white guy whose father was also a federal politician) were the best possible candidates for the highest office in the land in a country of 400 million people? That's a sad statement about Americans if that's true.

I read every word . You discounted the primary system thats used to weed out potential candidates and the creation of the party platform that the final candidate of the party is supposed to represent . you discounted the campaign and the local and state level politics that contribute to the government of THE UNITED STATES . And you said " we do not choose our choose our leaders " now you tell me how else was I supposed to take it ?
Especially since I am an American and I have chosen my leaders ...you know the guys I voted for ?? help me out here ..what did I miss ?

http://www.gop.com/media/2004platform.pdf
http://www.democrats.org/pdfs/2004platform.pdf
http://www.lp.org/issues/platform_all.shtml



Here's a list of choices we had for president..just from the democratic side ..

They all ran for office that was the choices we had for Democrats alone !
You have not a clue do you ?


So you think that because there are primaries of rich men that can afford to through away money at the local, then state, then federal levels that it's fair?

And then you want to say that each candidate get's a fair shake, before or after the primaries?

I didn't see Ralph Nader at the Bush vs. Kerry debates. Hell, I bet they didn't invite him (I'm not a Nader supporter, just trying to make a point).

Gee voting works great, I can see why we've a rich white man as president since the beginning of the country. No need to re-vamp that system.

So you've chosen your leaders. What was the applicant pool? How many people did you directly grill on the issue to see who spoke to exactly what you were looking for? Or did you just say, "Well, Bush is the rich, white guy close enough to what I want...I support him."

There are several hundred people that would like to president every 4 years. It only seems you focus on about 10 from the primary, then 2 for the final show down.

Neo Conservative. They are afraid of change or anything that goes against their god. The Anti Gay marriage people, the Anti abortion protesters, the people who made their children get arrested by making them try and feed Terri. The ones who won't care what the government does as long as it keeps the 'values' the way they want it to be. "Gods will, and all that."


You're completely mistaken, actually.

Neocons are the war-in-iraq crowd, the Project for a New American Century. Some of their luminaries are Bill Kristol, Paul Wolfowitz, &al.

What you're referring to are traditional bible-belt conservatives.

I read every word . You discounted the primary system thats used to weed out potential candidates and the creation of the party platform that the final candidate of the party is supposed to represent . you discounted the campaign and the local and state level politics that contribute to the government of THE UNITED STATES . And you said " we do not choose our choose our leaders " now you tell me how else was I supposed to take it ?
Especially since I am an American and I have chosen my leaders ...you know the guys I voted for ?? help me out here ..what did I miss ?

Here's a list of choices we had for president..just from the democratic side ..

They all ran for office that was the choices we had for Democrats alone !
You have not a clue do you ?


Yes, I have. I was perfectly aware of that. But you're not paying attention to what I'm saying.

Balipo and Jocabia have already answered exactly what I mean, but here goes anyway. Your choice is made within a very restricted field. For example, every US President but one has been a (rich) WASP male, and unless I'm very much mistaken, the vast majority of candidates within each of the two main parties are also rich WASP males.

More importantly, perhaps, is the fact that you have a two-party system, with a one-round election designed to tell you that there is no other choice. The whole thing is set up to perpetuate the same over and over, offering you a severally restricted choice as to the outcome of any election and the policies of any American government. Which is true of most democratic systems to some degree, but particularly true in the US.

I'm not saying you had no choice at all, but that your choice was extremely restricted.

So you think that because there are primaries of rich men that can afford to through away money at the local, then state, then federal levels that it's fair?

And then you want to say that each candidate get's a fair shake, before or after the primaries?

I didn't see Ralph Nader at the Bush vs. Kerry debates. Hell, I bet they didn't invite him (I'm not a Nader supporter, just trying to make a point).

Gee voting works great, I can see why we've a rich white man as president since the beginning of the country. No need to re-vamp that system.

So you've chosen your leaders. What was the applicant pool? How many people did you directly grill on the issue to see who spoke to exactly what you were looking for? Or did you just say, "Well, Bush is the rich, white guy close enough to what I want...I support him."

There are several hundred people that would like to president every 4 years. It only seems you focus on about 10 from the primary, then 2 for the final show down.

your argument really makes sense . Even " poor" people wouldnt vote for a " poor" candidate because if he had any talent or enough ability to lead HE WOULDNT BE FRIGGIN POOR ! WTF kind of argument is that ?

Well Duh you only get to choose from a pool of successfull , intelligent , leaders with a track record that can be followed ! You never get any poor dumb bastards with no experiance at government who have not had success yet in their lives ! YOU HAVE BEEN DEPRIVED OF A POTENTIAL MESSIA ! Your system sucks !

Muuuuuhahahaahahahahahahahahaahha !
not enough choices !!!!

Bwaaaaaaahahahahahahahahahahahaaa .

You didnt vote for NADER !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


No shit ....He's a friggin LOON !
Everyone knows about him...WE LIVE HERE ...he's been around since the CORVAIR for cripes sake ........


NADER

Bwaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahahahahahahaa !


I am so deprived..

NADER !!!

Lets just draft by our candidates by lottery !

Bwaaaaaahahahahahahahaahhahahaha ...
My sides hurt .

I'm very much mistaken, the vast majority of candidates within each of the two main parties are also rich WASP males.


You are very much mistaken .

This is not addressed to you, B&G, just based on your post.

By no means, does any of that language suggest that an ultimatum or any act of war amounts to a declaration of war. As they point on in the text there is much debate as to what amounts to war and such, so they left the necessity to define such an act out of the convention and only required the existence of armed conflict. In other words, the Hague Convention does not support your statements, there, Steph.

I disaggree it says so here . Or it explains and points to the relevant passage in the convention here .

PARAGRAPH 1. -- ARMED CONFLICTS INVOLVING
THE APPLICATION OF THE CONVENTION

By its general character, this paragraph deprives belligerents, in advance, of the pretexts they might in theory put forward for [p.28] evading their obligations. There is no need for a formal declaration of war, or for recognition of the existence of a state of war, as preliminaries to the application of the Convention. The occurrence of de facto hostilities is sufficient.
It remains to ascertain what is meant by "armed conflict". The substitution of this much more general expression for the word "war" was deliberate. It is possible to argue almost endlessly about the legal definition of "war". A State which uses arms to commit a hostile act against another State can always maintain that it is Hot making war, but merely engaging in a police action, or acting in legitimate self-defence. The expression "armed conflict" makes such arguments less easy. Any difference arising between two States and leading to the intervention of members of the armed forces is an armed conflict within the meaning of Article 2 , even if one of the Parties denies the existence of a state of war. It makes no difference how long the conflict lasts, or how much slaughter takes place. The respect due to the human person as such is not measured by the number of victims. Nor, incidentally, does the application of the Convention necessarily involve the intervention of cumbrous machinery. It all depends on circumstances. If there is only a single shipwrecked person as a result of the conflict, the Convention will have been applied as soon as he has been collected and tended, the provisions of Article 12 observed in his case, and his identity notified to the Power on which he depends. All that can be done by anyone; it is merely a case of taking the trouble to save a human life.
[/quote]

And this helps meet the criteria even more .


THE PRESIDENT: My fellow citizens, events in Iraq have now reached the final days of decision. For more than a decade, the United States and other nations have pursued patient and honorable efforts to disarm the Iraqi regime without war. That regime pledged to reveal and destroy all its weapons of mass destruction as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War in 1991.

Since then, the world has engaged in 12 years of diplomacy. We have passed more than a dozen resolutions in the United Nations Security Council. We have sent hundreds of weapons inspectors to oversee the disarmament of Iraq. Our good faith has not been returned.

The Iraqi regime has used diplomacy as a ploy to gain time and advantage. It has uniformly defied Security Council resolutions demanding full disarmament. Over the years, U.N. weapon inspectors have been threatened by Iraqi officials, electronically bugged, and systematically deceived. Peaceful efforts to disarm the Iraqi regime have failed again and again -- because we are not dealing with peaceful men.

Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised. This regime has already used weapons of mass destruction against Iraq's neighbors and against Iraq's people.

The regime has a history of reckless aggression in the Middle East. It has a deep hatred of America and our friends. And it has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al Qaeda.

The danger is clear: using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons, obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country, or any other.

The United States and other nations did nothing to deserve or invite this threat. But we will do everything to defeat it. Instead of drifting along toward tragedy, we will set a course toward safety. Before the day of horror can come, before it is too late to act, this danger will be removed.

The United States of America has the sovereign authority to use force in assuring its own national security. That duty falls to me, as Commander-in-Chief, by the oath I have sworn, by the oath I will keep.

Recognizing the threat to our country, the United States Congress voted overwhelmingly last year to support the use of force against Iraq. America tried to work with the United Nations to address this threat because we wanted to resolve the issue peacefully. We believe in the mission of the United Nations. One reason the U.N. was founded after the second world war was to confront aggressive dictators, actively and early, before they can attack the innocent and destroy the peace.

In the case of Iraq, the Security Council did act, in the early 1990s. Under Resolutions 678 and 687 -- both still in effect -- the United States and our allies are authorized to use force in ridding Iraq of weapons of mass destruction. This is not a question of authority, it is a question of will.

Last September, I went to the U.N. General Assembly and urged the nations of the world to unite and bring an end to this danger. On November 8th, the Security Council unanimously passed Resolution 1441, finding Iraq in material breach of its obligations, and vowing serious consequences if Iraq did not fully and immediately disarm.

Today, no nation can possibly claim that Iraq has disarmed. And it will not disarm so long as Saddam Hussein holds power. For the last four-and-a-half months, the United States and our allies have worked within the Security Council to enforce that Council's long-standing demands. Yet, some permanent members of the Security Council have publicly announced they will veto any resolution that compels the disarmament of Iraq. These governments share our assessment of the danger, but not our resolve to meet it. Many nations, however, do have the resolve and fortitude to act against this threat to peace, and a broad coalition is now gathering to enforce the just demands of the world. The United Nations Security Council has not lived up to its responsibilities, so we will rise to ours.

In recent days, some governments in the Middle East have been doing their part. They have delivered public and private messages urging the dictator to leave Iraq, so that disarmament can proceed peacefully. He has thus far refused. All the decades of deceit and cruelty have now reached an end. Saddam Hussein and his sons must leave Iraq within 48 hours. Their refusal to do so will result in military conflict, commenced at a time of our choosing. For their own safety, all foreign nationals -- including journalists and inspectors -- should leave Iraq immediately.

Many Iraqis can hear me tonight in a translated radio broadcast, and I have a message for them. If we must begin a military campaign, it will be directed against the lawless men who rule your country and not against you. As our coalition takes away their power, we will deliver the food and medicine you need. We will tear down the apparatus of terror and we will help you to build a new Iraq that is prosperous and free. In a free Iraq, there will be no more wars of aggression against your neighbors, no more poison factories, no more executions of dissidents, no more torture chambers and rape rooms. The tyrant will soon be gone. The day of your liberation is near.

It is too late for Saddam Hussein to remain in power. It is not too late for the Iraqi military to act with honor and protect your country by permitting the peaceful entry of coalition forces to eliminate weapons of mass destruction. Our forces will give Iraqi military units clear instructions on actions they can take to avoid being attacked and destroyed. I urge every member of the Iraqi military and intelligence services, if war comes, do not fight for a dying regime that is not worth your own life.

And all Iraqi military and civilian personnel should listen carefully to this warning. In any conflict, your fate will depend on your action. Do not destroy oil wells, a source of wealth that belongs to the Iraqi people. Do not obey any command to use weapons of mass destruction against anyone, including the Iraqi people. War crimes will be prosecuted. War criminals will be punished. And it will be no defense to say, "I was just following orders."

Should Saddam Hussein choose confrontation, the American people can know that every measure has been taken to avoid war, and every measure will be taken to win it. Americans understand the costs of conflict because we have paid them in the past. War has no certainty, except the certainty of sacrifice.

Yet, the only way to reduce the harm and duration of war is to apply the full force and might of our military, and we are prepared to do so. If Saddam Hussein attempts to cling to power, he will remain a deadly foe until the end. In desperation, he and terrorists groups might try to conduct terrorist operations against the American people and our friends. These attacks are not inevitable. They are, however, possible. And this very fact underscores the reason we cannot live under the threat of blackmail. The terrorist threat to America and the world will be diminished the moment that Saddam Hussein is disarmed.

Our government is on heightened watch against these dangers. Just as we are preparing to ensure victory in Iraq, we are taking further actions to protect our homeland. In recent days, American authorities have expelled from the country certain individuals with ties to Iraqi intelligence services. Among other measures, I have directed additional security of our airports, and increased Coast Guard patrols of major seaports. The Department of Homeland Security is working closely with the nation's governors to increase armed security at critical facilities across America.

Should enemies strike our country, they would be attempting to shift our attention with panic and weaken our morale with fear. In this, they would fail. No act of theirs can alter the course or shake the resolve of this country. We are a peaceful people -- yet we're not a fragile people, and we will not be intimidated by thugs and killers. If our enemies dare to strike us, they and all who have aided them, will face fearful consequences.

We are now acting because the risks of inaction would be far greater. In one year, or five years, the power of Iraq to inflict harm on all free nations would be multiplied many times over. With these capabilities, Saddam Hussein and his terrorist allies could choose the moment of deadly conflict when they are strongest. We choose to meet that threat now, where it arises, before it can appear suddenly in our skies and cities.

The cause of peace requires all free nations to recognize new and undeniable realities. In the 20th century, some chose to appease murderous dictators, whose threats were allowed to grow into genocide and global war. In this century, when evil men plot chemical, biological and nuclear terror, a policy of appeasement could bring destruction of a kind never before seen on this earth.

Terrorists and terror states do not reveal these threats with fair notice, in formal declarations -- and responding to such enemies only after they have struck first is not self-defense, it is suicide. The security of the world requires disarming Saddam Hussein now.

As we enforce the just demands of the world, we will also honor the deepest commitments of our country. Unlike Saddam Hussein, we believe the Iraqi people are deserving and capable of human liberty. And when the dictator has departed, they can set an example to all the Middle East of a vital and peaceful and self-governing nation.

The United States, with other countries, will work to advance liberty and peace in that region. Our goal will not be achieved overnight, but it can come over time. The power and appeal of human liberty is felt in every life and every land. And the greatest power of freedom is to overcome hatred and violence, and turn the creative gifts of men and women to the pursuits of peace.

That is the future we choose. Free nations have a duty to defend our people by uniting against the violent. And tonight, as we have done before, America and our allies accept that responsibility.

Good night, and may God continue to bless America.

END 8:15 P.M. EST

your argument really makes sense . Even " poor" people wouldnt vote for a " poor" candidate because if he had any talent or enough ability to lead HE WOULDNT BE FRIGGIN POOR ! WTF kind of argument is that ?An interesting point I'd like to add is that Bush has proven time and time again that he can't handle companies on his own. Perhaps the only reason he is rich is because of his family. This is just to refute the "talent" arguement.

your argument really makes sense . Even " poor" people wouldnt vote for a " poor" candidate because if he had any talent or enough ability to lead HE WOULDNT BE FRIGGIN POOR ! WTF kind of argument is that ?

Well Duh you only get to choose from a pool of successfull , intelligent , leaders with a track record that can be followed ! You never get any poor dumb bastards with no experiance at government who have not had success yet in their lives ! YOU HAVE BEEN DEPRIVED OF A POTENTIAL MESSIA ! Your system sucks !

Muuuuuhahahaahahahahahahahahaahha !
not enough choices !!!!

Bwaaaaaaahahahahahahahahahahahaaa .

You didnt vote for NADER !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


No shit ....He's a friggin LOON !
Everyone knows about him...WE LIVE HERE ...he's been around since the CORVAIR for cripes sake ........


NADER

Bwaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahahahahahahaa !


I am so deprived..

NADER !!!

Lets just draft by our candidates by lottery !

Bwaaaaaahahahahahahahaahhahahaha ...
My sides hurt .



You are very much mistaken .

Wow, interesting how all poor people are 'dumb bastards'. You've just revealed why you're happy with current system. The current system makes it highly unlikely that you'll ever have a real shot at the presidency if you are born poor, female, with brown skin, with any relatives with brown skin, to other than a Christian family, gay, etc. I'm sure I missed a few of the other oh-so-important issues that disqualify you from the presidency.

You never get any poor dumb bastards with no experiance at government who have not had success yet in their lives !

Please show me where I said all poor people are dumb ? What part of my point did you not understand ?

Unless you want to say .." you need some
smart poor guy with no experiance at government " to run your country. Or any other variation of poor person . Whats the friggin difference ..being poor is not a qualifier for success PERIOD .

Wow, interesting how all poor people are 'dumb bastards'. You've just revealed why you're happy with current system. The current system makes it highly unlikely that you'll ever have a real shot at the presidency if you are born poor, female, with brown skin, with any relatives with brown skin, to other than a Christian family, gay, etc. I'm sure I missed a few of the other oh-so-important issues that disqualify you from the presidency.
The quality of perpetual butt-kissing? I'm a white Christian male and probably won't be President anytime soon...

I disaggree it says so here . Or it explains and points to the relevant passage in the convention here .

PARAGRAPH 1. -- ARMED CONFLICTS INVOLVING
THE APPLICATION OF THE CONVENTION

By its general character, this paragraph deprives belligerents, in advance, of the pretexts they might in theory put forward for [p.28] evading their obligations. There is no need for a formal declaration of war, or for recognition of the existence of a state of war, as preliminaries to the application of the Convention. The occurrence of de facto hostilities is sufficient.
It remains to ascertain what is meant by "armed conflict". The substitution of this much more general expression for the word "war" was deliberate. It is possible to argue almost endlessly about the legal definition of "war". A State which uses arms to commit a hostile act against another State can always maintain that it is Hot making war, but merely engaging in a police action, or acting in legitimate self-defence. The expression "armed conflict" makes such arguments less easy. Any difference arising between two States and leading to the intervention of members of the armed forces is an armed conflict within the meaning of Article 2 , even if one of the Parties denies the existence of a state of war. It makes no difference how long the conflict lasts, or how much slaughter takes place. The respect due to the human person as such is not measured by the number of victims. Nor, incidentally, does the application of the Convention necessarily involve the intervention of cumbrous machinery. It all depends on circumstances. If there is only a single shipwrecked person as a result of the conflict, the Convention will have been applied as soon as he has been collected and tended, the provisions of Article 12 observed in his case, and his identity notified to the Power on which he depends. All that can be done by anyone; it is merely a case of taking the trouble to save a human life.


And this helps meet the criteria even more .[/QUOTE]

First, the quote part of the convention says specifically that it does not want to get into defining war so they just "armed conflicts" so as not to enter into the arguments about the meaning of war. How are you missing that?

Second, does the President of the United States have the power to declare war according to the document that created the position? Hmmm? Nope. He does not. So unless you can show me a declaration of war according to the US or you can show a definition of 'declaration of war' according to the Hague Convention, then you've not made your point. All you've shown is that the Hague Convention applies to Iraq because it falls under 'armed conflicts' according to the documentation of the Hague Convention.

Care to show where declaration of war is defined as a statement by the president regarding war or the authorization from Congress to use force? It's certainly not defined that way in either the Hague Convention or the US Constitution.

You better run and tell Hillary Clinton and Obama , Liberman and all the rest to not waste their time .

You are very much mistaken .

Proof, please?

So you're telling me that you always have a wide choice, including significant numbers of people from poor, non-White and/or non-Christian background and/or male, and that you systematically go for a rich WASP male? What do you think that says about the people who make that kind of decision?

[QUOTE=Bottle]Um, America is not a democracy, and you really need to get used to that simple fact because you insult the efforts of the Founding Fathers every time you claim otherwise...they put so much time and energy into making sure America would never be a pure democracy*, and now you go and spit on their efforts. Saying that "America is not a democracy" = "rhetoric" is pointless, like telling us it's "rhetoric" for somebody to insist that Chicago does not rest within a tropical climate zone. You simply are misusing terms, and it really impacts this topic.

And this helps meet the criteria even more .

First, the quote part of the convention says specifically that it does not want to get into defining war so they just "armed conflicts" so as not to enter into the arguments about the meaning of war. How are you missing that?

Second, does the President of the United States have the power to declare war according to the document that created the position? Hmmm? Nope. He does not. So unless you can show me a declaration of war according to the US or you can show a definition of 'declaration of war' according to the Hague Convention, then you've not made your point. All you've shown is that the Hague Convention applies to Iraq because it falls under 'armed conflicts' according to the documentation of the Hague Convention.

Care to show where declaration of war is defined as a statement by the president regarding war or the authorization from Congress to use force? It's certainly not defined that way in either the Hague Convention or the US Constitution.[/QUOTE]

By its general character, this paragraph deprives belligerents, in advance, of the pretexts they might in theory put forward for [p.28] evading their obligations. There is no need for a formal declaration of war, or for recognition of the existence of a state of war, as preliminaries to the application of the Convention. The occurrence of de facto hostilities is sufficient

Whats this say ?

It is possible to argue almost endlessly about the legal definition of "war". A State which uses arms to commit a hostile act against another State can always maintain that it is Hot making war, but merely engaging in a police action, or acting in legitimate self-defence. The expression "armed conflict" makes such arguments less easy.

And this...

I truly do not understand what your point is .

The congress gave the President the right to use " all neccessary force "

No exclusions PERIOD . It did not say all force except WAR . NO RESTRICTIONS..ALL NECCESSARY FORCE..means just that .
Since that ULTIMATUM to Saddam and IRAQ came as a direct result of the Congressional resolution its very pertinant.

ALL NECCESSARY FORCE . He could have sent two guys in a beer truck to demand Saddams surrender ..or he could have sent a diplomat with a straw and spitballs if he wanted to . He was given all options at his command ! INCLUDING WAR OR WHATEVER FORCE HE CHOSE TO USE !

Proof, please?

So you're telling me that you always have a wide choice, including significant numbers of people from poor, non-White and/or non-Christian background and/or male, and that you systematically go for a rich WASP male? What do you think that says about the people who make that kind of decision?

You figure it out .

I posted the list of Dems ..it shouldnt be too hard for you to figure out who's a women or other minority .

Carol Moseley Braun
Former U.S. Senator, Ill.
http://www.moseley-braun.org/


Wesley Clark
Retired General
http://www.clark04.com/

Howard Dean
Former Vt. governor
http://www.deanforamerica.com/

John Edwards
U.S. Senator, N.C.
http://www.johnedwards2004.com/

Richard Gephardt
U.S. House, Mo.
http://www.dickgephardt2004.com/

Bob Graham
U.S. Senator, FL.
http://www.grahamforpresident.com

John Kerry
U.S. Senator, Mass.
http://www.johnkerry.com/site/PageServer

Dennis Kucinich
U.S. House, Ohio
http://www.kucinich.us/

Joe Lieberman
U.S. Senator, Conn.
http://www.joe2004.com/index.jsp

Rev. Al Sharpton
Civil rights leader
http://www.sharptonexplore2004.com/

A link that compares Howard Dean and Dennis Kucinich
http://www.bobharris.com/kucinichdean.html

All declared Democratic Presidential Candidates from: http://www.vote-smart.org/

Please show me where I said all poor people are dumb ? What part of my point did you not understand ?

Unless you want to say .." you need some
smart poor guy with no experiance at government " to run your country. Or any other variation of poor person . Whats the friggin difference ..being poor is not a qualifier for success PERIOD .

Hmmm... let's see if we can give you a course in how you suggested that you think all poor people are dumb. Examine:

" poor" candidate because if he had any talent or enough ability to lead HE WOULDNT BE FRIGGIN POOR
First you state that people with talent or ability cannot be poor. Thus all poor people have no talent or ability. This, of course, does not account for the handicapped, victims of circumstance, etc., but hey, you never claimed to be reasonable when it comes to poor people.
Duh you only get to choose from a pool of successfull , intelligent , leaders
Then above you suggest that you don't get to choose from poor people because they are not successful nor intelligent. To further support your beliefs you write
You never get any poor dumb bastards with no experiance at government who have not had success yet in their lives
We said all candidates are rich so you point out that we are not permitted to voter for poor dumb bastards with no experience at government, suggesting (since we only mention economic status) that all poor are dumb bastards with no experience at government. Otherwise, if the phrase was meant to limit it to only those poor who are, in fact, dumb bastards with no experience in government, it would mean you didn't address the point as you have not explained why we don't get to vote for the poor, intelligent, non-bastards. Your prejudice is obvious.

Is being rich a qualifier for success? Isn't it equally possible that you were born the son of a senator and married a really rich woman whose family owns a corporate empire or the son of a future President and head of the CIA and failed at every corporate venture you ever cared to try? Nope. Never had any candidates like that. We did? The last election? Really? Well, maybe we could go back to the election before that one. Maybe that one was better. What did Al Gore's parents do? Certainly his father wasn't a US congressman. He was? That must just be a coincidence. :rolleyes:

I want a poor person to run my country because a poor person best represents what I want my country to be !

I really did not realise how much I am missing by not having any POOR people to vote for .

I do not want someone who is a proven success . I want someone who is not a success and is in fact poor. Who has never been able to rise above his circumstances . I want the poor guy to run things . Screw all these successfull proven people . I want a poor guy . he has experiance at being poor . I want no part of success I want poor ! .

YOU vote or lament not having poor people to LEAD you . I appluad you . we should all follow the poor . Let them lead us by example . WTF wants to be rich or a success ! Its highly over rated !

All poor people are not dumb stupid or smart. They are POOR ! I dont want to follow a POOR leader !

Whats this say ?

It says that it doesn't matter if an armed conflict is a declared war or not because it applies to all armed conflicts. Kind of supports my point. Please quote more. Oh, wait, you did.

And this...

That one says that they don't want to argue about the definition of war so they are just going to refer to all armed conflicts as falling under the Hague Convention. Looks like you're actually trying to prove my point. Are you?

Are you having trouble understanding the language, because I can paraphrase it for you. Their meaning is obvious, and much like our friend said in The Princess Bride, I do not think this means what you think it means.

I truly do not understand what your point is .

I think this is true of more than my point. You don't seem to understand my point, the fact that poor and rich is not a measure of intelligence or success, the fact that the Hague Convention makes no judgements about war or declarations of war because it applies to all armed conflicts, the fact that the language you used when referring to poor people was insulting and inflammatory. Shall I go on?

The congress gave the President the right to use " all neccessary force "

No exclusions PERIOD . It did not say all force except WAR . NO RESTRICTIONS..ALL NECCESSARY FORCE..means just that .
Since that ULTIMATUM to Saddam and IRAQ came as a direct result of the Congressional resolution its very pertinant.

ALL NECCESSARY FORCE . He could have sent two guys in a beer truck to demand Saddams surrender ..or he could have sent a diplomat with a straw and spitballs if he wanted to . He was given all options at his command ! INCLUDING WAR OR WHATEVER FORCE HE CHOSE TO USE !
War has nothing to do with the amount of force. How much force is a war? I didn't realize there was an amount of force that crosses the line into war. Can you explain to me exactly what amount of force equals war? 2x the amount of force in Bosnia plus a teaspoon of a Republican President equals war or is it 3x? I can never remember that formula from my history classes.

If we declare war on France and we only shoot the four guards protecting their President and then capture him, it was a declared war. If we go to war with a country and kill every living thing including the innocent little rabbits, but never declare war, it's an undeclared war. We never declared war on Iraq.

ALL NECESSARY FORCE does not make it war no matter how much you capitalize it. A declaration of war is an act of Congress and it refers to a very specific process. War was never declared by Congress. They gave the President authorization to use whatever force necessary. Had they given him authorization to declare war (in this instance) it would have said that. They didn't. They gave him powers similar to those given to the President in wartime. It was a formal show of support, but it did not give him the right to declare war. A declaration of war is issued by Congress and it was not.

I want a poor person to run my country because a poor person best represents what I want my country to be !

I really did not realise how much I am missing by not having any POOR people to vote for .

I do not want someone who is a proven success . I want someone who is not a success and is in fact poor. Who has never been able to rise above his circumstances . I want the poor guy to run things . Screw all these successfull proven people . I want a poor guy . he has experiance at being poor . I want no part of success I want poor ! .

YOU vote or lament not having poor people to LEAD you . I appluad you . we should all follow the poor . Let them lead us by example . WTF wants to be rich or a success ! Its highly over rated !

All poor people are not dumb stupid or smart. They are POOR ! I dont want to follow a POOR leader !

Hmmm... my parents were poor, quite talented and actually quite successful in their chosen careers. My father never wanted for a job. He was constantly offered jobs by competing companies and made a decent living. My mother never wanted for a job. She had two degrees and was very loyal to the hospital where she worked. Both my parents came from poor working-class families, but had done pretty well for themselves and their five children.

Then my sister got sick and the insurance company declared that she was faking it. So even though my sister was dying, our insurance company suggested we take her home and stop allowing her to be treated. Nine months later the doctors could still find nothing wrong and we were hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt. They had run scores of tests, some of them over and over.

At that point, they had tried everything they could think of. So they sent her home and said good luck.

Then we got a call from a doctor at Christ Memorial Hospital in Chicago (where we lived). Somone had sent him my sister's chart. He asked her to come in and go through just one more round of tests. The difference was he ruled nothing out just because of what her medical history said, so he discovered a mistake that no other doctor did. Apparantly about four years earlier when she'd had her tonsils removed she had complications and the doctors closed her up without removing her adnoids. At the time, removal of the adnoids was so common when removing tonsils that the doctors never even bothered to check when she got sick again. They just assumed she'd had her adnoids removed. This doctor didn't and he found that to be the problem and removed them. She recovered quickly. This poor, relatively unsuccessful doctor did what all those rich, successful doctors failed to do, he cured my sister.

Even with an obvious medical reason for my sister's illness, the insurance companies refused to pay the claim. They blamed the doctors for not figuring out this relatively simple problem and the doctors pushed the blame off. And we remained hideously and overwhelmingly in debt. My parents were not the type to dodge their responsibilities so they would not declare bankruptcy. They eventually pulled themselves out of poverty when we all left home, but they still aren't rich by any stretch of the imagination.

Now, would I love to have a presidential candidate that had been through what my mother or father had gone through? Hell yes! But you can go on claiming that a presidential candidate with no history of actually making any money themselves and, in fact, in the case of GWB, a history of failed corporate undertakings is somehow more successful and better suited to the position that someone who went through what my parents did. Many of us know the truth of the matter.

You figure it out .

I posted the list of Dems ..it shouldnt be too hard for you to figure out who's a women or other minority .

How many of women and minorities actually made it onto ticket that was voted on by more than democrats? The Democrats, the party of the people, has never put up a minority or female candidate for President. So democrats and republicans don't put up minority or female candidates and they won't allow other parties to compete on even ground. So my choices are to join one of these two groups of people who don't represent me to try and change it from within or look on as they continually put up candidates that don't represent me. Yep, you're right. We have tons of choice in this country. :rolleyes:

I do not want someone who is a proven success .

I refer you to the post just above yours.

And you're evading so many of our points by harping on that...

I am not evading anything . In the history of the US when was a poor person elected ? Would a poor person be able to run a campaign so that the millions of people in the US actually knew who they were ? Ummm wait a second ..would someone who was able to run for national office BE POOR ?
How can you argue for a poor person to run for president ? Lets argue from the other direction . What are the positives ? The poverty rate is about

In 2003, the poverty rate was 12.5 percent, or 35.9 million people, up from 12.1 percent, or 34.6 million people in 2002. So that person would represent at least 12.5 percent of the population if other factors such as race and gender and religion were not factors .

I am at a loss to find much more positive aspects . How would a poor person prove their ability to handle finances ? How would a poor person be able to show that they are a leader ? What other office would they have held ? What happened to the money they made when they held that office to make them poor ? What other qualifications besides being poor and possibly a very nice moral person would a poor candidate have to offer the people that would elect them ? What happened to prevent you from being poor all these years before you decided to run for office ? Why are you poor..give me a reason that will make me want to elect you president of the United States .

I was poor . I lived among poor people . I am no longer poor but I did not forget what its like . I am not being unreasonable . I am using the sense that I was born with .

It says that it doesn't matter if an armed conflict is a declared war or not because it applies to all armed conflicts. Kind of supports my point. Please quote more. Oh, wait, you did.



That one says that they don't want to argue about the definition of war so they are just going to refer to all armed conflicts as falling under the Hague Convention. Looks like you're actually trying to prove my point. Are you?

Are you having trouble understanding the language, because I can paraphrase it for you. Their meaning is obvious, and much like our friend said in The Princess Bride, I do not think this means what you think it means.



I think this is true of more than my point. You don't seem to understand my point, the fact that poor and rich is not a measure of intelligence or success, the fact that the Hague Convention makes no judgements about war or declarations of war because it applies to all armed conflicts, the fact that the language you used when referring to poor people was insulting and inflammatory. Shall I go on?


War has nothing to do with the amount of force. How much force is a war? I didn't realize there was an amount of force that crosses the line into war. Can you explain to me exactly what amount of force equals war? 2x the amount of force in Bosnia plus a teaspoon of a Republican President equals war or is it 3x? I can never remember that formula from my history classes.

If we declare war on France and we only shoot the four guards protecting their President and then capture him, it was a declared war. If we go to war with a country and kill every living thing including the innocent little rabbits, but never declare war, it's an undeclared war. We never declared war on Iraq.

ALL NECESSARY FORCE does not make it war no matter how much you capitalize it. A declaration of war is an act of Congress and it refers to a very specific process. War was never declared by Congress. They gave the President authorization to use whatever force necessary. Had they given him authorization to declare war (in this instance) it would have said that. They didn't. They gave him powers similar to those given to the President in wartime. It was a formal show of support, but it did not give him the right to declare war. A declaration of war is issued by Congress and it was not.

That joint resolution was a defacto declaration of war by congress . They gave the right to the president to initiate the war at a time and place of his choosing . The war was not only supported by congress it was supported by the electorate . It is not the first or last time that congress did not elect to make a formal declaration of war and wont be the last . The hague convention info was questioned by posters so I sourced it and posted it . I was not the person that brought it up but it was information I did not know .
Play with semantics all you want . No one can say reasonably that the United States did not declare war on Iraq . Unless of course you want to play word games . Then the United States declared that they would Use whatever force neccessary to remove Saddam Hussein from power . Destroy his military and change the regime in Iraq . And they did exactly as they said they would .
By the Hagues definition they declared and waged war .
An undeclared war IMO is best defined by Vietnam .
Iraq is a war in every sense of the word . And was very declared .
Even if the proper forms were not filled out in your opinion .

It seems there are great reasons for congress NOT to issue a formal declaration of war .

Its in everyones best interest except in a time of severe crisis . its a last reort. Why do you ask ? look for yourself .


Commentary
What if Congress Declared War?
April 20, 1999
Investor’s Business Daily



Declaring war against Yugoslavia could give President Clinton the ultimate excuse to interfere with the economy and crack down on critics.

In a declared war, the president could assume almost unlimited powers over the economy and the public, scholars warn. He could temporarily nationalize war industries. He even could arrest and detain people without trial.

Historically, government power has expanded greatly during declared wars, at the expense of civil rights and economic freedom.

“(Declaring war) gives rise to extraordinary as opposed to ordinary powers,” said Roger Pilon, director of the Center for Constitutional Studies at the Cato Institute. “The executive branch has something of a free hand (in a declared war). Contracts can be abrogated. Ships can be requisitioned.”

Some say Congress should declare war to clarify the aims of the Yugoslav campaign and clear away objections to expanding it, including the use of ground troops or even an invasion of Yugoslavia.

Tuesday, eight senators—Republicans John McCain of Arizona, Thad Cochran of Mississippi, Richard Lugar of Indiana and Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and Democrats Joseph Lieberman and Chris Dodd of Connecticut, Charles Robb of Virginia and Joseph Biden of Delaware—offered a resolution that would let Clinton use “all necessary means” to win in Kosovo.

“We are engaged in a war,” Hagel said on the Senate floor.

But this resolution falls short of formally declaring war—a move other lawmakers say Congress has a constitutional duty to debate and decide.

Rep. Tom Campbell, R-Calif., has introduced two resolutions in the House. One would declare war on Yugoslavia. The other would withdraw congressional authorization of military operations against Yugoslavia.

Campbell has said he’ll vote against war and for an end to bombing. If Congress votes down both resolutions, Campbell says he’ll file a federal lawsuit seeking a ruling on the legality of the Yugoslav campaign.

Declaring war might be a way for Congress to cover its constitutional bases, but legal scholars and wartime historians warn that a declared war would make more of a difference here in the U.S. than in Yugoslavia.

“Under national law, we're already in a state of war,” said John Yoo, professor of constitutional law at the University of California, Berkeley. “A declaration of war is really more important now for domestic reasons.”

In World War I, Washington levied price and rent controls, confiscated private property, nationalized the railroads, assumed control of all shipping, regulated the allocation of coal and oil, subsidized wheat production and instituted a draft.

“Most of the government controls were the result of executive orders,” said Robert Higgs, senior fellow at The Independent Institute in Oakland, California, and author of Crisis and Leviathan (Oxford University Press, 1987), a book that outlines the growth of federal power since the nation’s founding.

“Any time (lawmakers) declare war, that just strengthens the president’s hand,” Higgs said.

President Wilson created the War Industries Board, which spawned scores of committees that took control of various industries. He also created the Committee on Public Information, better known as the Creel Committee, after its chairman, advertising executive George Creel.

The Creel Committee subjected Americans to a massive campaign of pro-war propaganda. It recruited scholars to write pro-war articles and entertainers to make pro-war statements. It even recruited religious leaders to preach pro-war sermons.

At the same time, Wilson suppressed dissent by having the Post Office deny the privilege of the post to hundreds of newspapers and magazines. Many went out of business.

Thousands of resident aliens were summarily arrested and deported. These included not just Germans, but suspected Communists from many countries.

Some who were arrested but not deported languished in jail until President Harding freed them in 1921—three years after the war ended.

Article I of the U.S. Constitution permits the federal government to suspend the writ of habeas corpus “when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.” This permits the president to arrest and detain anyone without trial for indefinite periods.

The U.S. faced little threat of invasion in World War I, but the clause has been interpreted to apply during time of war.

In World War II, President Franklin Roosevelt held captive more than 110,000 Japanese-Americans, whose loyalty was suspect solely because of their Japanese heritage. Many were U.S. citizens.

FDR also took even fuller control over the nation's economy. He instituted the same controls Wilson did in World War I and added to them comprehensive wage and price controls, nationwide rent control, rationing of many consumer goods and central planning of production.

Price controls were applied again during the Korean War. President Truman also seized control of the steel industry in the midst of a strike, but that move was later ruled unconstitutional.

During the Cold War, many wartime presidential powers were made statutory by acts of Congress. Much of what presidents once did only during wartime can be done now under existing powers and the right circumstances.

“Because of the expansion of presidential powers during the Cold War, (the president) can do pretty much as he wants,” said Joan Hoff, director of the Contemporary History Institute at Ohio University in Athens, Ohio. “(Declaring war is) not really going to enhance his powers.”

Congress already has given the president extraordinary powers through various statutes. Under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, the president need only declare a national emergency to assume wartime control over the economy.

But many scholars believe a declared war would provide strong political cover for the actual exercise of extraordinary powers.

“A declaration of national emergency is less than a declaration of war,” Yoo said. “A declaration of war is the most far-reaching step the government can take. If they went as far as a declaration of war, all kinds of things would or could change.”

With the military already suffering severe recruiting and retention problems, a declared war would make it easier for Clinton to justify a draft. He could also extend service commitments indefinitely, keeping service members in uniform "for the duration."

Penalties increase for many crimes during wartime. Espionage becomes punishable by death. Police powers are often strengthened by zealous enforcement and deferential courts.

The Supreme Court approved the first use of rent controls during World War I, citing “exigent circumstances.” It also turned a blind eye to the internment of Japanese-Americans in World War II.

The public is more likely to accept onerous burdens like the draft or the use of dictatorial powers when the excuse given is a declared war.

“There’s arguably a lot more inherent power in the president during a declared war by Congress,” said Michael Ratner, international human rights attorney for the Center for Constitutional Rights in New York.

“Under a declaration of war, the president has probably quite broad powers to take a lot of domestic actions,” Ratner said.

Ratner said many statutes could be used by the president to curtail civil liberties and suppress dissent during a declared war with Yugoslavia.

Travel to Yugoslavia or neighboring countries could be restricted by the Passport Act. Financial transactions related to travel could become crimes under the Trading With the Enemy Act.

Critics of the war might run afoul of the Foreign Agents Registration Act by merely downloading and distributing information off Yugoslav Web sites. The government might even attempt to jam foreign Web sites and intimidate domestic Internet service providers from hosting pro-Serb sites.

“A person strongly supporting the Serbs, especially a Serbian-American, could invite an investigation,” Ratner said. “People will start being careful about what they do.”

Higgs added: “The government is not going to sit still and let people mount effective criticism. When the president is a person totally without scruples, that is especially unsettling.”


War Powers At Home
The president's powers can expand dramatically during wartime.

U.S. Constitution: Allows habeas corpus to be suspended, letting the president arrest and detain U.S. citizens without due process

Alien Enemy Act of 1798: Lets the president summarily arrest, intern and deport suspect aliens

Defense Production Act of 1950:Authorizes comprehensive controls over the economy.

International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977: Permits limits on financial transactions with foreign countries during a “national emergency” declared by the president.

TradingWith The Enemy Act of 194l: Allows additional limits on financial dealings with foreign countries during declared wars

War Time Passport Act of 1952: Prohibits use of U.S. passports for persons wishing to travel to countries at war with the U.S.

Logan Act of 1798: Prohibits U.S. citizens from acting as unofficial diplomats with foreign counties

Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938: Requires U.S. residents acting on behalf of foreign governments to register as foreign agents.

I guess Congress decided not to give up all that power by declaring war the way they did. Must be a bunch of lawyers .

I am not evading anything . In the history of the US when was a poor person elected ? Would a poor person be able to run a campaign so that the millions of people in the US actually knew who they were ? Ummm wait a second ..would someone who was able to run for national office BE POOR ?
How can you argue for a poor person to run for president ? Lets argue from the other direction . What are the positives ? The poverty rate is about

So that person would represent at least 12.5 percent of the population if other factors such as race and gender and religion were not factors .

I am at a loss to find much more positive aspects . How would a poor person prove their ability to handle finances ? How would a poor person be able to show that they are a leader ? What other office would they have held ? What happened to the money they made when they held that office to make them poor ? What other qualifications besides being poor and possibly a very nice moral person would a poor candidate have to offer the people that would elect them ? What happened to prevent you from being poor all these years before you decided to run for office ? Why are you poor..give me a reason that will make me want to elect you president of the United States .

I was poor . I lived among poor people . I am no longer poor but I did not forget what its like . I am not being unreasonable .

Actually, about 95% to 99% of the US could never afford to run for President so a 'poor' person would represent a much larger percentage of the US even if race, gender and religion were a factor. Also, the only person who suggested we were talking about 'poor' was you. We simply stated that we should have more to choose from than rich, white men. You made our statement into poor. And I'll tell you what, I'd bet that if you compared the average number of worked hours of all the members of the average family in an upper 5% family and the average number of worked hours of all the members of the average family in the middle class, you'll find that it's significantly more likely that you worked your ass off as a member of the middle class than as a member of the elite. The elite can afford to rest on their laurels. Middle-class families have to work and work hard to remain in the middle class. Yes, I would certainly put more faith in a middle-class, two-income family whose kids worked their way through high school and college than a born-with-a-silver-spoon-in-his-mouth, never-actually-worked-a-day-in-his-life, spoiled, drunk, rich, white male. You act like all rich people are Bill Gates or Oprah. Most rich people are George W. Bush and Paris Hilton.

And for your education, you do know that many local offices (town representatives, mayors and the like) are unpaid, yes? What if you were poor because you dedicated yourself to public service for little or no pay? Does that make you unambitious or just dedicated? Do you not deserve public office because you turned down working as CEO of Philip Morris to make $30 grand per year heading a Habitat for Humanity Chapter? Compare that to GWB who was born rich and has done nothing in his whole life to actually increase his net worth or, more importantly, to better the lives of anyone who wasn't already better off than the vast majority of the country, not to mention the vast majority of the world.

You have completely missed the point. I started with nothing and I now make over six figures. My salary even without anyone else contributing to familial income puts me in the top 20% of the population for familial incomes. I've been involved with local, state and federal government offices because of the kind of work I do. However, I couldn't afford to run for governor of my state, let alone President of the US. Are you actually suggesting that unless you've earned multiple millions in your lifetime that you should not be elligible for the Presidency? In that case, get that GWB out of office, because there is no evidence he has earned multiple millions in his life. He's rich because his parents were. If he hadn't been born rich and he'd operated his life the way he did, he'd likely be homeless.

I am using the sense that I was born with .

Unfortunately, I fear you're right, but I'll try to explain it to you anyway.

That joint resolution was a defacto declaration of war by congress . They gave the right to the president to initiate the war at a time and place of his choosing . The war was not only supported by congress it was supported by the electorate . It is not the first or last time that congress did not elect to make a formal declaration of war and wont be the last . The hague convention info was questioned by posters so I sourced it and posted it . I was not the person that brought it up but it was information I did not know .
Play with semantics all you want . No one can say reasonably that the United States did not declare war on Iraq . Unless of course you want to play word games . Then the United States declared that they would Use whatever force neccessary to remove Saddam Hussein from power . Destroy his military and change the regime in Iraq . And they did exactly as they said they would .
By the Hagues definition they declared and waged war .
An undeclared war IMO is best defined by Vietnam .
Iraq is a war in every sense of the word . And was very declared .
Even if the proper forms were not filled out in your opinion .

Someone doesn't actually read what they quote. The Hague does not define war and actually points out that it won't. By the Hague's definition they engaged in an 'Armed Conflict' which is the only term along this line that they actually chose to define. You should really read your source.

De facto (two words, by the way) means 'in reality'. Reality is that they did not formally declare war and declarations of war are formal acts, now let's look, shall we?

Wikipedia - A declaration of war by the United States is the statement of purpose traditionally requested by the President of the United States and granted by Congress to engage military force against another nation.

...

Those who believe that formal declarations of war are not necessary say that an absence of a formal declaration does not necessary mean that a military conflict will be chaotic and unlawful; in many cases the rules of war are now well enough accepted to make formal declarations unnecessary. There are also diplomatic reasons for a dislike of "declaring war" on a country, as it can often be perceived as holding an entire nation responsible for the actions of a few of its citizens. In the case of the most recent public opposition, those who support such actions have noted that, in the case of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, there was no 'target' for a legal declaration of war, rather political groups or individuals.

Declarations of War are formal acts performed by the government of a nation against an enemy. In the US, only Congress has that power and in this case they did not excercise it and they did so purposefully. There was no declaration of war (nor did they authorize the President of the United States to engage in war with Iraq, as you stated) and you've failed to demonstrate by any means that it was issued according to the US or the Hague Convention. In fact, your source demonstrated that there is no way for a declaration of war to be issued under the Hague Convention since the Hague Convention does not in any way address the act of declaring war as it is not a necessary component in order for the Hague Convention to be enforced.

Your misunderstanding of this entire matter is simply compounded by the fact that you keep making the same unsupported assertions.

It seems there are great reasons for congress NOT to issue a formal declaration of war .

Its in everyones best interest except in a time of severe crisis . its a last reort. Why do you ask ? look for yourself .

I guess Congress decided not to give up all that power by declaring war the way they did. Must be a bunch of lawyers .

You mean, "by not declaring war the way that they did." Great job. You've just shown that they didn't declare war, why they didn't and would have happened when they did. A delaration of war is a formal act. Would like to argue against yourself a little more or shall I do it for a bit?

There was no need to declare war formaly . At any rate , again , I ask whats your point ? What point are you trying to make by saying the us did not formally declare war ?
All the word games in the world will not change DE FACT (o) :) that the US declared and waged "war " on Iraq. No sane person can claim that congress , the electorate and the president did not intend to wage war using the resolution from Congress .
The Hague links are posted because someone questioned them and because they show that a declaration of war is not needed for a state of war to exist .
The US congreess and the Presidents of the US have decided not to " formally " declare war since WW2 . But they have mananed quite well to fight them .
Several posters made reference to only rich people rich WASPS and only rich white guys etc. etc. are in the pool to run for election thats bullshit . there's minoritys ( including women) and white men that have run or in the pool . They are all some level of " rich" So again I say " why do you want to add poor people to the pool ? " you now make an argument for adding middle class ...So why do you want middle class people to be president ? Who is more successfull a rich person or a middle class person , with all other factors being equal ? Why would you NOT want the most successfull person you can get to run your country ? THATS MY POINT . In case you missed it . I wont even get into the reality of the situation that pretty much precludes a middle class run ( never mind poor) . Thats another thread entirely . Do you think its strange for people to want the most successfull and experianced person for a leader ?

There was no need to declare war formaly . At any rate , again , I ask whats your point ? What point are you trying to make by saying the us did not formally declare war ?

Just pointing out that your earlier claim that it did declare war and that 80% of Americans supported it when it did was incorrect.

You mean, "by not declaring war the way that they did." Great job. You've just shown that they didn't declare war, why they didn't and would have happened when they did. A delaration of war is a formal act. Would like to argue against yourself a little more or shall I do it for a bit?

Whats up with all the bullshit ? Make a point instead of playing word perfect .

If you are unclear on MY point . Its STOP with the bullshit and make a point .

Just pointing out that your earlier claim that it did declare war and that 80% of Americans supported it when it did was incorrect.
Your right your 100 % correct . They only supported invading Iraq and removing Saddam Hussien . sorry for the confusion . they only declared that they would remove him by force... it wasnt a war .

There was no need to declare war formaly . At any rate , again , I ask whats your point ? What point are you trying to make by saying the us did not formally declare war ?
All the word games in the world will not change DE FACT (o) :) that the US declared and waged "war " on Iraq. No sane person can claim that congress , the electorate and the president did not intend to wage war using the resolution from Congress .
The Hague links are posted because someone questioned them and because they show that a declaration of war is not needed for a state of war to exist .
The US congreess and the Presidents of the US have decided not to " formally " declare war since WW2 . But they have mananed quite well to fight them .

Whether they waged war on Iraq it was undeclared as you, yourself, have demonstrated. And that the war is undeclared is my point. You claimed it was and then posted information to prove that it wasn't. What was your point? I mean, other than to prove me correct and continually say, incorrectly, that the Hague Convention defines what qualifies as a declared war?

Are you actually suggesting that all military actions are wars? What do you base this on? What defines a war? You've haven't shown that the intent was to wage war. By your definition the US has waged war about a hundred times in its brief 229 year history. How was Panama less of a war than Iraq? How many wars against a country have you seen where within a year they were forming an army made up of the people they 'declared war on' so they could protect and control their own country? Define a war.

Several posters made reference to only rich people rich WASPS and only rich white guys etc. etc. are in the pool to run for election thats bullshit . there's minoritys ( including women) and white men that have run or in the pool . They are all some level of " rich" So again I say " why do you want to add poor people to the pool ? " you now make an argument for adding middle class ...So why do you want middle class people to be president ? Who is more successfull a rich person or a middle class person , with all other factors being equal ? Why would you NOT want the most successfull person you can get to run your country ? THATS MY POINT . In case you missed it . I wont even get into the reality of the situation that pretty much precludes a middle class run ( never mind poor) . Thats another thread entirely . Do you think its strange for people to want the most successfull and experianced person for a leader ?

I 'NOW' make an argument for middle class? Who started the poor crap? You did. Several posters mentioned that potential candidates should not be limited to rich. You took this as a reason to launch into a ridiculous and stunningly incorrect tirade against the poor.

In case you missed it, your point has been summarily dismissed by every poster here as not based in reality. Rich has nothing to do with successful. George W. Bush is remarkably less successful than Mother Theresa though significantly richer. I think it's strange for people to equate rich and successful. I think you have to ignore reality in order to do so. One has to ignore the existence of GWB, Paris Hilton, Kato, and just about a million other people who were born rich and never did anything useful with their pathetic existences. Holding public office only makes you rich enough to become President if you're crooked. The highest office in the land gets paid a few hundred thousand dollars a year. Clearly, this is not enough money to run for President on. However, they've created a system that limits your ability to run to requiring millions upon millions of dollars. If you were President for fifty years you wouldn't make enough money to pay for running for President once. So your options are to marry a heiress or to be born the child of someone else who was President. Yep, that's some system we have there. I see why you're defending it.

Oh, and to your question, the class you live in has nothing to do with your level of success, and certainly says nothing about why I would want them to be President. Let's say you have two doctors. Both are plastic surgeons. One does surgery for a meager salary from a non-profit organization doing pro-bono surgeries repairing the scarred visages of victims of abuse and those born with cleft palettes who cannot afford to pay for such an expensive surgery in the impovershed area of St. Louis. The second puts giant plastic boobs into the chests of porn stars and whatnot in southern California. It's clear which one would have more money. Hmmm... which would I rather have as President? Not too difficult of a decision for me.

Another example - let's say we get to choose between a former CEO of a remarkably unsuccessful company who got the job and is only still wealthy because his parents are rich and powerful and a guy who is rich because his father was a Senator and he married an heiress and a guy who worked two jobs to work his way through college and then spent his career working for non-profit organizations trying to create a new system for the election of the President that no longer requires the candidates to be multimillionaires. This is a real-world example except for the last candidate. I would have voted for that last candidate if the system wasn't designed around keeping him out of the process.

Now care to show any evidence that the rich are objectively more successful, more talented, harder working, etc.?