Axiom Home Page Forums General Discussion The Water Cooler OT: politics

Hey guys! School started so I have been very busy.
But I do have a moment now to interject (I did say earlier that I majored in PoliSci - and that I currently teach gov't right? ).

You guys probably wouldn't like a parliamentary system any better than what we have. From my studies of the Italian and German systems in college I remember concluding that they suck. Lots of politics involved in creating and maintaining coalitions/gov'ts. The proportional representation those gov'ts allow seems cool, but on a national scale it is really meaningless - the major parties still dominate.

Spiff, the main reason why there are only two major parties is the winner-take-all electoral system. The party with the broadest appeal wins all of a states electors (in the case of the Presidential election) rather than a percentage of electors corresponding to the election returns. Same for Congressional districts: the Greens, Commies and Libertarians will always get assed out unless they concentrate in one area.

And from what we see of term limits here in California... bad idea. Sounded good, I think I may have even voted for them years ago, but in practice it has left us with musical chairs in the state legislature, increased cronyism as politicians are forced out and looking for new work, a bunch of amateurs who look to their handlers and lobbyists for guidance, and a lack of vision (nobody is in office long enough to get things, big things, done). Bad, bad, bad.

What I like about a longer term for the President (and not necessarily limiting him to just one term - although that may not be a bad idea) is that he will be better insulated from political pressures for a longer period of time. Clearly many presidential actions are geared toward garnering support for re-election.

A benevolent dictatorship with periodic accountability to the people, not the politicians, special interest groups, etc... would be ideal for a country this size. Japan is toying with the idea of direct democracy (everybody voting on every issue on-line); want to bet how that experiment will work out?

I don't think I used the word occupiers, but that is beside the point of your message.

I do believe the soldiers are there in order to free the people. I just don't think that is all there is to it for the people calling the shots. And a lot of people would agree with me - but that is not a good argument.

I don't want to argue the point. It would be a battle of wits with me as the unarmed man.

I read the Buchanan piece too and it sounds plausible and at least partly right. I am glad he started it out like he did or he would have just come off as antisemitic period.

In reply to:

---

I do believe the soldiers are there in order to free the people.

---

You forget that the people are already free. The soldiers are still there because if they weren't, to gov't would be overthrown and all hell would break loose -- more than it already has, that is.

To those who think I'm flip-flopping, I never said we should get out of Iraq ASAP. I do realize that once something like this is started, it has to be continued to at least a point where it is safe to withdraw without losing what was already accomplished.

I promised to find quotes from the current admin stating that Iraq was an imminent threat. Thankfully my good man, Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) has set up an entire database online of misleading statements regarding Iraq by the current admin. I just plugged in "Bush" and "Urgent Threat" and got four hits.

Iraq on the Record

Don't forget to search under Rumsfeld, too.

Spiff, This is 38 pages long, and so far I have found a lot of the same statements that were made by Bill Clinton, Al Gore and the vast majority of other democrats.

The author of this piece is not exactly a neutral source. Congressman Waxman is every bit a complete party guy.

Remember, In 1999, the United Nations said Iraq had rnough materials to make 25,000 liters of Anthrax. Bill Clinton Bombed Iraq over WMD's.

The file quotes Joseph Wilson regarding HIS now known to be false statements.

And a major point I will emphasize again, The WMD's were known to be there. It was Hussein's job to prove to the inspectors he had destroyed them. It was not the inspector's job to prove they were there.

As I pointed out, and learned from researching sources like the New York Times, Washington Post, and the Mid-East times, Hussein HAD WMD's. The source for this was the United Nations. They also had four months ro hide the evidence of said weapons. Every Biological and chemical weapon Iraq had in 1999 would fit into a gymnasium.

Let's think about this... You really don't want to get caught with WMD's ... but have them... Where in a 438,000 Square Km country, over 1/2 of which is DESERT, could you hide a 100x50x30 foot stockpile of weapons with four months to do it ?

I LOVE Dr. Kay's assertions that the trailers found were for making weather balloons... THAT is credible.

A Site... www.techcentralstation.com/092503F.html

And in 1998, President Clinton made the case that Bin Laden had ties with Hussein, even though he loathed the secular nature of th Iraqi dictator. He even issued an executive order regarding this connection.

As for some insight as to what I think, there is no doubt that President Clinton was also given at least 2 chances to have Bin Laden turned over. He turned those chances down.

Why am I not pounding home those points ? Simple, It solves nothing. We may have been spared 9/11, as some on the right suggest, Had President Clinton just done his job.

I don't buy THAT argument, either.... SOMEONE in Al Queda would have picked up the slack. This entire world terror network does work loosely together, and feed off each other. In World War II, we were getting our asses kicked for the first year. You did not see people trying to undermine the efforts of the Roosevelt administration, as some are doing to our President Bush.

We are at war, and will be for a long time. I just read an excellent piece in US World and News Report. The basics were this enemy is taught to hate us, and people like Bin Laden use vulnerable people... typically young men with no family ties, and promise them hero status either here or in heaven for doing Allah's work... It also points out that Iran is an even bigger threat. The author also makes the point the the scariest scenario for Iran IS a democratic Iraq. Great reading... and one thing he does NOT make the mistake of believing: The fallicy that if we would just UNDERSTAND what makes the terrorist hate us, we could learn to get along.

It was last week's issue...

Man, you guys sure love arguing around in circles about the Iraq war, huh?

I'm stunned, however, that there is apparently a lack of consensus on the terrorists - their motivations, their intents, their utter lack of compunction, the impossibility of negotiations, the impossibility of inculcating new generations in Iran, Pakistan and elsewhere with the notion that the US is actually quite wonderful.

Of course they're the bad guys. Of course they want to kill us and our children. Why try to assign human attributes to such villains?

BigWill.. No circles here... I want a straight line to the elimination of those who kill innocent civilians. I still pray for them, but doubt there will be a conversion of their black hearts. And yes, I saw your ... no foul, my friend

In reply to:

---

I want a straight line to the elimination of those who kill innocent civilians. I still pray for them, but doubt there will be a conversion of their black hearts.

---

It is difficult for me to understand how people can talk about elimination and God (prayer) in the same breath.