day of resistance has just started !
14 dead soldiers , 20 wounded , 1 chinook down ---- it seems there is a big party today :D

bush said : "combat is over" - it´s now exactly 6 months ago ;)

actually it's up to 15 now

Originally posted by sweet Pentax
it seems there is a big party today :D

I don’t find the death of US soldiers something to smile about.

But you would a Al Qaeda member?

It;s all perception, isn't it.

Well I have to say that the recent downing of the 3rd helicopter in Iraq shows the relative sophistication of the Iraqi rebels. I guess the only "Freedom" Americans have in Iraq have now is to be shot at. The situation will not get better I don't think the "brass" realizes this... the Iraqi people have too much pride to let the US monopolize her. I feel sorry...sort of... for the American men and women in Iraq. But that quickly evaporates due to the fact they went there on purpose... it is a volunteer force.

Originally posted by sweet Pentax
it seems there is a big party today :DWhat the fuck is wrong with you? The men who died did so because they were out there following the orders of their nation, selflessly, and without regard to personal well being.

It's people like you that recurrently discredit the legitimate antiwar movement by rising into masturbatory tirades upon the suffering and deaths of our fellow countrymen - a symptom of the larger problem. Don't like the situation in Iraq? Attack that, and not the guys who are over there because they swore to defend their nation with their lives on your behalf.
bush said : "combat is over" - it´s now exactly 6 months ago ;) He said "major combat operations". Why does this keep coming up? "HE SED COMBAT IS OVAR" is the new "BUSH STOEL TEH LECTION@!!1"

Christ.

You do know Sweet is a German...

"BUSH STOEL TEH LECTION@!!1"


Well how else do you get into the presidency with less votes then your competitor?

You do know Sweet is a German...

..the return of WasiGermany????????:eek:

I don’t find the death of US soldiers something to smile about.

well .. and now it´s time for me to answer : "the death of ANY person isn´t something to smile about ...

but nope - i don´t think so !
why do you send your boy-soldiers in a war they´ll never win ??? can´t you listen ? enough people told you that this is gonna happen !
you think the usOFa will learn their lesson when we all pity and help them ? DON`T STICK YOUR NOSES TOO DEEP IN FOREIGN AFFAIRS !!! :mad:

oh ... i missed something ...yeah baby ,right ,there was an imminent threat ..... :rolleyes:

What the fuck is wrong with you? The men who died did so because they were out there following the orders of their nation, selflessly, and without regard to personal well being.


following orders ? yes ... if they are dumb enough to follow - it´s their prob me thinks !



Don't like the situation in Iraq? Attack that, and not the guys who are over there because they swore to defend their nation with their lives on your behalf.

errrr .... you are kidding me ,right ?
perhaps you don´t accept that this war was an offensive war ..... but it was sure like hell no defense :D

Originally posted by sweet Pentax
[B
"the death of ANY person isn´t something to smile about ...
[/B]

I agree with you. soldiers are following orders and death of any soldier is sad.

But you know what? I would have to bite my lip to keep from smiling if Bush and his admin would be the target of such an unfortunate attack. (I would have the same reaction to Saddam's and Osama's deaths).

The death toll as risen to 16 dead, I guess now 20 injured. :bugeye:

tendency : growing ;)
so far about "major combat operations" , right STOKES ?

I cannot believe you people are being serious here , these are soldiers we are talking about , the most suitable group of people for death that you can find .

I can understand the exceptions out of sociological factors , but the vast majority has simply made very ignorant choices that gets them killed .

Anyone who cries for these anonymous idiots is either a hypocrite or considering other innocent human beings of lesser worth .

Stokes , why do you attempt to impose your nationalist believes on those you assume to be inhabitants of your country ? Just because their location of birth was could not be their own choice does not mean that they cannot choose to distance themselves from the "nations" behalf and interest .

Please people. Though I take some grim satisfaction in this blowing up in the Bush Administration's face, the guys dying over there are regular guys, people that I could have gone to school with, worked with. They do not deserve to die, and their only mistake is trusting that their leaders would not send them to an unjust war.

I am not a pacifist, and I dislike Islamic fundamentalism, and all dogma, be it religious or political.

Arrogant jackasses who were happy at the slaughter of the Iraqi's make me angry. Why should I feel any different over those who take pleasure in these deaths?
In this respect, this conflict truly is the same as Vietnam, where our forces were just as much victims as the Vietnamese.

Do not blame the pawns. Take a moment to think of the wives, parents, and children of those men who died today.

Sweet Pentax:
I think there are many aspects of the war in Iraq that I object to as well, but you're an a-hole. To revel in another's death is just evil, no matter what side they are on.

DON`T STICK YOUR NOSES TOO DEEP IN FOREIGN AFFAIRS !!!

No one can afford to be an isolationist these days. There are no foreign affairs anymore, there are only world affairs. National borders only exist in the human mind.

It's a touchy issue, I have to concede. But you can't compare the deaths of paid soldiers to those of civilians. Now if you’re a nationalist then the death of "your boys" obviously is a sad event. But to say they are innocent is rather fallacious. I mean are the men who went into the WTC also innocent just following orders from OBL? As I have said it is all a matter of perception, and bias. Remember both the Americans and the Islamic fundamentalists are fighting for "freedom" albeit their own form, and neither form is right, why? Because the Iraqi people are left in the middle. Pure and total perception of the conflict, not objective.

I mean are the men who went into the WTC also innocent just following orders from OBL?

that´s the point my friend ! following orders is no excuse , especially when they have fun while doing it :mad:
i saw the us-boy-scouts often enough on tv - most of them ENJOYED the "FUN" ..... really , most of them thought they can play with some cute toys in the "sandbox" ! :rolleyes:

or what about this whole our-boys-over-there-mentality ? those fucking patriots .....

Originally posted by spidergoat
Sweet Pentax:
I think there are many aspects of the war in Iraq that I object to as well, but you're an a-hole. To revel in another's death is just evil, no matter what side they are on.

perhaps i just feel pleasure in the death of the evil :D
lol ,evil ....... never heard that this thing exists !
btw , you think your fellow comrades don´t cheer when they hear saddam is dead ?

No one can afford to be an isolationist these days. There are no foreign affairs anymore, there are only world affairs. National borders only exist in the human mind.


oh , i see you had problems with the meaning of TOO DEEP ?

Originally posted by Repo Man
Take a moment to think of the wives, parents, and children of those men who died today. Im sorry all my moments are already taken by thousands of Iraqi .

As I said , hypocricy or selective value of human life .

Originally posted by sweet Pentax
[following orders ? yes ... if they are dumb enough to follow - it´s their prob me thinks !Boy, you've got a lot to learn about the way militaries function!errrr .... you are kidding me ,right ?
perhaps you don´t accept that this war was an offensive war ..... but it was sure like hell no defense :D A soldier's job is an apolitical one. In the US, when you enlist, or are commissioned as an officer, you swear to defend the Constitution of the United States and obey the orders of your appointed superiors. Your vitriol is misdirected, and would be aptly targeted at politicians who send these guys into harm's way. These men take no part in policy making, they are simply instruments of it - the end effector. If I punched you in the face, would you blame my fist? Or the brain that sent the charges to my musculature?
Originally posted by Ghassan Kanafani
Stokes , why do you attempt to impose your nationalist believes on those you assume to be inhabitants of your country ?I'm not "imposing nationalist beliefs". See above. Whether he's American, British, German, or Martian, it does not matter. His stance is utterly illogical.
Originally posted by nico
Well how else do you get into the presidency with less votes then your competitor?Not to start a hijack, but I'll just say - google up something on the Electoral College.
Originally posted by Repo Man
Do not blame the pawns. Take a moment to think of the wives, parents, and children of those men who died today.Well said. Let's hear it for the voice of reason.

Not to start a hijack, but I'll just say - google up something on the Electoral College.


Err... no Mr. Bush got into the presidency from a Supreme Court decision on votes, which made the Electoral College vote even possible. 1 million or so Americans votes were ignored, and possibly the sway of the vote. I know what the Electoral College is and it is the most pathetic excuse in the American democratic system.

Originally posted by nico
It's a touchy issue, I have to concede. But you can't compare the deaths of paid soldiers to those of civilians. Now if you’re a nationalist then the death of "your boys" obviously is a sad event. But to say they are innocent is rather fallacious. I mean are the men who went into the WTC also innocent just following orders from OBL? As I have said it is all a matter of perception, and bias. Remember both the Americans and the Islamic fundamentalists are fighting for "freedom" albeit their own form, and neither form is right, why? Because the Iraqi people are left in the middle. Pure and total perception of the conflict, not objective.

I am more of an internationalist than a nationalist.

But most of these men are paid poorly, and enlisted to escape from rural backwaters with moribund economies.
Millions of Americans believe that the reason our troops are over there is to protect the U.S. They choose to believe the easy lie over the hard truth. I think those who believe that are misguided and misinformed, much the same as Islamic fundamentalists.

It took nearly a decade for the truth about Vietnam to get through to the average American.

Our troops are becoming increasingly aware of the lies. Here is a local man's letter home:
"There are a number of reasons why I should be pissed off," Talbott writes. "But really only one thing about this whole 'war situation' manages to get my goat. Never mind that President Bush, the commander in chief, the zenith of my chain of command, the 'lord high commander' at the very pinnacle of the military rank structure, promised that no combat troops would be deployed more than six months. I guess he wasn't including the 3rd Infantry or the 82nd Airborne."

He tells of soldiers whose identification cards have expired because they "weren't even supposed to be in the Army anymore."

Talbott, while admitting that his sources of news have been reduced to "The Stars and Stripes, Maxim and Hustler," questions the shifting reasons for our invasion of the Middle Eastern country.

If Iraq was funding terrorists, he wonders, "Why didn't we do Saudi Arabia and Syria, too? And if that was valid enough reason, then why did the focus so suddenly shift to weapons of mass destruction?"

Why, if WMD were the focus, he asks, did the United States secure the oil fields but not the nuclear-research facilities?

Why did the focus then shift a third time to freeing the people of Iraq?

"Doesn't it seem strange to anyone that we haven't had one constant reason for starting a war?"

More; http://www.newsreview.com/issues/chico/2003-10-16/news.asp

Does he deserve to die? Would his death make you happy?

"Most of the greatest evils that man has inflicted upon man have come through people feeling quite certain about something which, in fact, was false."
-- Bertrand Russell, Unpopular Essays, "Ideas That Have Harmed Mankind"

Originally posted by nico
Err... no Mr. Bush got into the presidency from a Supreme Court decision on votes, which made the Electoral College vote even possible. 1 million or so Americans votes were ignored, and possibly the sway of the vote. I know what the Electoral College is and it is the most pathetic excuse in the American democratic system. Close, but no cigar. The SCOTUS did weigh into the decision, but only with regard to Florida's 25 electoral votes. Once Florida was resolved, the election went to Bush because that made a majority in the electoral college. The US Constitution was written to include mechanisms for resolving contingencies just like this, and it functioned as designed in 2000.

Regarding the Electoral College as "the most pathetic excuse in the American democratic system", that would only be true if America were a democracy, and not a federalist republic. Election by proxy is intrinsic to a republic. Personally though, I don't believe we need the EC any longer either - with modern communication advancements and a citizenry that is, in general, better educated and informed than they were in 1776. But that's another debate for another thread.

I totally understand where you are coming from, it's an understandable position. I am not minimizing the deaths of those men and women. But what I doing is saying that their deaths are no different then other combatants. Now I am not saying you, but many Americans would love to see the deaths of so many "Fundies", thus why shouldn't they celebrate? I am not wiling personally to make an American worth more then an Iraqi... are you? Yes these soldiers are largely ignorant and are feed the constant stream of pro-Americana bull shit that hopefully everyone here can see through.

I think those who believe that are misguided and misinformed,

That is not only the American soldier that is, it’s the American, or even world public. Vast majority of the world's population falls into that category. Why do we have these situations? Because the masse create them. I don't believe in democracy for the masses... look where it has gotten us. But just because they are ignorant doesn’t absolve them of responsibility.

Originally posted by Stokes Pennwalt
I'm not "imposing nationalist beliefs". See above. Whether he's American, British, German, or Martian, it does not matter. His stance is utterly illogical.I did not say that you impose your nationality on him , I sayd you imposed nationalist beliefs , weither they are Brittish , German etc .

What is not logical is your placement of value on nation .

Could that be concluded with about 1 million votes that were ignored? Never the less Bush was not elected into power as you asserted, he was handed power on a silver plate. Do we deny this?

federalist republic

If the US was not a "democracy" as you proclaim then this passage in the Constitution should make NO sense:

Clause 1: The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.

If not democracy Stokes provide a part of the constitution that offers a alternative? :confused:

it seems there is a big party today
This is kinda ugly Pentax I don’t find the death of US soldiers something to smile about.
Perhaps thats because they've never parked their tanks on your lawn Hannibal

War is nasty and divisive. Why does America have to have it's arse kicked before it see's sense and works these things out for itself?
America is less popular now than anytime I can remember. Even Tony Blair is scared shitless 'cos the British people just won't forgive him.
Your vitriol is misdirected, and would be aptly targeted at politicians who send these guys into harm's way
Well said Stokes. Hope America remembers come election day. Assuming it's a fair vote, of course;)

IMHO it's time for America to take a deep breath and tackle its failings at home and abroad.
Or it could carry on being the worlds whipping boy.:(

So whats it going to be then eh?
Dee Cee

Originally posted by Stokes Pennwalt
Boy, you've got a lot to learn about the way militaries function!

so only good ol´ adolf was punished ? it was his order to be cruel to the enemy , to kill the jews , ......
ever heard of self-responsibility ???

A soldier's job is an apolitical one. In the US, when you enlist, or are commissioned as an officer, you swear to defend the Constitution of the United States and obey the orders of your appointed superiors.

everything allright so far

Your vitriol is misdirected, and would be aptly targeted at politicians who send these guys into harm's way.

is it normal for you amerikans to lay off responsibilty to other people ?

Update: 19 dead.

Originally posted by sweet Pentax
so only good ol´ adolf was punished ? it was his order to be cruel to the enemy , to kill the jews , ......
ever heard of self-responsibility ??? Inaccurate historical parallel.
is it normal for you amerikans to lay off responsibilty to other people ? Wait a minute, so placing the burden of responsibility where it belongs is passing the buck? No, you are the one asserting the responsibility belongs where it does not. It's not my job to prove your ridiculous assertion wrong.
1. why should i blame your fist you idiot ??? it´s your brain that controls your fist :confused: Thanks for proving my point.

This is kinda ugly Pentax

hey , i´m not cheering about it .... i didn´t say i have a party because of it !

BUT

fucking us sends their fucking scouts to fucking iraq and brought fucking war .... i feel no pity for any dead soldier in iraq :mad:
they are killers , they have no problem with it - it´s only a problem when they get killed ! :rolleyes:

The American soldiers in Iraq are not responsible for this invasion, and it is tragic that they have to die for the crimes of their masters, most of whom, never have and never will face any real danger.
It is equally tragic however when the American soldiers kill Iraqi fighters, and I wonder given the scant coverage and attention given to the far greater number of Iraqi dead, how many people who are sickened hearing about this tragedy and can't understand others making light of it, would feel a sense of satisfaction when hearing of similiar things happening to Iraqis.

Thanks for proving my point.

hey hey , the story isn´t over at that point ....
there is still the question : is army/goverment like fist/brain ???

ps : remember , your fist is no individual and has NO brain ..... !

Originally posted by nico
Could that be concluded with about 1 million votes that were ignored? Never the less Bush was not elected into power as you asserted, he was handed power on a silver plate. Do we deny this? Absolutely. Pointing out that Bush lost the popular vote is interesting, but it does not discredit his Presidency one iota. Neither does touching on the omission of many public votes - that happens in every election, and it is supposed to under differing criteria.
If not democracy Stokes provide a part of the constitution that offers a alternative? :confused: I don't have to. Crack open an encyclopedia and read a bit about US history. For now I'll link you to the Wikipedia, which is a good place to start.The United States of America (U.S.A.), also referred to as the United States (U.S.), America, or the States, is a federal republic in North America and the Pacific Ocean with a strong democratic tradition.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States

We're an amalgamation of both. Many democratic traditions are ingrained in our election process. For example, the Congress votes democratically - as does the electoral college. But our foundation is strictly federalist and republican.

to all people who say soldiers aren´t responsible :


MOST SOLDIERS ENJOYED THE FUN "DOWN THERE" , THEY LAUGHED WHEN THEY KILLED IRAQI SOLDIERS , THEY LOVED THEIR CUTE TOYS , THEY WERE ARROGANT AND FELT SUPERIOR WITH THEIR NICE EQUIPMENT !!!

haven´t you all seen how they often treated their prisoners ?
haven´t you all seen those cheering soldiers , who just blasted a whole house with their rpg away ?

your soldiers are ALLOWED ( or is it FORBIDDEN? ) to cheer at the death of their enemy .....

Originally posted by Stokes Pennwalt
Absolutely. Pointing out that Bush lost the popular vote is interesting, but it does not discredit his Presidency one iota. Neither does touching on the omission of many public votes - that happens in every election, and it is supposed to under differing criteria.
Its true. In order to discredit his presidency you have to point to the intentional disenfranchisement of thousands of people in Florida by his brother.
http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=217&row=1

Well you know the North Korea is largely a Democratic state. Hey if you want to play rhectoics that's fine with me. If you want to repress reality then go ahead be my guest.

Crack open an encyclopedia and read a bit about US history

The Onus is not on me, I asked a question and you have to provide it not me.

Neither does touching on the omission of many public votes - that happens in every election, and it is supposed to under differing criteria.

1 million votes ignored? :confused: Is that a legitimate president? A appointed president is legitimate?

Originally posted by nico
Well you know the North Korea is largely a Democratic state. Hey if you want to play rhectoics that's fine with me. If you want to repress reality then go ahead be my guest. Wait, are you saying the US is democratic or isn't? :confused:
The Onus is not on me, I asked a question and you have to provide it not me. I just did, d00d. [edit] I also like how you ignored it.
1 million votes ignored? :confused: Is that a legitimate president? A appointed president is legitimate? If "appointed" means "elected through a convoluted but Constitutional process", then yes.

Originally posted by sweet Pentax
*spittle*Good show, David McDemagogue.

there´s a little goebbels in all of us , don´t you think so :D
bt hey , perhaps you can show me the flaws of my allegation ;)

Originally posted by sweet Pentax
bt hey , perhaps you can show me the flaws of my allegation ;) You made the patently ridiculous assertion. Don't ask me to do your homework for you.

so it´s my job to disprove my own opinion :confused:

Though it is a bit off topic, the 2000 election stinks to high heaven.

http://images.salon.com/comics/tomo/2001/01/08/tomo/story.gif



http://images.salon.com/comics/tomo/2000/12/18/tomo/story.gif

http://www.bartcop.com/accurate-blame.gif

Originally posted by Repo Man
Though it is a bit off topic, the 2000 election stinks to high heaven.You know what's funny? I completely agree with you (and somewhat with nico too). Due to the climate and demographics of this forum, I find myself taking positions of and sticking up for people whom I never would otherwise.

Just in case anybody thinks I'm "sticking up" for Bush.

The Guardian seems to say it all for me.
Donald Rumsfeld, who was the chief architect of the Iraq campaign and is still, surprisingly, the US secretary of defence, said the shooting-down was a tragedy. "Your heart goes out to the families." In this at least he is correct. Our hearts go out to all those, Iraqi and American, British and other, who continue to die or suffer injury in this unnecessary, avoidable, unfinished war. But what neither he nor Mr Bush and others among Washington's warrior class will say is how they are going to stop it.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1076534,00.html
Dee Cee

Originally posted by Ghassan Kanafani
I can understand the exceptions out of sociological factors , but the vast majority has simply made very ignorant choices that gets them killed .

Well put. I commiserate with the soldier who defends a country, but not the one who offends it.

Originally posted by Stokes Pennwalt
In the US, when you enlist, or are commissioned as an officer, you swear to defend the Constitution of the United States and obey the orders of your appointed superiors.

Were you a soldier who so swore, would you obey an order from your appointed superior to shoot an unarmed little girl?

kaabooooomm! Indeed

US struggles in country awash with weapons (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1076441,00.html)
"The weapons are everywhere," Ray Lopez, an FBI bomb expert, told the Houston Chronicle. "There are so many sites for ammunition, some we still haven't even found."
Dee Cee

Obviously, it's Ray's first trip to the Middle East.:( "It's Hot! Look! They're wearing Dish-Dashes and Gutras! And guns! And RPGs! Hey! They don't like us! Where's our victory parade? Can't they see we're the good guys? Incoming! Fire! Air Support NOW!"

Ray probably understands now, that if we had instead sent a dozen or so bright-eyed (OK maybe brown-eyed, and skinned) American youth to Iraq sans weapons, but armed only with the same $87 Billion+++ budget, and with the objective of having Saddam & Sons kidnapped by well-paid Iraqis, and brought to the ICC. We could have used crooks like Ahmed Chalaby for business like protecting America from a rain of horrific Iraqi MWDs on the Heartland, or more realistically, getting Halliburton, Bechtel, and Exxon all the right business connections.

But no: Our brilliant leaders, seen and unseen, have arranged instead for our teenagers to shoot our way into one of the most armed, nationalistic, and religiously-charged places on Earth, self-assured that this intervention will make friends and money, increase regional stability, curtail terror, and avoid presenting American forces as scapegoats and targets in the midst of the bloodiest civil war in the region since Lebanon.

Welcome to the Middle East, Ray. Sorry that your orders might get you killed. At least one thing is for certain: The mission you, your FBI friends, and your uniformed comrades must kill and die for will gravely harm every country involved. Urah!

And when you finally withdraw from what's left of Iraq, there will be more guns and more hate left in your wake: Mission Accomplished. We'll all be so proud. Hurrah.

all things happened because little ray didn´t use his brain ....
hey don´t blame always the politicians - everybody is his own master !
but it seems beeing a patriot is more comfortable for most people than learning how the world works :(

one point i really can´t understand is how fast the public opinion changes ..... is it that you haven´t been warned about this mess before the war started ?

the ignorant masses over there are really disgusting ... really !
and now you all go on and blame some politicians :confused:
many people WANTED that war ; why did they wanted it ? isn´t war something you should avoid ? nah ..... amerikans don´t care !



one thing makes me somehow sad - you won´t learn your lesson this time ; i guess before that happens you need a big disaster on your own HEARTLAND ..... ( sadly as it is )

Originally posted by zanket
Were you a soldier who so swore, would you obey an order from your appointed superior to shoot an unarmed little girl? Yes, I was. And no, I would not. Shooting an "unarmed little girl" is in this context not a lawful practice, and the order to do so would be unlawful. In this case, it is the soldier's duty to disobey an unlawful order - obeying would make him complict. Obviously there is a great deal of subjectivity and ambiguity around this very fine line - especially in the heat of combat. But the decision still must be made, regardless of the haste and stress.

That's why they drill this into you in training.

that would only be true if America were a democracy, and not a federalist republic.

Well you see that is ignorance on your part stokes, I don't think you realized you contradicted yourself, according to my Oxford companion to Politics if the world:


Federalist

---

There is general agreement among experts that a functioning federal system, composed of a number of regional governments, must have a democratic and pluralist system that provides opportunities for access and participation by citizens at both the national and state levels.

Otherwise your assertion that the US is not a democracy is fallacious one at best. So Stokes I heeded to your calls for me to look up things, and I did. Although I don't see why this would answer my question:

read a bit about US history.

Has their been a American dictator that I don't know about?

Yes, I was. And no, I would not.Shooting an "unarmed little girl" is in this context not a lawful practice, and the order to do so would be unlawful


hmmm ... so when the law says "allright" , you have to follow your orders ?

Originally posted by Stokes Pennwalt
Yes, I was. And no, I would not. Shooting an "unarmed little girl" is in this context not a lawful practice, and the order to do so would be unlawful.

Agreed. Now if soldiers routinely shot unarmed little girls, presumably they would put themselves at greater risk, because everyone would know they are up to no good. Along those lines is what is happening in Iraq. I think the average Iraqi believes that their country is being stolen and that, rather than liberated, they are effectively being re-enslaved. There is a lot of evidence that this is true, and not much to the contrary. Bush could change this virtually overnight, by publishing a timeline for democracy and meeting goals therein. But he won’t (or he'll delay as long as possible) for what I think are obvious reasons.

By the age of 18 a kid should have realized that the most powerful military in the world by far is more likely to be used for offense than defense. I can’t feel sorry for most of them being targeted now.

I can’t feel sorry for most of them being targeted now.

exactly my point me thinks !

when you are old enough - you should have learned that war is a racket ..... and hence never participate in any war
ok ,MAYBE exept for REAL defense - when your country is attacked ( oh-no ..... i don´t want to hear "9-11" :rolleyes: )

but hey ,most of those boys ( yep ,boys ) went with a smile into iraq , "doing the right thing" !!!

Yes most Americanos were pumped to get into Iraq. They were so excited they just couldn't wait to get in. I remember the weeks before the war the Soldat von d viert Reich were just hammering to get in. They were as Americans say "pumped", they were indoctrinated, they were ready to fight for freedom, and democracy, by killing, and maiming... (Doublespeak to the extreme). And now..... They are in Iraq...clamoring to come back home, and have some schnell Nahrung. Pathetic really that these men who once were so pumped are dying daily... they are in a quagmire, I should say.

Originally posted by nico
Well you see that is ignorance on your part stokes, I don't think you realized you contradicted yourself, according to my [u]Oxford companion to Politics if the worldFederalist

---

There is general agreement among experts that a functioning federal system, composed of a number of regional governments, must have a democratic and pluralist system that provides opportunities for access and participation by citizens at both the national and state levels.

Federalism needs democracy to work... on both the state and national levels... what are you trying to prove here? You cannot have a federal system without a democratic framework, you asserted that the US was not a democratic system. The obvious answer is that it is. Not only is it advocated in your constitution but in the very essence that the federal system is.

functioning federal system, composed of a number of regional governments

That has more to do with the republic. You are not providing the alternatives needed for your assertions to make sense. Unless of course you have a "historical" compare in American history that proves the "federal republican" system and your constitution wrong. ;)

Originally posted by nico
Federalism needs democracy to work... on both the state and national levels... what are you trying to prove here?Read what I posted on page two again. The US has many democratic subprocesses within it, but merely as the impetus for a Federalist Republic.

So, your posts are essentially proving my point, yet you seem to believe otherwise.

America is a democracy stokes by definition. You can't have a federal republic without the democratic process. If America were not a democracy as you so asserted then why do you consider Bush or any president as legitimate? :confused: You can't have it both ways.

Cut and paste from an earlier post:

The Founding Fathers did not establish direct democracy in the U.S. They established a Representative Republic.
James Madison, one of the key architects of the American constitution, regards the system of representation as a cure for the problem of faction. By a faction, Madison means "a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community" (Federalist Papers, No. 10). Obviously, it would not be a problem if the faction forms only a minority of the political community because the democratic procedure of equal voting will allow the majority to defeat the "sinister views" of the faction. A problem arises, however, if there is a majority faction. In this case, the very form of popular government will enable the majority faction to "sacrifice to its ruling passions or interests both the public good and the rights of other citizens." This problem is generally referred to as the "tyranny of the majority."

To solve the problem of majority tyranny, Madison continues, a particular set of constitutional arrangements, among which are the system of representative government and a large electorate, are needed. One advantage of the system of representation is that it provides a mechanism "to refine and enlarge the public views, by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country, and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations. Under such a regulation, it may well happen that the public voice, pronounced by the representatives of the people, will be more consonant to the public good than if pronounced by the people themselves, convened for the purpose" (Federalist Papers, No. 10).

quote:There is a "radical distinction," according to Mill, "between controlling the business of government and actually doing it" (Mill, 1951, pp. 229-30). In a democracy, the general electorate have the ultimate check on the business of the government. However, this does not imply that the demos should actually run the government. The actual running of the government should bedone by professionals with the necessary knowledge and skills. If the general public does not get involved in the details of the governmental administration, not only will efficiency increase, the actual decisions made also tend to be better. Importantly, and fortunately, the justifications for democracy do not require that the business of the government be conducted directly by the general electorate. One key justification for democracy, says Mill, is that it provides a prime mechanism for moral self-development and the "highest and harmonious" expansion of individual capacities. This justification can be fulfilled during the election process when the general public chooses their representatives in the government. When the general electorate becomes involved in the business of running the government, the benefits of any self-development are far outweighed by the costs of inefficiency, confusion, and diffusion of responsibilities.

To be sure, John Stuart Mill does not have much faith in the judgment of the electorate and the elected. Although Mill champions a plural system of election, regrettably he also proposes unequal voting rights: more votes, according to Mill, should be allocated to those wiser and more talented. Mill's distrust in the general public's judgment and sentiment is one important reason leading him to propose a representative form of government in which important public decisions are made by qualified leaders with knowledge, expertise and wisdom.

http://www.oycf.org/Perspectives/3_123199/representative_government.htm

I never asserted that the US was a direct democracy, but it is a democratic system. Democracy is faux indeed in all it's modern forms, but within this context the US is a democratic state. :D You can't have a representative democracy...without a democracy can we? :confused: