World Politics

[Leopejo]

I'm not in favor of single-winner representation at all. I find proportional representation systems much more democratic. If a party has 25% of the popular vote then they should have 25% of the seats and if a party has 5% of the popular vote they should have 5% of the seats. After all seats are divided the party or coalition with a majority gets to rule.

You vote for a party that has a certain platform and what in dividuals that represent that party is only secondary.

On the other hand the proportional system tends more often than not to require coalitions - often with quite "unrealistic" alliances. This leads to lack of governability and compromises, which means the proportional system is not, by default, a more democratic one.

This said Italy changed from proportional to single-winner (or better, to a hybrid) some 20 years ago and it hasn't helped at all. I hope they get back to proportional soon.

 

[Spare Tyre]

1 if it aint broke dont fix it
2 PR creates weak governments historically.

3 Politics isnt fair. Never will be. In my opinion the main function of democracy is that it prevents tyrany.

Whether the government in power is the "tories" "labour" "lib dems" or "Democrats"/ "Republicans" is of minor importance.

The systems in US and the UK do well to legitimise governments who would otherwise be weak.

I have not much love for CHurchill but he was talking some sence when he said "democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others" and he was absolutely spot on when he said "the best argument against democracy is a 5 minute conversation with the average voter". Especially in todays 24 hour news enviroment when a celebrities who dont know the first thing about politics can switch thousands of votes either way with an endorsment, and get to appear on political shows.

As long as there is no tyrany, and parties are taking turns in power the system is working well enough.

Hitch, what is your concept of tyranny?

 

[The Hitch]

Hitch, what is your concept of tyranny?

John Locke
Tyranny is the exercise of power beyond right, which nobody can have a right to.

 

[Spare Tyre]

John Locke
Tyranny is the exercise of power beyond right, which nobody can have a right to.

Ok, I think I understand that (obviously not totally sure).

Don't you think our democratic/capitalist system contains plenty of that?

 

[The Hitch]

Ok, I think I understand that (obviously not totally sure).

Don't you think our democratic/capitalist system contains plenty of that?

Yeah, perhaps i shouldnt have quoted a thinker from before the age of Capitalism or democracy, especially for this question. But it is still a good quotation and i think its pretty accurate nonetheless. Tyrany is for me when the government has too much power. Sovereigns will always be above the law to an extent but tyrany for me is when the sovereign is totaly above the law.

In the UK and US and im assuming in Europe and Australia too, this is clearly not the case. Governments have huge limitations on power. They are forced to consult the electorate every so many years and elections are by all accounts free and fair. Over here the judiciary is independent from government. Rights are the same for everyone. This is for me a tyrany free society.The recent detention without trial laws do push it a bit but not enough for me anyway.

 

[Ferminal]

On the other hand the proportional system tends more often than not to require coalitions - often with quite "unrealistic" alliances. This leads to lack of governability and compromises, which means the proportional system is not, by default, a more democratic one.

This said Italy changed from proportional to single-winner (or better, to a hybrid) some 20 years ago and it hasn't helped at all. I hope they get back to proportional soon.

I have a preference to having a better representation of views in society over "strong government". Ultimately I think regardless of strong government/weak government, conservative or liberal, countries still run day-to-day more or less the same. Whoever gets voted in doesn't change the people in the central bank, treasury and all the government departments - this is where the brains of every government comes from. Forgive me if there are recent experiences of countries which have fell in a hole as a result of a weak coalition government.

What I'm trying to say is that I'd prefer the 10-20% at the extreme left/right and the 20-40% in the moderate left/moderate right to be represented in parliament, even if that doesn't translate into legislation and policy.

But the fundamental issues are more than can be fixed with changing to PR, ultimately everyone in politics is self-serving. I'm not sure which constitutional framework is the best at counteracting this (certainly not constitutional monarchy!).

Sorry for ranting incoherently, had my head in books all day.

 

[ingsve]

1 if it aint broke dont fix it
2 PR creates weak governments historically.

3 Politics isnt fair. Never will be. In my opinion the main function of democracy is that it prevents tyrany.

Whether the government in power is the "tories" "labour" "lib dems" or "Democrats"/ "Republicans" is of minor importance.

The systems in US and the UK do well to legitimise governments who would otherwise be weak.

I have not much love for CHurchill but he was talking some sence when he said "democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others" and he was absolutely spot on when he said "the best argument against democracy is a 5 minute conversation with the average voter". Especially in todays 24 hour news enviroment when a celebrities who dont know the first thing about politics can switch thousands of votes either way with an endorsment, and get to appear on political shows.

As long as there is no tyrany, and parties are taking turns in power the system is working well enough.

Isn't that a rather low expectation for a political system? I want more than just avoiding tyrany. When I see that something isn't working the way I want it to then I want the fair opportunity to do something about it and to that end I feel that proportional representation gives the best opportunity for someone to actually influence policy.

 

[ingsve]

On the other hand the proportional system tends more often than not to require coalitions - often with quite "unrealistic" alliances. This leads to lack of governability and compromises, which means the proportional system is not, by default, a more democratic one.

This said Italy changed from proportional to single-winner (or better, to a hybrid) some 20 years ago and it hasn't helped at all. I hope they get back to proportional soon.

Well, I'm not too worried about unrealistic alliances. I think that for the most parts there usually are parties that are similar enough to work well together. Some countries might have more problems than others, I'm not well enough versed in other countries politics to know but that's not my experience.

In my opinion compromise is certainly democratic. It's better with a situation where more parties get some of their policies through rather than few parties ruling and the others having nothing to say about it.

 

[Anonymous]

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Electi...store-Sanity-battles-March-to-Keep-Fear-Alive

Booked my tickets last night.

 

[The Hitch]

Isn't that a rather low expectation for a political system? I want more than just avoiding tyrany. When I see that something isn't working the way I want it to then I want the fair opportunity to do something about it and to that end I feel that proportional representation gives the best opportunity for someone to actually influence policy.

I have very low expectations of political systems and most of all politicians. As i said - Churchill was right on this. What does he mean when he says Democracy is the worst form of government except all others. That Democracy is a system which causes much pain and betrays many people. But it is the best we have. For now anyway.

And Churchil also correctly identified one of the big problems. That people are idiots. Call me elitist but i see huge problems with the intelligence of the electorate in my country when every pamphlet has a picture of the candidate with a celebrity, when the way a candidate looks during a debate is considered more important than his policies and worst of all, when Harry Potters endorsments gives a boost to a political party in the polls.

These just some of the many problems with the electorarate. Nope i do not see any bright lights coming from such a system. That it stops tyrany and holds the sovereign for the most part accountable is already more than i could ever hope for and i am eternally grateful for this ( a huge step up from what my parents had to live under)

 

[ingsve]

And Churchil also correctly identified one of the big problems. That people are idiots. Call me elitist but i see huge problems with the intelligence of the electorate in my country when every pamphlet has a picture of the candidate with a celebrity, when the way a candidate looks during a debate is considered more important than his policies and worst of all, when Harry Potters endorsments gives a boost to a political party in the polls.

Well, to me that is just another reason why a proportional system is better than a single-winner system. Since people are idiots as you say then in a single-winner system you are screwed if your opinion happens to differ from the idiot majority. In a proportional system however you are guaranteed to at least have representation even if you happen to not get majority.

 

[usedtobefast]

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Electi...store-Sanity-battles-March-to-Keep-Fear-Alive

Booked my tickets last night.

good for you. represent and make us proud. too far for me, sadly.

 

[The Hitch]

Well, to me that is just another reason why a proportional system is better than a single-winner system. Since people are idiots as you say then in a single-winner system you are screwed if your opinion happens to differ from the idiot majority. In a proportional system however you are guaranteed to at least have representation even if you happen to not get majority.

My point is that people dont vote on the issues. If some people are being discriminated against, then they will be motivated to vote against the guilty party. This is how democracy stops tyrany. But otherwise people vote on what celebrity they see. They vote based on how the candidates look. They vote based on what the polls, which are inacurate and simply exist to sell papers, tell them too. They vote how the newspaper tells them. The Sun - a daily heat magazine mixed with porno, won the conservatives the election in 1992 by endorsing them on election day.

Politicians dont care too much for issues either. They might at first. But when power comes into play they shift towards the positions which will get them elected. They flip their positions if need be.

As for PR vs fptp, i myself am not against PR so to speak, only against changing a fptp to pr, because i dont think its worth it. The fptp does the job fine enough. On the same basis i would be against changing pr systems to fptp.
If you are starting a country from scratch, sure adopt pr. It is more likely to provide weak governments but it has its advantages to. But to change Britain or US to PR. I wouldnt go there.

Also in theory the fptp has the benefit of giving the voter a specific representative for his/ her district. In the Uk we can should we choose, speak to our mp. Im not sure how this works for the constituency of Wittney - Mr camerons constituency, though i would be interested to find out. I dont think this is a huge advantag but im sure it has provided benefits to some now and again.
In the US on the other hand it can simply serve to make local elections more partisan and allow people to get elected based on where they were born.

 

[Spare Tyre]

In Australia we have a "two party preferred" system. It works by eliminating the candidate with the lowest number of votes, and allocating the vote to the voter's preferred alternative. The process continues until there are only two candidates remaining, and at that point the candidate with the most votes wins.

Occasionally an independent or someone from a minor party wins a seat, but usually it all boils down to the two major parties. Increasingly these parties target particular seats or demographics because polling and number crunching tells them that will win them government.

These two parties have gone from being poles apart ideologically to very similar. Media concentrate on the two major parties because they are the only ones who can form a government. Mainstream political discourse is extremely narrow and antagonistic (an independent MP has described it as "two dogs barking"), and vast numbers of people have no idea other policy possibilities exist.

I would love us to shift to proportional representation. At least that way other voices could be heard, and my vote might actually translate to representation.

 

[The Hitch]

@ Spare Tyre. In a different thread you said the following.

In my eyes he lost a heck of a lot of it when he supported GWB and the neocons in the invasion of Iraq.

To say Hitchens loses any credibilty at some point in Bushes presidency doesnt work. Hitchens always supported and campaigned for the overthrow of Baathism in Iraq. Even when Sadam was being supported by the US. He risked his life many times by going into Kurdistan in the 90's to give support to anti Saddam groups and Kurdish independence movements.

So either Hitchens doesnt lose any credibility or he never had any to start with because this was always his position.

i dont see how he can suddenly lose credibility the moment someone else (in this case GWB) decides to agree with his position.

Also he argues for the position very lucidly and in many peoples eyes including myself, convincingly.

In my encounters with others on this i have come accross to type of people. Those who are willing to listen to other peoples arguments with an open mind. And those like "nowhereman" in another thread, who project a bunch of political views on me, tell me i am too stupid to argue with them, and proclaim themselves victors by default.

From your posts i am assuming it is the former and so i urge you to listen to Hitchens argue the case for removing Baathism in Iraq (below) and ask yourself, is he really losing credibility with what he says?

On his own http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GdMYril-QY8

debate about the war with a high profile opponent http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HU45ioYvx4k


And a bonus.

more issues, speech about Jefferson, Iraq, politics, history and religion combined with stand up.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=726ouK-ytSw&feature=PlayList&p=C3CA5B5C2837D247&index=0&playnext=1

 

[Spare Tyre]

@ Spare Tyre. In a different thread you said the following.



<snipped>

Cheers, Hitch. I'll have a look, listen, read and think.

 

[usedtobefast]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfuwNU0jsk0

watch all the way through

 

[usedtobefast]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExzINsaq4LI

amorica f feah!

 

[broken chain]

People weigh the issues very carefully then vote for the person with the best haircut

 

[ChrisE]

@ Spare Tyre. In a different thread you said the following.



To say Hitchens loses any credibilty at some point in Bushes presidency doesnt work. Hitchens always supported and campaigned for the overthrow of Baathism in Iraq. Even when Sadam was being supported by the US. He risked his life many times by going into Kurdistan in the 90's to give support to anti Saddam groups and Kurdish independence movements.

So either Hitchens doesnt lose any credibility or he never had any to start with because this was always his position.

i dont see how he can suddenly lose credibility the moment someone else (in this case GWB) decides to agree with his position.

Also he argues for the position very lucidly and in many peoples eyes including myself, convincingly.

In my encounters with others on this i have come accross to type of people. Those who are willing to listen to other peoples arguments with an open mind. And those like "nowhereman" in another thread, who project a bunch of political views on me, tell me i am too stupid to argue with them, and proclaim themselves victors by default.

From your posts i am assuming it is the former and so i urge you to listen to Hitchens argue the case for removing Baathism in Iraq (below) and ask yourself, is he really losing credibility with what he says?

On his own http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GdMYril-QY8

debate about the war with a high profile opponent http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HU45ioYvx4k


And a bonus.

more issues, speech about Jefferson, Iraq, politics, history and religion combined with stand up.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=726ouK-ytSw&feature=PlayList&p=C3CA5B5C2837D247&index=0&playnext=1

Hitchens is unreadable, not because of his opinion but the way he writes. I could only make it thru about 50 pages of that atheist book he wrote before I retired with a headache.

The problem with his opinion about Iraq is the end game. This fantasy of "spreading democracy" etc. doesn't work in hyper religious nut society, especially when one facet of the hyper religious nuts have been oppressed for so long and have a sympathetic neighbor in Iran. Religious people, regardless of what religion it is, will always try to oppress those with different opinions and will work toward a government where the majority can do just that.

Would it be better for Iraq to be a pro-western democracy? Of course, but that is not possible IMO for the reasons I cite and in the end I think it will be worse for the US than having Saddam in power. At least he had 2/3's of the nuts under control.

 

[The Hitch]

People weigh the issues very carefully then vote for the person with the best haircut

Isnt that from the simpsons?

 

[The Hitch]

Hitchens is unreadable, not because of his opinion but the way he writes. I could only make it thru about 50 pages of that atheist book he wrote before I retired with a headache.

The problem with his opinion about Iraq is the end game. This fantasy of "spreading democracy" etc. doesn't work in hyper religious nut society, especially when one facet of the hyper religious nuts have been oppressed for so long and have a sympathetic neighbor in Iran. Religious people, regardless of what religion it is, will always try to oppress those with different opinions and will work toward a government where the majority can do just that.

Would it be better for Iraq to be a pro-western democracy? Of course, but that is not possible IMO for the reasons I cite and in the end I think it will be worse for the US than having Saddam in power. At least he had 2/3's of the nuts under control.

Yes, Hitchens writing style is difficult to read for some. I much prefer his speaking style. Hency why I posted those clips.

doesn't work in hyper religious nut society, especially when one facet of the hyper religious nuts have been oppressed for so long and have a sympathetic neighbor in Iran.[/

Thats funny. You say Iraq was a hyper religious nut society. Every anti war argument ive come up against is the opposite. That Iraq was a secular society. that Saddam didnt care for religion. That only when the US invaded did the extremists come to Iraq. The "you created 10 000 more bin ladens" theory.

I myself have always disagreed with this because people like Zarqawi (future leader of Alqueada in Mesopotamia) Abu Nidal ( founder of Fatah) among others lived under Saddmas protection, and because Saddam claimed to write a Koran in his own blood.

But, nevertheless it cant be said that Iraq is a particularly extremist country. The most popular politicians in Iraq are the secular ones.


As for

" I think it will be worse for the US than having Saddam in power"

Its not about the US. I myself am not an American. Neither is Hitchens. Neither are the other European advocates of intervention such as my dear Bernard Henri Levy or Oliver Kamm. We didn’t support the move for Americas benefit. In Hitchens case it was for the benefit of Kurdistan, his friends who were being tortured and massacred in the thousands. In Levys case it was because he thinks that as a principle, Totalitarianism must be faced and fought under any circumstance. In my case, it was these 2 + the fact that Iraq was spiralling into even greater misery, greater poverty, getting worse by the year, and had long crossed the point at which the people could save the country for themselves.

Neither of these arguments has anything the slightest to do with America. An intervention by any democracy was welcome. ( I say democracy because non democracies like KSA and Iran were ready to pounce, and start their own reigns of terror)


Henry Kissinger strongly opposed the war as did all the Realists. For Kissinger it made no sense for America to make an enemy out of Saddam when they could have just been his friend and got good oil deals. This is what Kissinger did during his reign as Secretary of State. He made friends with all the most brutal dictatorships. In places like Chile he created them in the first place. It was a tactic that worked well for him, and for America it worked well too.

This is also what the king of corruption, Presiden Jaques Chirac of France did after America turned against Saddam. It would have been so much easier for the US to make a deal with the Baathists like Chirac had. No money spent on war, good oil deals, ally in the Middle East.
So for America it wasn’t much of a benefit to launch a war in Iraq, other than the benefit of knowing you removed a brutal dictatorship. But its not about America. Its about Iraq.

And finally

Iraq to be a pro-western democracy? Of course, but that is not possible IMO for the reasons I cite. At least he had 2/3's of the nuts under contro

Iraq as a pro western democracy today is very much possible. You say the extremists will stop democracy.

The 2 main extremist factions, - Al Queada and Mahdi Army, who in 2006 and 7 had inevitable victory in their reach are defeated. They lost.

 

[Spare Tyre]

Yes, Hitchens writing style is difficult to read for some. I much prefer his speaking style. Hency why I posted those clips.


Thats funny. You say Iraq was a hyper religious nut society. Every anti war argument ive come up against is the opposite. That Iraq was a secular society. that Saddam didnt care for religion. That only when the US invaded did the extremists come to Iraq. The "you created 10 000 more bin ladens" theory.

I myself have always disagreed with this because people like Zarqawi (future leader of Alqueada in Mesopotamia) Abu Nidal ( founder of Fatah) among others lived under Saddmas protection, and because Saddam claimed to write a Koran in his own blood.

But, nevertheless it cant be said that Iraq is a particularly extremist country. The most popular politicians in Iraq are the secular ones.


As for

Its not about the US. I myself am not an American. Neither is Hitchens. Neither are the other European advocates of intervention such as my dear Bernard Henri Levy or Oliver Kamm. We didn’t support the move for Americas benefit. In Hitchens case it was for the benefit of Kurdistan, his friends who were being tortured and massacred in the thousands. In Levys case it was because he thinks that as a principle, Totalitarianism must be faced and fought under any circumstance. In my case, it was these 2 + the fact that Iraq was spiralling into even greater misery, greater poverty, getting worse by the year, and had long crossed the point at which the people could save the country for themselves.

Neither of these arguments has anything the slightest to do with America. An intervention by any democracy was welcome. ( I say democracy because non democracies like KSA and Iran were ready to pounce, and start their own reigns of terror)


Henry Kissinger strongly opposed the war as did all the Realists. For Kissinger it made no sense for America to make an enemy out of Saddam when they could have just been his friend and got good oil deals. This is what Kissinger did during his reign as Secretary of State. He made friends with all the most brutal dictatorships. In places like Chile he created them in the first place. It was a tactic that worked well for him, and for America it worked well too.

This is also what the king of corruption, Presiden Jaques Chirac of France did after America turned against Saddam. It would have been so much easier for the US to make a deal with the Baathists like Chirac had. No money spent on war, good oil deals, ally in the Middle East.
So for America it wasn’t much of a benefit to launch a war in Iraq, other than the benefit of knowing you removed a brutal dictatorship. But its not about America. Its about Iraq.

And finally


Iraq as a pro western democracy today is very much possible. You say the extremists will stop democracy.

The 2 main extremist factions, - Al Queada and Mahdi Army, who in 2006 and 7 had inevitable victory in their reach are defeated. They lost.

I like Hitchen's writing, although it is years since I have read any of his books. I'm pretty sure you'll find he IS an American these days (I assume with dual citizenship).

I agreed with a lot of what Hitchens had to say in the "Hitchens v Ritter" debate, and I agreed with a lot of what Ritter had to say.

In the end I still believe the invasion of Iraq was illegal according to international law, and immoral because the disastrous consequences were very foreseeable. If you take the ruling structure out of a country you will have a power vacuum, and there will be a chaotic rush to fill it. If you know anything about the history of Iraq, the tribal nature that still dominates and, of course, Iraq's neighbours then you will understand you are unleashing something very unpredictable and likely undemocratic and non-Western aligned.

Since the invasion there have been hundreds of thousands of deaths, an inestimable number of injuries, the displacement of millions, demolishment of large parts of the urban environment, almost total disruption of basic utilities and the desecration of precious cultural heritage. These days I'm a lot less informed about this than I was a few years ago, but I don't think there is any true democracy on its way. I think Iraq is now a basketcase, and likely to be for a long time.

Thanks to you Hitch, I now realise that Hitchens was motivated by (as I see things) a completely different agenda to the neo-cons, given his sympathies for the Kurds. I'm still uncomfortable about the degree to which he seems to ally himself with the neo-cons. Surely he didn't buy their rhetoric about invading for democracy's sake? That might have been what Hitch wanted, but it was only window dressing for the neo-cons.

Two of the sources I have found most interesting: Juan Cole's blog and the exquisite and heartbreaking "Baghdad burning".

 

[ChrisE]

Thats funny. You say Iraq was a hyper religious nut society. Every anti war argument ive come up against is the opposite. That Iraq was a secular society. that Saddam didnt care for religion. That only when the US invaded did the extremists come to Iraq. The "you created 10 000 more bin ladens" theory.

Saddam was Baathist, and how religious he was has nothing to do IMO with the way Iraq was governed. It had a dominant government by a religious party with little or no representation from the other 2 groups, and those other 2 groups were subject to persecution, genocide, etc. thru the years. I'm not sure what you are implying here and I haven't heard the argument you put forth, but I am drawing my own conclusions based upon facts.

You talk about creating more "bin ladens". I think the US foreign policy as a whole creates that and Iraq is just an example. Even sympathizers with the US policy turn into "terrorists" when they see their family killed by an errant bomb. You can't bomb people to make them stop hating you, especially when you deal with religious nuts who are not scared of death. The US foreign policy, run by the military-industrial complex, is a perpetual do-loop aided by weak politicians from both parties that are unwilling to look at the situation logically and see this policy is making the US less secure, instead of more. They don't want to be branded "soft on terrorism" by pulling out of either Iraq or Afghanistan, and they would get crucified by the mouth-breathing populace and the corporate owned media if another attack occured.

This is not a conventional war where one surrenders and it is over. There is an infinite amount of replacements in this war that will never surrender, and our engagement in the manner in which we have been doing it the last 10 years ensures that.

I myself have always disagreed with this because people like Zarqawi (future leader of Alqueada in Mesopotamia) Abu Nidal ( founder of Fatah) among others lived under Saddmas protection, and because Saddam claimed to write a Koran in his own blood. But, nevertheless it cant be said that Iraq is a particularly extremist country. The most popular politicians in Iraq are the secular ones.

I don't try to rationalize crazy people. What Saddam did was to his own benefit, and I don't trust people fueled by religion. People always can find some justification in their religion, or by sociopathic characteristics, that enables them to have zero problem with how they conduct their life or the allies they make.

Its not about the US. I myself am not an American. Neither is Hitchens. Neither are the other European advocates of intervention such as my dear Bernard Henri Levy or Oliver Kamm. We didn’t support the move for Americas benefit. In Hitchens case it was for the benefit of Kurdistan, his friends who were being tortured and massacred in the thousands. In Levys case it was because he thinks that as a principle, Totalitarianism must be faced and fought under any circumstance. In my case, it was these 2 + the fact that Iraq was spiralling into even greater misery, greater poverty, getting worse by the year, and had long crossed the point at which the people could save the country for themselves.

I stand by my belief that a tortured people over thousands of years will all of a sudden let bygones be bygones when democracy arrives. Especially when religion is involved.

Henry Kissinger strongly opposed the war as did all the Realists. For Kissinger it made no sense for America to make an enemy out of Saddam when they could have just been his friend and got good oil deals. This is what Kissinger did during his reign as Secretary of State. He made friends with all the most brutal dictatorships. In places like Chile he created them in the first place. It was a tactic that worked well for him, and for America it worked well too.

I'm not a fan of Kissinger obviously, but in my original post I implied that the chaos that has erupted, and will get worse IMO, after his removal will escalate and Iraq will ultimately be an ally of Iran. Life is not full of easy choices, and the choice was not either Saddam stays or he gets removed and the 3 religious groups in Iraq start holding hands and dancing in the street for the rest of time.

This is also what the king of corruption, Presiden Jaques Chirac of France did after America turned against Saddam. It would have been so much easier for the US to make a deal with the Baathists like Chirac had. No money spent on war, good oil deals, ally in the Middle East.
So for America it wasn’t much of a benefit to launch a war in Iraq, other than the benefit of knowing you removed a brutal dictatorship. But its not about America. Its about Iraq.

BS. I don't agree with your assessment of the reason for this war from the US perspective, by the people that conducted it.

Iraq as a pro western democracy today is very much possible. You say the extremists will stop democracy.

The 2 main extremist factions, - Al Queada and Mahdi Army, who in 2006 and 7 had inevitable victory in their reach are defeated. They lost

Yes, when the American and British army was watching things. Wait till they leave, if ever, and then get back with me.

 

[rhubroma]

Good luck telling people from that region that the State and Federal response to this was adequate. People around the Gulf Coast think that the Federal reaction is slow. Try changing that perception when as you say "my side" piles on with their 24/7 opinions about how the President just made a decision late. I am telling you what "my side" as you say will have the talking heads going crazy today forward.

I think President Obama should have made an effort to get his Homeland Security and Environmental staff down there last week, or at the latest last Weekend. Folks within the Offshore Oil industry were talking about this environmental disaster the day after Horizon sunk. Please ask me how I know this? It is not something I need to google. In fact it is within my Wheelhouse.

Your vitriol against the president (and just to set the record straight, I'm not at all happy with his results), does not seem to be balanced, in at least equal measure, with a loathing for the culprits: namely BP.

Funny how you republican guys can't stand government when it "interferes" with your capacity to make and hold on to bucks, but the moment big business makes a collosal f-up, as in this case, you expect them to save everybody's arses. Business should be permitted to allow unbridled greed to reign over the economy (deregulation), but then have the government clean up the mess when the party's inevitably over.

This environmental disaster should have been a wake up call to end the madness of our addiction to fossil fuels, instead it has become a rotten egg throwing contest against the government. This situation should have ended long ago, the one that also led to the collapse of finacaial capitalism two years ago; and yet it is one we will be enduring for many years to come. Obama's presidency, unfortunately, is only a confirmation of this. His has been all rhetoric and appearance, without much substance. Change is still but a philosopher's pipe-dream.