Dangerous Submersive Reporting For Lynching

Quote:

---

Originally posted by paraflyer
Unfortuantely, the US was intended as a Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy. Read the Federalist Papers, you'll find that the Founders had a strong opinion of how democracy (rule by the majority rather than by law) doesn't work.

And don't get me started ont hte "governing body" part...I have yet to see any government comprised of politicians that's NOT looking out for their own self-interests. The concept of Government by Representation goes out the door as soon as they step into office, to be replaced by Government by Greed.

And perhaps everything after the Bill of Rights was intended to be "living and breathing"; but it's MY opinion that the first ten Amendments should have been etched in stone; I want no part of a "democracy" where the majority can deem any of my rights null-and-void.

Rant mode off, let the flames begin! :D

---

I completely agree also. How do you fix it though? You can't force someone to be ethical.

Hey when things get tough......remember this.....


Jeff Spicoli: All I need are some tasty waves, a cool buzz, and I'm fine

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Cleetus
Hey when things get tough......remember this.....


Jeff Spicoli: All I need are some tasty waves, a cool buzz, and I'm fine

---

Ahhh, few people undertand the wisdom of apathy.

..and yes, that is sarcasm.

Wow. Did I ever stir up a lot of hornets here. Some people might even accuse me of being a sensationalist... :D

For anybody not clear on the meaning of my post, perhaps I should have been more direct and less sarcastic. The original post was inspired by my feeling offended by some of the more gung-ho superpatriot types in favor of the war. PLEASE NOTICE I SAID "SOME OF" in there.

You Americans get weird when you get collectively patriotic. Recently some friends of a friend of mine were down in Grand Marais, Minnesota, visiting the casino there... they went into a restaurant, and the staff there refused to serve them. Why? Because they are Canadian. When they went outside, they discovered someone had keyed their car. It's this sort of thing that bothers me, the fact that France is now reviled and mocked throughout America, the entire "If you're not with us, you're against us" mentality... that's the same thing that is destroying organized religion these days, there is no concept of tolerance for other viewpoints. Recently American politicians have been saying that it's time for Canada to start trying to repair our damaged relations with our southern neighbor. My gut response is, why? We never sent any troops with you to the Gulf... but we didn't throw anybody in front of your tanks either; we've simply sat aside and disagreed. Isn't that what democracy is supposed to be about?

On the subject of democracy, I am very glad to see that many Americans have noticed they aren't actually living in one. I think that the USA is proof that Western style democracy does not work in practice... that gerrymandering exists as a valid political tactic is proof enough for me... and that's the reason why I think it is wrong for the USA to impose democracy on Iraq.

To those who say, Bush is better than Saddam, you are certainly right in the short term, but I'm not sure you are right in the long term. Fatal lung cancer is better than a sucking chest wound, but in the end, why would you want either? Bush and his like will be the destruction of the United States, and probably the world too, I fear; it will just take longer to do it Bush's way than Saddam's, and it will look prettier in the meantime.

To those who ask, do I have an alternative? As a matter of fact, I have a number of ideas, primarily involving identifying and removing corrupt people from power and preventing other corrupt people from getting there in the first place. I think if those aims could be accomplished, pretty much ANY system of government would work just fine, from democracy to the republic to communism to fundamentalism, even to dictatorship. The trouble is, ALL of these systems fail when the people in charge are corrupt.

The trouble is, and always has been, that many of the people who seek leadership are the ones least suited to the task, and many of the best potential leaders don't want the job.

A couple more points:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by meatwad
Why lynch you when we can just shuck you?:confused:

---

LMAO!!!

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Drone2903
Ok Clammy, there is just 1 thing I dont agree with in all your statement here.

Shoudnt that title be "subVersive" and not "SubMersive" ???

:D

Other than that, what you said....

---

No, that's no spelling mistake. :D

And again on the subject of alternatives:

It is too late for any alternative now, the situation is a fait accompli, you can't go back and "un-invade" Iraq. I would have preferred to see the US work within the UN, it's not like you don't have the political pull to eventually get your way there.

Still all such talk is academic and pointless. What happens now that Iraq is more or less conquered? Anybody want to argue about that? :D

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Wayward Clam
.. We never sent any troops with you to the Gulf... but we didn't throw anybody in front of your tanks either.

---

As a matter of facts, we do have troops in the gulf, (Ok, s'not much, but still, HMCS Iroquois and HMCS Montréal) but they are there in the anti-terrorists effort.

Dan

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Wayward Clam
...identifying and removing corrupt people from power and preventing other corrupt people from getting there in the first place...

---

Um, Clam,.. that's exactly what the US is in the process of doing. The US declared a war and then went in there and removed a corrupt and powerful individual with precision bombing, and a powerful air campaign. Without a war, how would you expect to remove a powerful and/or corrupt leader like Hussein? Asking him nicely to leave isn't going to do it.

I dont feel that a country should say "With us or against us" in regard to France, I just think what goes around comes around.

Imagine a day when the French really really need our help. That would be the day to show OUR support of them. :)

Quite simple really. You dont agree, swell, your intitled to it. But in turn we are also entitled to choose who we help, who we give work contracts to, etc.

I personally dont like bush, but I do like what he is doing in Iraq. BTW, this doesn't mean that I will vote for him in the next term either.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Wayward Clam
What happens now that Iraq is more or less conquered? Anybody want to argue about that? :D

---

The corrupt Iraqi government has been conquered, not Iraq. The Iraqi's will have to begin rebuilding a free Iraq now. I wish them nothing but the best on their new freedom.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Wayward Clam
It's this sort of thing that bothers me, the fact that France is now reviled and mocked throughout America, the entire "If you're not with us, you're against us" mentality... that's the same thing that is destroying organized religion these days, there is no concept of tolerance for other viewpoints.

---

Voicing opposition is one thing. Actively lobbying other countries to vote against us when we believe that we are fighting to preserve our own security falls on the "against us" side of my line in the sand. Providing our enemy with weapons clearly puts France on the other side of the line. And lets remember the only reason that France is on the side of Saddam Hussien, oil contracts. LOL, isn't that some amazing irony? France doesn't give two ****s about the people of Iraq.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by WebHawg
Asking him nicely to leave isn't going to do it.

---

Well put yourself in Saddam's shoes Webhawg. I mean your people are suffering, isn't that enough? I mean come on, he only lived in lavish palaces covered in gold and jewels, woman, wealth, a huge army, and 99.9 percent of the popular vote. Why wouldn't he step down :D

Let's face it people there are only thee ways to get someone to do something for you. Out of respect, Out of fear of the consequences, or money. Saddam had no respect for the UN, did not fear the UN, and he was already one of the wealthiest guys on the planet. And then after that he had France and Russia practically behind him threatening to veto any military action against him.

Tony

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Thunderwind
Imagine a day when the French really really need our help. That would be the day to show OUR support of them. :)

---

I think that day has passed a couple times which has made Americans so angry with France. But then again, judging by the smiley I would guess you already knew that :) It doesn't hurt to emphasize the fact though ;)

Tony

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Wayward Clam
To those who say, Bush is better than Saddam, you are certainly right in the short term, but I'm not sure you are right in the long term. Fatal lung cancer is better than a sucking chest wound, but in the end, why would you want either? Bush and his like will be the destruction of the United States, and probably the world too, I fear; it will just take longer to do it Bush's way than Saddam's, and it will look prettier in the meantime.

---

I'm interested to know why you think it may actually be that bad? I know everyone has opinions about each president we've had and many have been much less than total respect and agreeance but why so bad in this case?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by silencio
Voicing opposition is one thing. Actively lobbying other countries to vote against us when we believe that we are fighting to preserve our own security falls on the "against us" side of my line in the sand. Providing our enemy with weapons clearly puts France on the other side of the line. And lets remember the only reason that France is on the side of Saddam Hussien, oil contracts. LOL, isn't that some amazing irony? France doesn't give two ****s about the people of Iraq.

---

Let me address this sentence by sentence:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by silencio
Actively lobbying other countries to vote against us when we believe that we are fighting to preserve our own security falls on the "against us" side of my line in the sand.

---

I can see this I suppose, but I don't believe for one second that America is fighting to preserve it's own security. Otherwise, you would have invaded North Korea, Iran, Syria, maybe China as well, and a few dozen banana republics ahead of or simultaneously with the war on Iraq.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by silencio
Providing our enemy with weapons clearly puts France on the other side of the line.

---

I guess that puts the USA on the other side of the line too. Hmm... Dubya was directly responsible for that too, wasn't he?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by silencio
And lets remember the only reason that France is on the side of Saddam Hussien, oil contracts. LOL, isn't that some amazing irony? France doesn't give two ****s about the people of Iraq.

---

Sorry, but did you just say that France's motivation IS oil-not-human-rights, and Bush's motivation ISN'T?

I just don't buy it. Once again, why haven't the other countries on the list with NO oil and with WORSE human rights violations been invaded yet?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by WebHawg
Without a war, how would you expect to remove a powerful and/or corrupt leader like Hussein? Asking him nicely to leave isn't going to do it.

---

Are you suggesting that the rest of the world should go to war with the USA to liberate its peoples from a leader who is perceived internationally as powerful and corrupt? After all, asking him nicely to leave didn't do it.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Wayward Clam
Are you suggesting that the rest of the world should go to war with the USA to liberate its peoples from a leader who is perceived internationally as powerful and corrupt? After all, asking him nicely to leave didn't do it.

---

ROTFL! That's funny. The rest of the world going to war with us. That's pretty good. Man, you should do stand up. That was awesome. :grin: