a little politics(U.S president race)

[Henrik]

@fallen_saint: i think that you have some great point of views - coz to be honest i'm also not quite sure that John Kerry knows what to do with the Iraq "problem" - Ie. he can't just pull the troops out, coz then i think that the consequense will be that the whole country will be torn apart by a civilwar - so when he says he that he wants to end the occupation of Iraq one should just consider this as electoral promises.

[Elewyn]

Iraq problem is very difficult. Kerry probably don't know what to do with it, i really don't know, but what about Bush?
He was sure what to to: rebuilt the country and lead it to democracy, am i right?

but ,my question: can soldiers of invading army learn people, who never faced democracy, principes of democracy?

I'm not sure if the way "destroy-traditional-system-and-replace-it with-our-system-which-works-well-in-my-country" is the best solution, however Saddam has nothing to do with traditional system, but was simply a dictator.

People of Iraq (and allover the world) should learn how the democracy works but we must let them to deal with it their way, only correcting if they start to follow bad way. But BAD doesn't mean the same like "not-known-in-the-West".
True is that I don't know how to correct it :(

[Henrik]

@Elewyn good point - no i don't really think that soldiers are the ones one would pick as first choice of teachers to learn the people of democracy.

[Berserkr138]

And the problem with Iraq is that it's going to become a false democracy. As long as we have troops there you'll never see someone with anti-western beliefs become Iraq's next leader, even if 90% of the Iraqi's voted for him.

[Elewyn]

Originally posted by Berserkr138
And the problem with Iraq is that it's going to become a false democracy. As long as we have troops there you'll never see someone with anti-western beliefs become Iraq's next leader, even if 90% of the Iraqi's voted for him. :( but true

[Haegemon]

Well, I don't know what's the solution, but war isn't. We don't have a more secure world afterall.

Sadam was a menace? If someone wants to cut a regime can cut the heir line, and force a rebellion inside or give a chance to moderate people until the regime itself dies. US govment has lots of people experts in conspiration. Anybody forget that Hussein and Laden were US govment's old friends.

Now, I'm sure US. govment would leave but don't know how.
The balance is: Afghanistan still burning, death toll thousads; Iraq still burning, death toll thousands; no solution in short time.

Also, there is the Arab League. Have the West to seek the solution allways, instead of push the Arab League to find a solution and apply themselves?
Islamic terrorists have a growing support and we can't kill all muslims.


Spanians were pushed to war by the ex-president Aznar. Nine of every ten were against the war, but president decided under his responsability. He wanted to "put Spain in the map". We civillians paid for it.
Terrorists are guilty, politicians are guilty.

"The War it's yours, deaths are ours"

11-S tates
11-M adrid

[Elewyn]

Originally posted by Haegemon
Well, I don't know what's the solution, but war isn't. We don't have a more secure world afterall.

Sadam was a menace? If someone wants to cut a regime can cut the heir line, and force a rebellion inside or give a chance to moderate people until the regime itself dies. US govment has lots of people experts in conspiration. Anybody forget that Hussein and Laden were US govment's old friends.

Now, I'm sure US. govment would leave but don't know how.
The balance is: Afghanistan still burning, death toll thousads; Iraq still burning, death toll thousands; no solution in short time.

Also, there is the Arab League. Have the West to seek the solution allways, instead of push the Arab League to find a solution and apply themselves?
Islamic terrorists have a growing support and we can't kill all muslims.


Spanians were pushed to war by the ex-president Aznar. Nine of every ten were against the war, but president decided under his responsability. He wanted to "put Spain in the map". We civillians paid for it.
Terrorists are guilty, politicians are guilty.

"The War it's yours, deaths are ours"

11-S tates
11-M adrid :sad:

[Krum The Terrible]

I think that Bush is found of the Roman Empire and he is traing to create something like this an enpire which control the world. About Iraq.I'm sure that all of you know that in Arabian world theare are no democrasies. All Arabic leaders are diktators or absolute monarchs. The american goverment know that, too.So
they don't care for the people in Iraq. Another one willcome insted
Sadam he will be like him, but will be american ally so the world will understand that now Iraq is democratic country.Americans are intrasted only on the petrol. You know "Nevermid what we are talking about we are talking about money".

[Henrik]

I'll have to agree that there is defently also a money issue involved in this whole mess along with the securing-a-steady-suply-of-oil-agenda.

[Cabrito]

George War Bush went to tv and did a stupid joke about the mass destruction weapons not found and the present journalists laugh, the family of deads not found funny.

Michael Moore for U.S. president!

[greywulf]

What makes me pretty angry is that Afghanistan has always, without fail, been put last since in foreign aid and policy since this coalition of forces invaded 2 years ago. Granted, a large part of the current problems are simply due to old attitudes and traditions, but the slow nature of changes in security, social services, government legitimacy and infrastructure are all strongly tied to lacks of funding.

The US in particular went into Afghanistan under the banner of 'democracy', security and modernization. Of course, helping Afghanistan to that level requires massive amounts of monetary aid to build up the country's resources so that it can become moderately self-sufficient and participate on the 'wonderful' global market we have. The country rarely gets enough money to even expand/pay its security forces.

They (the international community and US in particular) should have helped out Afghanistan first. They could have learnt a lesson in Afghanistan... basically that a full regime change and state political readjustment is *very* expensive and requires careful consideration. Of course, there are no lessons learnt because the US hasn't committed enough resources to actually make any significant changes outside of the capital itself. We all know there was no real reason to invade Iraq other then some flat out lies... I really wish they had done something in Afghanistan first before starting another messy war.

[Henrik]

To be honest i don't think that the U.S government goves a damn about rebuilding Afghanistan - ie. they saw a threat from that country and responded accordinly - end of story

[greywulf]

They've put up a sham of a rebuilding project and for a 'democratic and freedom loving' 1st world country to devastate a 3rd world one and just leave it to rebuild itself is pretty disgusting. If a first world country believes it can get away with doing such a thing, they might be in for another rude awakening. Sept. 11 happened because of these types of policies in the Middle East. Unfortunately, governments are often doomed to repeat their mistakes and their citizens are the ones that pay...

[Richard]

i dont like bush coz he didnt do anything about 9 11 to stop it from happening they knew that terrorist were gonna to attack and he did nothing about it.:confused::nono:
So then to try to repair the damage he start bombing afganistan and then iraq, i think he is doing this just to get the oil from those coutries.It might be true, he stop sadam husain who was a dictator but think about how many inosent lifes were lost.I think that if he get reelected he will continue destroying all those mid east countries, he is doing what his father started.
john karry is just another 1 he will do the same if he is elected.

im sorry if my point of view is different from any of u guys, but im afraid that's the true and if was old enough to vote i wouldn't vote for none of them.
Vote for none of them:blob::blob:;)

[Henrik]

Originally posted by Richard
john karry is just another 1 he will do the same if he is elected.

im sorry if my point of view is different from any of u guys, but im afraid that's the true and if was old enough to vote i wouldn't vote for none of them.
Vote for none of them:blob::blob:;)

Yeahh, maybe you're right Richard, but i think that most of us could agree that although john Kerry may not be much better than G. Bush and should John Kerry happens to actiually beat then atleast it will not be Bush who ruins the world for the next four years - i actually think that it's a "good" way to look at it.

[Elewyn]

The reason why attack Afghanistan: show Americans that their president tries to keep them safe. Taliban fell in 7 december: symbolical end of war :hello: But untill now Allies don't controll the whole country (out of Kabul the life didn't change much IMO)

reason of Iraq attack: OIL and Saddam. However many innocent people died there since the war officially ended (American army have bigger looses after the end of war than during the war!!) many innocent people there ldied before because they didn't agree with Saddam's regime.
But maybe more important reason for GWB was to tell to every world dictator: if you support terorism (what means if you will act like somebody who looks like terrorist supporter to ME), let's sek for a good lawyer, because your better end is similar to Saddam's.
In this fact he succeeded : North Korea is "opening the door" for negotiations, Khadafi's Lybia promissed fight aggainst terrorism.

But nothing of this changes the fact that most support to terrorism goes from Saudi Arabia and drug criminals across Europe and USA, terroristts are recruited from youth of "liberal" arab countries like Saudi Arabia, Morocco and 2nd generation of muslim imigrants in Europe and US. The reason?
They live in the West, in it's comfort with ability to get huge ammount of information but no Values, because racionalism has already fallen, christianity was defeated by racionalism and postmodernity has nothing to offer you. So they turn back from liberality to traditions, what means islam and face to face western civilisation, ruled by money which would not satisfy most of young people, they turn to hate the West, became fundamentalists...

[greywulf]

Originally posted by Elewyn
But maybe more important reason for GWB was to tell to every world dictator: if you support terorism (what means if you will act like somebody who looks like terrorist supporter to ME), let's sek for a good lawyer, because your better end is similar to Saddam's.
In this fact he succeeded : North Korea is "opening the door" for negotiations, Khadafi's Lybia promissed fight aggainst terrorism.


There's a number of regime's around the world that support terrorism in one form or another but will never feel America's wrath for a number of reasons, such as pro-western policy and access to critical resources. This can be seen in almost all oil producing countries, Sudan comes to mind, Saudi Arabia. There's also a number of South American countries, South East Asian such as Indonesia. There are also European terrorist nations, such as Ireland. Libya and North Korea are at odds with the US because they have very little to offer in the way of resources and have an extended history at odds with America.

Not only that, there are a large number of western nations that support 'legitimate' terrorism, such as the US, Israel, Russia. These nations do nothing to counter terrorism. Looking at the world situation with Palestinians and Chechans, it is clear that these world nations do not stop terrorism by becoming terrorists themselves.

I wish there were more choices then just Kerry and Bush. I wish politicians actually cared about people. I wish many things would change concerning the political realities of our world, and that is why, for the most part, I choose not to vote.

[Angryminer]

such as the US, Israel, Russia

Word up!
It seems a matter of elections that the world-police USA never intervened in Palestina. Israel is breaking international laws and UN-resolutions all the time, but the most dreadfull enemy GWB can imagin is Saddam.
And the Russian "guided democracy" reminds me of darker times...
In fact I believe that amarican's don't want to live in a peacefull or socialy secure system. Wars and suppression have been "The american way of life" since it's very beginning.

My friend always predicts armageddon with the words "The judes are gathering on the mountain Zion" ;) .

Angryminer

[Henrik]

Originally posted by greywulf
I wish there were more choices then just Kerry and Bush. I wish politicians actually cared about people. I wish many things would change concerning the political realities of our world, and that is why, for the most part, I choose not to vote.

That makes me kinda sad to hear that you don't vote - I ALWAYS do Ie. IMO you should vote just because you have the possibility to do so - i'll hope you can follow me on this one, coz when i vote i always think of those not so forunate ones living on this planet, which risk getting killed when they try to vote and thereby expressing their opinion - so voting is the thing that keeps democracy alive - even if you don't like any of the candidates you should vote for the one which you feel the least distrust/dislikeness against.

I'm sure that those of the members who lives behind the former "Iron curtain" and are old enough to remember would tend agree with me !

We, "in the west" have had democracy in so many years that we probably forget its importance a little - hell, we take demoracy for granted don't we, but instead we should protect democracy and a good way to do that is by voting.....

[Haegemon]

Please... Gadafi had price over his head during Reagan govment, USAF bombarded his palaces. Everybody forgot US-Lybia war, when all 'terrorists' were from Lybia. Right now poses friendly face to face next Mr. Blair. :rolleyes:

If somebody thinks that none candidate it's good enought, he has the right to no vote. It's democracy also. Instead of this some people feels forced to vote for somebody no matter if it likes him or not, cos they think it's what they have to do, costhey can do it. :nono: