Ain't Democracy ironic

[duke o' york]

Demowhat? Oh, that system where you get to choose between the lesser of two evils.

[Caligastia]

Yeah, a


or a

[atawa]

Originally posted by Arrian


Well that's a ringing endorsement, isn't it! "Well, we're more liberal than North Korea!"

-Arrian

Its a start

But seriously, looking at countries in asia such as Taiwan, S-Korea, Indonesia and the Philipines I see countries that made/are still making a peacefull and slow transition from dictatorships into democracies.

I'd prefer this option to the "lets go in, shoot the hell out of them and tell them to become democrats" way of doing things that seems to be the norm these days.

[BeBMan]

The systems which allows pubs to stay open all night long

[atawa]

Originally posted by duke o' york
Demowhat? Oh, that system where you get to choose between the lesser of two evils.

Nah, thats the anglo style two-party system.

I always wondered why people called this a democracy.

[Harovan]

@ Caligastia's article. The only thing the author hasn't right is the year.

[Blaupanzer]

Go, Arrian.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
What do you mean if we go to war with Iran?

Very big, solid, if. As in, unlikely in the extreme. There's not diddly worth of popular support, and in case anyone hadn't looked, the US is stretched pretty thin. The chickenhawks are in denial, but Pace, et al aren't.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Blaupanzer
This thought borders on being nonsense. One cannot be liberal and a dictator.

Sure you can.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Very big, solid, if. As in, unlikely in the extreme. There's not diddly worth of popular support, and in case anyone hadn't looked, the US is stretched pretty thin. The chickenhawks are in denial, but Pace, et al aren't.

Unless the military mutinies, they may well have no choice. It's not like the civilian leadership listened to the military before invading Iraq.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Very big, solid, if. As in, unlikely in the extreme. There's not diddly worth of popular support, and in case anyone hadn't looked, the US is stretched pretty thin. The chickenhawks are in denial, but Pace, et al aren't.

Unless the military mutinies, they may well have no choice. It's not like the civilian leadership listened to the military before invading Iraq.

First, nothing 'til after November. Then Bush is a lame duck, and the Congress will have its own agenda. Besides, not too many get to wear four stars on their shoulders without learning subtler ways of expressing what they want to do. Not to mention there are lots of corporate interests with a lot to lose in event of further oil supply instability. Far more with a lot to lose than with a lot to gain.

[Blaupanzer]

Whether or not oil provoked US intervention in Iraq, oil concerns will prevent its repeat in Iran. If Iran were to somehow do major harm to Israel, hotter heads would likely prevail.

Even in the Bush version of a Democracy, the care and feeding of the populace does play some part.

[RGBVideo]

Originally posted by Timexwatch
So are you going to tar and feather the U.S. if we prop-up America/Western friendly regimes? That certainly worked out well with the Shah....can you say Khomeini? Those brown folk don't know the Western man's burden!

It would've worked well for decades if Carter wouldn't have reduced US support (and forced the Shah into too radical reforms) because of ideological reasons.

CIA "propped up" Shah as a pro-US tyrant during the 1950s, it was a plan of J.F. Dulles IIRC.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
First, nothing 'til after November. Then Bush is a lame duck, and the Congress will have its own agenda. Besides, not too many get to wear four stars on their shoulders without learning subtler ways of expressing what they want to do. Not to mention there are lots of corporate interests with a lot to lose in event of further oil supply instability. Far more with a lot to lose than with a lot to gain.

Maybe, maybe not. I strongly suspect that the Bushies live in the same reality as Ned. Plus, there's evangelicals who seem to think that war between the U.S. and Iran is the harbinger of the apocalypse, and while they don't think they can force the hand of God, they certainly aren't going to do anything to stop it.

The only thing that could stop Bush from invading is the military refusing to go. Apparently the 5th Court ruled during Kosovo that while only Congress can declare war, nothing in the Constitution prevents the President from making war. Once troops are committed, Congress will spend the money.

Plus, the civil unrest that would probably result would give them the excuse they need to impliment those plans that have been sitting around for decades to round up the dissidents and declare martial law. Who needs elections when GOD appointed the president.

It's not like the current government hasn't already wiped its ass with the Constitution. How much harder would it be for them to flush?

Am I paranoid, almost certainly. But I could be right, too.