US 2008

[Cyadkuso]

I'm kinda just jumping into this, but someone will always feel like they are getting screwed. if a politician caters to the nature people, big business is getting screwed, cater to big business and small business get screwed, etc. etc. pretty much what every election comes to is who will supposedly do something for you and vote for them, and the politicians will always say what people want to hear. people are P.O'd at the war in Iraq so almost all upcoming politicians will say they want to pull out. but right after 9/11 everyone was P.O'd at the people that did it, and enough obviously wanted the war for it to even happen. its just what is the hot issue of the month and how they can appease the most amount of people to get the most votes

[Zimmerwald]

Way to live totally in the moment and completely ignore broad historical tendancies.  I'm very impressed [/sarcasm]

[Cyadkuso]

are you talking to me? if so why than you very much.
*pats self on back.* if not...i still will do it, 

and which broad historical tendencies would that be?

[Zimmerwald]

its just what is the hot issue of the month and how they can appease the most amount of people to get the most votes

Well, from this sort of statement I inferred your position that people don't act on their interests.  According to you, they pay attention to a series of unimportant, but eye-catching issues.

[Cyadkuso]

hmm...well to choose one of the most obvious. how many people are in Iraq? and how many people have immediate family/close friends in Iraq? now how many people are complaining about it talking about how it was wrong and etc. ? now, how is it in the interest of these people that have no relation to the war in Iraq other than what they have seen on TV? (i know I'm probably gonna piss off quite a few people here, if so...sry?)

[Delfos]

problem is, you only have right-ish non-3rd parties. In Portugal the 2 most voted or the big ones are very close in the center, one is center left, another is center right, and since the revolution we've been with one or another. Good thing the ones your call 3rd parties are also very important,

Nationalist Party (not dumb but surely do foolish stuff)
CDS-PP (Right democrats) (probably the strongest right wing third party, normally connected with PSD (Social-Democrats), a center-right party)

PSD (social-democrats, big one, although the guy leading them is a stupid ass)
PS (Socialist, the ones in power, another big one, and yes I'm happy)

BE (Left-Block, very important third party, emerged from nowhere and it's the best and biggest opposition tot he government, it's the most professional one in my opinion, actually gets very appealing propositions to the government)

PCP (communists, also very important third party, close to BE but yell about workers and unemployment.)

[Zimmerwald]

hmm...well to choose one of the most obvious. how many people are in Iraq? and how many people have immediate family/close friends in Iraq? now how many people are complaining about it talking about how it was wrong and etc. ? now, how is it in the interest of these people that have no relation to the war in Iraq other than what they have seen on TV? (i know I'm probably gonna piss off quite a few people here, if so...sry?)

People have interests related to the war other than having family members in country.  The war diverts funds from domestic programs, which pisses off welfare liberals and social democrats.  It increases the likelyhood of profiteering, which annoys people concerned about corruption.  It engenders human rights violations, which incences just about everybody.  Especially in the latter case, an injury to one is an injury to all, and most Americans are perceptive enough to see it.

[Cyadkuso]

It engenders human rights violations, which incences just about everybody.  Especially in the latter case, an injury to one is an injury to all, and most Americans are perceptive enough to see it.

So why are there not more people mad at the large portion of countries who subject their population to violations of their human rights year round?

[Zimmerwald]

Oh, but they are.  However, under the current international law, State A does not have the legitimate right to interfere in the internal affairs of State B, whether State B is violating "human rights" or not.  Of course, it is possible to debate the very notion of "rights," but this is neither the time nor the place.  The point is that it is a total waste of effort to try to get the United States to intervene in the internal affairs of another State, no matter how legitimate the cause.  Whether or not the UN or some other supra-national body has the right to intervene in the internal affairs of a State is a matter for debate, but the average U.S. citizen has little control over UN policy.

The Iraq War, however, is a target that can be attacked, as it is a matter of replacing one United States policy (that of armed intervention) with another (that of peaceful reconciliation) rather than interfering in the internal affairs of another State.

[Cyadkuso]

I am probably missing the point here completely, but

The Iraq War, however, is a target that can be attacked, as it is a matter of replacing one United States policy (that of armed intervention) with another (that of peaceful reconciliation) rather than interfering in the internal affairs of another State.

Irregardless of if it is an armed intervention or a peaceful reconciliation the US will still be dictating to a certain degree to them on what they should be doing. A reason that it could still be an armed intervention is that if the troops pulled out the people still bombing and threatening will take back the goverment of Iraq.

Iraqi government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said he there has been "progress on the security side, particularly in Baghdad," but said support from the U.S. was still needed and that there should be no timetable set for it to end.

"When things get better and the security situation gets better the Iraqi government will be able to talk about a timetable," he told a regular news conference.

U.S. officials have also said security has been improving but that they are not seeing significant progress politically with Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's government.

Got that from http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2007-09-09-sunday_N.htm

[Zimmerwald]

Your source speaks for the Maliki government, which has experienced a severe loss of support in the past few weeks, with seventeen ministers pulling out of the cabinet.  The Iraqi Parliament has several times passed resolutions calling for the immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops, and whatever government succeeds Makili will likely iterate that position strongly.

A reason that it could still be an armed intervention is that if the troops pulled out the people still bombing and threatening will take back the goverment of Iraq.

This is a very strange argument, particularly as many of the people currently fighting against American forces never had a voice in the government of Iraq.  Furthermore, if the Iraqi people vote anti-American (read anti-imperialist) parties into the majority of Parliament, that is their democratic right and the United States has no right to prevent them from doing so.

[Cyadkuso]

I'm sorry, I guess I should have made myself a bit clearer on the "taking back the government." I meant taking it back by force, not by democratic means. And even though the Maliki government lost 17 ministers from the cabinet, it still controls a vast part of the Iraqi Parliament and Maliki is still Prime Minister.

[Zimmerwald]

Maliki is only still Prime Minister because the parties that have withdrawn their support have not tried to form their own government, and will not try to do so until after the next election.  He is Prime Minister by default, because nobody else wants the job with the current party alignment.

I meant taking it back by force, not by democratic means.

Why is it the business of the United States if a faction takes control of the Iraqi government by force?

[Cyadkuso]

I never said that he won the Prime Ministry because he was immensely popular, but

Your source speaks for the Maliki government, which has experienced a severe loss of support in the past few weeks, with seventeen ministers pulling out of the cabinet.  The Iraqi Parliament has several times passed resolutions calling for the immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops, and whatever government succeeds Makili will likely iterate that position strongly.

Here you make it seem like just because it was the Maliki Government it does not count that they still want the US troops in there because they lost support.

It increases the likelyhood of profiteering, which annoys people concerned about corruption.  It engenders human rights violations, which incences just about everybody.  Especially in the latter case, an injury to one is an injury to all, and most Americans are perceptive enough to see it.

If someone takes a government by force than it could go one of two ways. They could make it into a better government, or they could become corrupt, profiteering from the country, and they could violate many human right. Which by your own arguments means that if someone takes the government by force, and they take the latter course of action, it should affect the whole world .

[Bender1968]

The best form of government seems to be a benevolent dictatorship.  The problem is finding someone that is benevolent and intelligent and won't turn into a meglomaniac.