Re: OT: why USA is a regime

From: Bill Todd (billtodd_at_metrocast.net)
Date: 10/25/04 

Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 01:21:25 -0400

"JF Mezei" <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> wrote in message
news:417C4143.DC9EC3D8@teksavvy.com...
> Bill Todd wrote:
> > I always hope that apparently fruitless discussions like this one might
at
> > least cause a bit of neural activity in silent observers whose brain
cells
> > haven't yet completely ossified, but lacking visible results it's often
> > difficult to sustain the effort solely on faith.
>
> Such discussions only re-enforce the belief that many americans simply
refuse
> to be informed of reality.

Indeed. But if one just gives up and stops refuting the bull***, that's
even less likely to change: our media certainly have proved that they're
not about to do the job.

IIRC during the discussions after 9/11 it was helpful for some of the
European (and IIRC Australian) contingent here to provide some international
balance. Sure, it's off-topic, but making that clear in the subject line
removes a lot of the stigma from that, and since Americans don't tend to
stir from their barcaloungers except briefly every 4 years (or when
something like 9/11 occurs) it's not as if it were a continual problem.

...

> as outsiders, we are witnesses to the brainwashing that
> has occured in the USA under the guise of 9-11 after-effects and wonder
with
> amazement why americans aren't waking up and insist on keeping their heads
in
> the sand.

The active (and often enthusiastic) complicity of our media explains a lot
of that (at least if you assume that most Americans aren't paying very close
attention anyway). A 'siege mentality' (both after an unexpected and
highly-visible attack, and from more recent disapproval of our actions by
the rest of the world) explains at least part of the rest. But it still
doesn't reflect well on the average American's astuteness.

...

> In the USA, either the structures are wrong, or something happened, but
there
> was no last sanity check by someone empowered to stop a political leader
from
> abusing power. (Launching an unprovoked attack on a foreign country
without
> declaring war, and lying about having support of the UN when in fact this
act
> was illegal because it did not have UN approval).

Our Supreme Court is supposed to be one such check, and it failed abysmally
in this - though it may have a fig-leaf of cover in historical precedents
(in general, the three major branches of our government have tended to
refrain from interfering with each other's turf save when absolutely
necessary, though the current administration doesn't seem to have any qualms
in this area).

Our Congress, of course, failed even more abysmally (and more actively by
rubber-stamping Bush's activities rather than actively opposing them).

>
> Something is askew with checks and balances in the USA, and some rogue
> government has gone on a rampage outside its own jurisdiction and has so
far
> gone unpunished.

Absolutely true.

>
>
> > There would be some (though regrettably few, and regrettably minor)
> > differences between a Bush and a Kerry administration, but which one is
> > elected will say very little about the American people as a whole,
>
> While domestically, the differences won't be that great (when you have
such a
> large deficit, any government's hands are tied), internationally, I think
that
> there will be a huge difference.

You think incorrectly. When it comes to foreign policy, Bush and Kerry are
very much two peas in the same pod.

>
> Bush is on record as wanting to continue its present course, unchanged
> (internationally).
> Kerry is on record as wanting to work with allies.

Kerry is on record as wanting to work with allies to achieve almost
precisely the same international goals that Bush has - even his very recent
(and apparently somewhat desperate) two-years-too-late change of heart about
the propriety of invading Iraq does not in any way renounce continued
American domination of that country, just the same promise of military
draw-down that Bush himself is now offering (and on the subjects of Ariel
Sharon, Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro, general American hegemony, and other
international subjects that don't spring readily to mind at this late hour
Kerry has stated clearly that he stands shoulder to shoulder with Bush). He
just thinks he can sell these policies better by using a more genteel
approach - and I fear that he may be right.

>
> > it's already clear that *roughly* half of those who will bother to vote
at
> > all will be voting for Bush,
>
> If there had been clear opposition to Bush in the USA, then you woudln't
be
> seeing such feedback from outside the USA since we would have convidence
that
> democracy would take care of Bush. It is exactly because the world sees so
> many americans supporting someone who deserves a trial at the war crimes
> tribunal that there is a lot of worry.

My point is that how a few percent of us vote (for that seems likely to be
the margin of victory for either Kerry or Bush) really won't make any
significant difference in how Americans should be perceived: we're still a
pretty sorry lot either way.

...

> As a result, the USA has lost credibility and its leadership role in the
> world. Such can be restored in time if the offender only lasts one term.

I'm less worried about our public image throughout the world than about what
we actually *do*. You should be as well. If Kerry manages to sell American
imperialism better than Bush has, it may make you feel better about us for a
while but the eventual outcome could be even worse than if you're confronted
by an evil you can more easily recognize.

If we act responsibly, our public image will take care of itself. If we
don't, but manage to fool the rest of the world as effectively as the
American public has been fooled already, I'm not optimistic for the future.

 But
> if re-elected, the rest of the world will build protections to restrain
this
> rogue superpower that acts like a renegade teenager from doing further
damage.

If Kerry is elected, you should be doing exactly the same thing - until such
time as he proves that his words during the past few months do *not* reflect
his real intent (which is the best one can hope for if indeed he wins).

>
> Ask Bliar who he would prefer to be elected ? He has lost support of his
> citizens over the Iraq lies and blind support of Bush. His re-election
will be
> much easier if Bush is kicked out and Kerry comes in since Bliar will no
> longer be seen as Bush's puppet.

And reelecting Blair is something you'd consider to be a *good* thing? If
so, why do you oppose reelecting Bush? They are, after all, very active
mutual accomplices.

>
>
> > So while you may believe that which one is elected actually matters
>
> From an outsider, what matters is that american citizens send the world a
> clear message: they don't tolerate war criminals and will boot out Bush.

The only way that message could possibly be a clear one would be if Kerry
won by a *large* margin. A point which I made already, but which you seem
to have missed.

  Bush
> has demonstrated that he is unacceptable internationally and stated he
would
> continue those unacceptable policies.

Whereas Kerry has not (yet) demonstrated that he is unacceptable
internationally, but has stated that he would continue almost exactly the
same unacceptable policies.

You really haven't been paying nearly enough attention to Kerry over the
past 7 months or so. Just as is the case with so many 'anybody but Bush'
voters in America, the fact that he is not Bush seems to have been all you
felt you needed to know.

...

> As soon as Bush is ousted or impeached, I think that most of the americans
> currently in denial about the mistakes of the Bush regime will open their
eyes
> since there will no lonfer be a motivation to keep eyes closed to protect
Bush.

You give us far too much credit, and clearly don't have a clue about what's
happened in this country over the past few decades. To be fair, it's hard
for me to really believe it either, but the evidence is impossible to ignore
if one actually looks at it.

>
> Leaving Bush in will make the zip explode instead of heal.

Not too bad an analogy, save that what will happen if Bush loses will be
that the infection will actively continue under the skin and explode later
with potentially even worse consequences. Whereas letting it pop now (I
assume you meant 'zit') and applying appropriate antiseptics will allow an
actual healing process to begin.

...

> The Bush regime were selected with a very narrow margin helped by supreme
> court. Yet, their mandate was executed as if they had been elected with a
90%
> majority. So I don't think that margin of a win really matters past
january 17th.

The problem all along may have been that you've been confusing the public
image of America's citizens with how you expect a Kerry presidency to differ
from a Bush one. If you want to talk about the latter, start doing so and
stop suggesting that which one gets elected will say something significant
about the American people.

...

> The problem with impeachement is that it might remove the Bush puppet, but
not
> the war lords behind him.

And you're poorly informed if you think that electing Kerry will.

 Impeaching both Bush and Cheney would create quite a
> disturbance in governance (is it the speaker of the house next in line ?).

Yes.

 Can
> one also impeach Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz ?

I suspect that even just a serious *attempt* at impeaching Bush/Cheney would
result in their dismissal (and possibly Cheney's as well). But in any
event, a successful impeachment and removal from office would open the door
to prosecuting them even if the new occupant of the oval office kept them
around.

>
> Impeachement should have occured prior to this election.

Yes, it should have. But better late than never.

 Should Bush be
> re-elected, impeachement should still occur, but I am not sure if the
> democrats would want it.

I suspect that the significant rejection of their party (by failing to
prevail against even an abomination such as Bush) might give them a clue
that their earlier stances weren't being received very well. So they'd have
considerable motivation to try changing them.

> Would they benefit politically from it ?

Now you're starting to sound more like a realist. Making it clear to the
Democratic party that they won't get *anywhere* unless they actually start
trying to address real problems rather than feather their own nests is about
the only obvious way to start getting this country back on track, at least
to me.

- bill