Re: OT: why USA is a regime
From: Dr. Dweeb (dr_at_dweeb.com)
Date: 10/25/04
- Next message: Dr. Dweeb: "Re: OT: why USA is a regime"
- Previous message: GreyCloud: "Re: Problem with LIB$INIT_TIMER"
- In reply to: JF Mezei: "Re: OT: why USA is a regime"
- Next in thread: David Froble: "Re: OT: why USA is a regime"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 19:17:12 +0200
"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.
>
> Economic mismanagement is expected from a government. It isn't a crime and
you
> expect some government to spin their tax changes into some made-in-heaven
fix
> for a country's economic problems when in the end, it won't have much of
an impact.
>
> Human rights violations domestically though should, especially in a
country
> like the USA, have caused massive complaints/uprisings from the
electorate.
>
> Considering that americans previously balked at even the concept of a
national
> identity card, it is absolutely amazing that today, they have become
obediant
> and don't even complain about the government wanting to monitor all their
> purchases, travels and any other actitity in some large central database
> without the USA having a proper modern data privacy act to first protect
this
> massive amount of data.
>
> (Already, airline reservation data has been leaked many times , proving
> mechanisms in place to protect data are ineffective , and last week, over
a
> million social security records were stolen in california from a
university
> doing some study on social security).
>
> As a non-USA citizen, I can't complain about what the USA does
domestically.
> If it wants to monitor all USA transactions , then so be it. However I can
> complain when the USA threathens other countries to also submit all those
> transactions for the USA to play with, especially when this goes against a
> country's national data privacy laws.
>
> Visa, Mastercard and American Express may have to move their world
> headquarters offshore if this continues, otherwise Visa/Mastercard member
> banks outside the USA may setup their own transaction exchanges to bypass
the
> USA. If i buy a box of chocolates in belgium on a canadian credit card,
there
> is no reason that the USA government should have a copy of that
transaction.
> But under current programmes, that is exactly what the USA government will
get.
>
> But more importantly, 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.
>
> Why does this matter ?
>
> Normally, democratic mechanisms would prevent a government from doing
> something terribly wrong. But whatever mechanisms exist in the USA failed
> because the government invaded Iraq, tortured people, has illegally
kidnapped
> people and kept them in dog cages at Gantanamo without due legal process
and
> yet americans still brag about the USA having the best legal system and
human
> righst in the world ? Normally, americans would have risen against the
spectre
> of a program called "Total information awareness", politicians would have
> scrutinized some police state law called "Patriot Act" and been able to
stand
> up and vote "NO" despite the law's title.
>
> It is appaling that US politicians voted for the Patriot Act without
reading
> it, just because it was the patrioting thing to do (voting for the
"patriot" act).
>
> In a parliamentary democracy, the head of state (which is not the prime
> minister) has the power to block bills, and has the power to disolve a
> government it judges to act against the constitution. It is very rare, but
> there have been instances where head of state did intervene, and that is
> exactly what the head of state is for. An apolitical final sanity check
> mechanism.
>
> 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).
>
> 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.
>
>
> > 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.
>
I think you are deluded on this point. Blind hope comes to mind. We may
get the opportunity to know in a few weeks - or not.
> Bush is on record as wanting to continue its present course, unchanged
> (internationally).
> Kerry is on record as wanting to work with allies.
>
> > 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.
>
> Ask yourself this: if the USA's actions outside its own jurisdiction were
so
> legal, why is Bush affraid of the ICC ?
>
You, JF.
You enunciate the rabid, illogical and irrational anti-american sentiment
that pervades many parts of the underdeveloped world. The US, like your
country and mine has mechanisms in place to post factum
investigate/judge/correct transgressions of members of its military, and
shows clearly that it has no problems using them (the historical precedents
are legion). There is no rational reason to transfer this power of judgment
to a supra-national organisation whose composition will by definition be
just like you.
The US is not a perfect state, and neither is Canada. Personally I would
not be happy about having some 12th century towelhead with a third rate
education adjudicating over trhe actions of those who defend my freedom by
arms. For that matter, neither would I be too happy about ANY foreign
national doing so. The Canadians, Americans, Australians etc. etc can all
handle this quite competantly themselves.
The purpose of the ICC is to provide yet another politically motivated forum
for pissing on the US. We have enough of those already.
> Should the people of a country ask questions of their government when the
> later refuses to submit itself and its military to international law ?
How
> come so many americans refuse to accept the concept of international law ?
Actually, I think you will find that the majority of the world refuse to
accept it - and for lots of very good (and some seriously bad) reasons.
Freedom of self determination would be a good start.
Do not confuse G7 for the world. G7 is not a majority.
> If all US military actions outside the USA were legal/sanctioned, then the
USA
> wouldn't have to worry about having its leaders or military brough to the
ICC
>
I think you should read your Machiavelli and get in touch with the reality,
rather than your desired ideal.
> What the Bush regime failed to do is to transform the "superpower" into
world
> leadership. They instead decided to impose a unilateral USA world police
that
> has abused its power with total disregard for established international
law.
>
> 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.
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.
>
> 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.
>
Thats easy - the democrat, because he is one himself. Your reasoning is
irrelevant.
>
> > 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.
Bush
> has demonstrated that he is unacceptable internationally and stated he
would
> continue those unacceptable policies.
>
For you, JF an (one, singular) outsider.
> A vote for Bush along with lack of impeachement signifies that american
> citizens condone war crimes and breaking of human rights and disregard for
> international law. It tells the world that the USA has changed permanently
and
> this is not just some unfortunate glitch people will want forgotten.
>
It signifies nothing of the kind. It will signify exactly what an election
always does - the will of the plebes, based on an each individuals personal
beliefs and motivations within the framework of a given electoral model.
Pretty much the same as every other democracy in the world.
Not everyone in the US sees the Iraq war as the central issue in the
election of the government. The Australian plebicite clearly were
completely uninterested in it as an election issue, for example. There is
no reason to assume that the American plebicite is as preoccupied with Iraq
as you apparently are.
Whether they should be, is another matter entirely.
> > say that I do: I see Kerry as a bit of short-term relief that will
likely
> > make longer-term progress significantly more difficult,
>
> 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.
>
> Leaving Bush in will make the zip explode instead of heal. Much more
dramatic.
> One should avoid such dramatic changes. Evolution, not revolution.
>
> > would be if the margin of victory were large or a dramatic third-party
> > turnout occurred illustrating the (very proper) disgust of the
electorate
>
> 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 was JFKs, and plenty of other democratically elected governments. The
"tyranny of the majority" as it is known.
> So I don't think that margin of a win really matters past january 17th.
> > lousy a choice he was over the next few years (4, or less if the
Democratic
> > party has the balls to make a serious effort at impeachment,
>
> The problem with impeachement is that it might remove the Bush puppet, but
not
> the war lords behind him. Impeaching both Bush and Cheney would create
quite a
> disturbance in governance (is it the speaker of the house next in line ?).
Can
> one also impeach Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz ?
>
> Impeachement should have occured prior to this election. Should Bush be
> re-elected, impeachement should still occur, but I am not sure if the
> democrats would want it. Would they benefit politically from it ?
- Next message: Dr. Dweeb: "Re: OT: why USA is a regime"
- Previous message: GreyCloud: "Re: Problem with LIB$INIT_TIMER"
- In reply to: JF Mezei: "Re: OT: why USA is a regime"
- Next in thread: David Froble: "Re: OT: why USA is a regime"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
