Originally posted by whodeythe us has always been very happy with friendly dictators, such as:
In fact, the US government I think would be happier with a friendly dictator than a hostile democracy that resembles Hamas.
* Abdullah of Saudi Arabia -- Saudi Arabia 2005 - present
* Pervez Musharraf -- Pakistan 2001 - present
* Chiang Kai-shek -- China, Taiwan 1928 - 1975
* Saddam Hussein -- Iraq 1979 - 2003
* Mohammad Reza Pahlavi -- Iran 1941 - 1979
* Augusto Pinochet -- Chile 1973 - 1990
* Alfredo Stroessner -- Paraguay 1954 - 1989
* Suharto -- Indonesia 1968 - 1998
and especially if they overthrow legitimately elected left-wing governments.
Originally posted by whodeythey will pull out when iraq is safe from insurgents, al-qaeda, other terrorists, the boogey man and giant space hamsters. the us will find reasons to stay iraq. especially if the republicans win in 2012. the democrats might withdraw but that would really leave the iraqis on a certain creek without a paddle. not to mention the us would look like pansies.
What the US is looking for is an ally and the best say to achieve that is a percieved democracy instead of dictatorship. The thinking is that this would be ideal because a democracy better mirrors the system that the US currently has and therefore would naturally then produce similar interests to protect and provide a "commonality" that would unite the two t ...[text shortened]... and we all know what buddies Iran and the US are. That is, if they ever decide to pull out.
Originally posted by mbakuninadd fulgencio batista in cuba
the us has always been very happy with friendly dictators, such as:
* Abdullah of Saudi Arabia -- Saudi Arabia 2005 - present
* Pervez Musharraf -- Pakistan 2001 - present
* Chiang Kai-shek -- China, Taiwan 1928 - 1975
* Saddam Hussein -- Iraq 1979 - 2003
* Mohammad Reza Pahlavi -- Iran 1941 - 1979
* Augusto Pinochet -- C ...[text shortened]... 68 - 1998
and especially if they overthrow legitimately elected left-wing governments.
1 edit
Originally posted by PinkFloydSee, that's why I asked. Before you can say your vote counts less than a new yorker's you have to do the math. I'd guess that the opposite is true, and an individual New Yorker's vote actually counts less than an individual south carolinian's vote. Fairvote.org seems to agree:
I think that would probably reduce the difference between the 2 votes, but not equal them out. Bottom line is, why would our dumb-ass founding fathers have manufactured such a ridiculous system as an electoral college? Why not just give every person one vote; then count them all up. Whoever gets the most wins. Or would that have been too simple for such an elite gathering to contemplate?
http://www.fairvote.org/e_college/problems.htm#disproportionate
As for our dumbass founding fathers, I'm guessing that at one thing they were after was efficiency. At that time, a full-scale popular vote would have been impractical for the federal government to organize. It would be more realistic today. They also had other, more dumbass, reasons.
Either way, the electoral college isn't so bad. Of all our presidential elections, we've only had a couple of situations like 2000 when the pop vote winner was not also the Electoral College winner.
Originally posted by bjohnson407another lame thing about this system is that candidates will tend to ignore the states with few votes. if you offer what texas, california and other big voters what they want, you could still win even if you told the little guys to fuk off.
See, that's why I asked. Before you can say your vote counts less than a new yorker's you have to do the math. I'd guess that the opposite is true, and an individual New Yorker's vote actually counts less than an individual south carolinian's vote. Fairvote.org seems to agree:
http://www.fairvote.org/e_college/problems.htm#disproportionate
As for ...[text shortened]... situations like 2000 when the pop vote winner was not also the Electoral College winner.
and one more dumbass thing about this system: texas has a population of over 20 million(http://www.fairvote.org/e_college/problems.htm#disproportionate 😀)
and 32 votes. now whether a candidate wins in texas by 1 vote difference or gets 100% in votes, he will still win the 32 votes which is obviously wrong.
why do the americans still put up with this travesty of democracy is beyond me. the system was ok in the time of the founding fathers. if those guys knew the americans still use the system they invented over a cup of boston tea they would be turning in their graves. i can imagine how they came up with this system:
"George that's a lame idea with the voting system dude. Benjamin, stop
passing the joint to george."
"Dude, i have some english redcoats to worry about, we will change this after the war"
"Unless we forget 😀"
"We won't forget, we are running out of weed"
"Lame. Hey, puff, puff give man."
Originally posted by Zahlanziactually it's amazing how many dictators they've propped up in such a short span of time
i am not sure, the us is only in existence for a short time, the list of dictators supported by the us is not that long.
unless we start adding the dictators indirectly supported by the us like hitler and stalin.
Originally posted by FMFI think Milton Friedman would say that the 'corporatism' you are talking about is a natural consequence of government regulation, not a consequence of capitalism.
Odd how you take a view that has no basis in history.
Democracy, of course, grew and flourished as a counterbalance to the intrinsically undemocratic nature of capitalism. It is humanity's defence mechanism against unbridled capitalism: 'liberty for those with money; economic bondage for those on whose backs that "liberty" is forged'. Contrary to the b ...[text shortened]... schemes are consigned to the very history books that you seem so loathe to read.
His theory was, as soon as government decides to regulate an industry for the public good, that industry starts spending trying to influence the government to regulate in a certain way. Eventually, after long years of conferences between government regulators and industry persons, these groups come to agreements that both see as "beneficial". Unfortunately, the public who were originally supposed to be protected were long ago left out of the equation.
So government regulation tends to stifle healthy competition, leads to regulation that protect industry more than people, and promotes higher costs. The defense industry -- which is very highly regulated -- is a good example.
So what started out as a healthy impulse to promote social well-being founders because of human nature, not because of capitalism. Capitalism would say that government regulation should be kept to a minimum.
I think government should concentrate it's attention on focused areas such as providing justice (e.g. enforcing laws and contracts), police, defense, some disaster relief, public hygene (e.g. water supply; clean air), and protection of natural resources and 'le patrimone' or the country's heritage (i.e. historical sites, etc.) These are the areas where the free market does not function well to provide the country we all want to live in. Also, there are roles for government in encouraging competition, e.g. anti-trust actions, and in ensuring fair advertising.
Apart from that the free market is pretty admirable at producing good (NOT equal!) living conditions for the maximum number of persons.
Originally posted by whodeyhttp://news.yahoo.com/s/realclearpolitics/20080402/cm_rcp/getting_the_score_right_in_bas;_ylt=AnZdOMlgD6bQjEb1YVQGuGCs0NUE
What the US is looking for is an ally and the best say to achieve that is a percieved democracy instead of dictatorship. The thinking is that this would be ideal because a democracy better mirrors the system that the US currently has and therefore would naturally then produce similar interests to protect and provide a "commonality" that would unite the two t ...[text shortened]... and we all know what buddies Iran and the US are. That is, if they ever decide to pull out.
Getting the Score Right in Basra
Jack Kelly
Wed Apr 2, 9:30 AM ET
...
His sources in the U.S. military tell him the Mahdi army was getting pounded, Bill Roggio said. "According to an unofficial tally... 571 Mahdi army fighters have been killed, 881 have been wounded, 490 have been captured, and 30 have surrendered over the course of seven days of fighting."
"The U.S. and Iraqi military never came close to inflicting casualties at such a high rate during the height of major combat operations against al Qaida in Iraq during the summer and fall of 2007," he said.
The Mahdi army has won by surviving, media analysts say. But it seems apparent the Mahdi army survived by quitting.
Mr. al Sadr offered the cease fire after travelled to Iran to meet with the head of the Qods (Jerusalem) force of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, the McClatchy Newspapers reported. The lawmakers urged Brigadier Gen. Qassem Suliemani to lean on Mr. al Sadr (who is in Iran) to offer the cease fire.
If true (Mr. Kazimi's government source in Baghdad described it as a "naive fabrication"😉, the McClatchy story indicates the Mahdi army is under Iranian control.
...
Why would Iran want the fighting to stop?
"The Iranians have realized that they no longer can use the Shiite militia threat to force Washington's hand on Iraq without jeopardizing their own interests," speculated STRATFOR, a private intelligence service.
Fighting among Shia factions, and the increasing independence of Shia factions they thought they controlled has virtually dashed hopes Iran would be able to dominate Iraq through Shia proxies, STRATFOR said.
"The mullahs know that they are losing," said Michael Ledeen of the American Enterprise Institute. "Their great dream of driving America out of Iraq, which seemed to be about to be fulfilled just a year and a half ago, has now turned into the nightmare of humiliation and defeat for the Islamic republic. The Maliki government is attacking the remnants of the Mahdi army in Basra, that same government the mullahs thought they had under control."