Bush is full of crap

[MMMMMM]

Fine...I shouldn't have used the word "every"-I should have said "most every"--so that's what you were taking exception to? OK so I was a bit imprecise--my point is that most every measure of freedom and human rights are better under elected governments rather than under totalitarian systems.

Of course US soldiers weren't hailed as "liberators"-- because we left Saddam in power--the Iraqi people didn't get liberated--duh;-)

Right or wrong beliefs about God are quite different than right or wrong beliefs about science--and different still than right or wrong beliefs about efficient/non-efficient economic systems, or about political systems which support or deny human rights, etc. My point is that certain differences in beliefs don't affect much outwardly, but others do. Beliefs that wed religion to government stifle progress, competitiveness, innovation and freedom of thought and speech. If a government wants to force everyone to pray 5 times a day, you'd better think twice before you assume it's as good a system as any other.

[John Ho]

France? What about Russia and China?

Plus most of the nations in the world. When you start a war which most nations oppose you better have a real good reason for it. I don't think we have it.

[John Ho]

So countries can just start unilaterally attack other countries?

The reason you find UN approval ridiculous is because we are the most powerful country in the world and are used to having our way. But an invasion without UN approval is going to set a terrible precedent.

I would go so far as to say if we invade Iraq without UN approval we will likely have a multination war (possibly a third world war) within the next 15-20 years. This will be even more likely once we are close to implementing our missile defense shield and if Bush is reelected and possibly moves towards another country next (North Korea).

[John Ho]

Don't kid yourself. This country is a hegemony. As long as American culture is based so much on materialism the powerful will manipulate the system to keep themselves wealthy.

But most people don't notice it and aren't unhappy is because we are as a whole very well off. But go talk to the people working 2-3 jobs, working long hours, and barely getting by while their CEO makes 100 times what he makes that this democracy is looking out for everybody.

[John Ho]

You're being naive if you think we are fighting this war to free the Iraqi people. That is ridiculous. If this were true we would invade Cuba, China, and North Korea among others.

Regardless, the fact that a state is totalitarian does not mean the rulers are incapable of making judgements based on what's best for their people. And it certainly does not make their opposition to a war any less valid. In case you didn't notice, the majority of Americans do not support this war without UN approval so if Bush invades are we really living in a true democracy? It doesn't matter if you think people are uninformed. This is the biggest decision a president makes and he is going to go ahead against the wished of the citizens.

[IrishHand]

Regardless, the fact that a state is totalitarian does not mean the rulers are incapable of making judgements based on what's best for their people.
Exactly.

In case you didn't notice, the majority of Americans do not support this war without UN approval so if Bush invades are we really living in a true democracy? It doesn't matter if you think people are uninformed.
Exactly.

[MMMMMM]

"You're being naive if you think we are fighting this war to free the Iraqi people. That is ridiculous. If this were true we would invade Cuba, China, and North Korea among others."

I don't think that's why we're fighting this war. But I do think it's a damn good reason, along with some other reasons.

"Regardless, the fact that a state is totalitarian does not mean the rulers are incapable of making judgements based on what's best for their people. And it certainly does not make their opposition to a war any less valid."

I think the opinions of non-elected totalitarian despots are, and should be considered, less valid, compared to the opinions of freely elected leaders.

"In case you didn't notice, the majority of Americans do not support this war without UN approval so if Bush invades are we really living in a true democracy?

We live in a Constitutional Republic not a Democracy, and war is not something which is constitutionally subject to the popular vote.

"It doesn't matter if you think people are uninformed. This is the biggest decision a president makes and he is going to go ahead against the wished of the citizens."

Guess so.

[MMMMMM]

"But most people don't notice it and aren't unhappy is because we are as a whole very well off."

Great! If most people are pretty well off, should they be unhappy because someone else is even better off?

"But go talk to the people working 2-3 jobs, working long hours, and barely getting by while their CEO makes 100 times what he makes that this democracy is looking out for everybody."

Our system isn't supposed to "look out for" everybody. It's supposed to safeguard our rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

[adios]

" It doesn't matter if you think people are uninformed. This is the biggest decision a president makes and he is going to go ahead against the wished of the citizens. "

As M pointed out we don't have national referendums on issues. However, there is War Powers Act that many claim unconstitutionally limits the power given to the president by Article II of the US Constitution. The point being that Bush has complied with the War Powers Act and has gotten Congressional approval. So in my mind it's not an entirely willful decision of one man.

[IrishHand]

I think the opinions of non-elected totalitarian despots are, and should be considered, less valid, compared to the opinions of freely elected leaders.

Why? Are they less intelligent? Less informed? Explain to me how the method of their ascendancy to power has anything to do with the "validity" of their opinions.