I'll save some bandwidth by not copying all of koheesti's post.

I read something in Singapore once about how when Europeans controlled the world there were colonies everywhere and since America has been the superpower these countries have become free.

Not sure this qualifies as a source.

Can't think of any colonies the US freed, but I'm sure that coincidence wasn't involved.

The US colonises by setting up and supporting a minority ruling group and gives them carte blanche to do what they like as long as the US retains economic and military control. The British actually ruled themselves, which involved a lot of hassle like the Indian Mutiny but also involved spending some of the takings on infrastructure and a viable public service and legal system.

Why doesn't anyone read history any more?

America seems to think it's invasion of Afghanistan was justified.

5) So does pretty much every other country. That's why NATO is there. Even the Afghans welcomed it. The Messiah even claims it's a just war. Only a few unimportant left wing nutjobs think it it isn't.

America seems to think that it's support of the Isreali genocide of Palestinians is justified.

4) There is no genocide taking place. If you think there is, you need to look up the definition of genocide. Not long ago Gaza was given back to the Palestinians (with the Israeli military forcing their own citizens out) and the very first thing the Palestinians did was start launching rockets at Israel from there. Dumbasses. Palestinians are - sadly - the world's bottom dwellers. Look no further than how their own Arab/Muslim neighbors treat them. hel_l, they probably get treated better in Tel Aviv than Kuwait. If there had to be a genocide someplace, Palestinians are a good place to start - after lawyers.

America seems to think that ALL of it's actions on foreign lands throughout it's history were justified.

3)Sorry for being blunt, but that is a stupid statement. What country in the history of the planet has taken an action they didn't think was justifiable at the time?

2) America has made a lot of mistakes in the world there is no doubt. But they have also done more good than any other country in world history (think of "Life of Brian" and the 'what have the Romans ever done for us?' bit). I read something in Singapore once about how when Europeans controlled the world there were colonies everywhere and since America has been the superpower these countries have become free.

1) Pretty much everything else you post is garbage.

I'll start from the bottom and work my way up.

1. If you're going to say what I wrote is garbage, at least have the decency to say why.

2. Monty Python is not a great argument. Reading "something" anywhere, once, also does not carry much weight. Besides the inadequacy of you response, there have been significant advantages to the colonised peoples over the "free" peoples that have been robbed of their natural resources by America.

3. Please be blunt. Diplomacy leads to ambiguity. Most, if not all, of America's justifications are disingenuous justifications; Justifications not truly believed by those in power, but sound good when sold to the masses, eg WOMD. I do not count these disingenuous "justifications", nor should you.

4. Genocide is indeed taking place, albeit not suddenly but in leaps and bounds. I'll discuss this no further with you as you are plainly blindly fanatical about the Isreali and right-wing American spin.

5. The "Coalition of the willing" do not neccessarily, in fact often do not, think that the invasion of Afghanistan was justified. America applied political and financial pressure on most of the coalition. They are coerced participants.

Furthermore...."....The Messiah even claims it's a just war. ....". The Messiah? Claims it's just? ....And you talk about leftwing nutjobs!!!!

I'll save some bandwidth by not copying all of koheesti's post.

I read something in Singapore once about how when Europeans controlled the world there were colonies everywhere and since America has been the superpower these countries have become free.

Not sure this qualifies as a source.

Can't think of any colonies the US freed, but I'm sure that coincidence wasn't involved.

The US colonises by setting up and supporting a minority ruling group and gives them carte blanche to do what they like as long as the US retains economic and military control. The British actually ruled themselves, which involved a lot of hassle like the Indian Mutiny but also involved spending some of the takings on infrastructure and a viable public service and legal system.

Why doesn't anyone read history any more?

A source isn't required. The statement is still basically true. The European powers practically enslaved the world. The US long ago figured out it's better to make customers out of them instead. There are certainly worse fates. Ironically, some of America's closest allies are countries that they have bombed.

I'll horrify you by suggesting that the Soviet Union played a far greater role in freeing the colonies than the USA.

Virtually all of the "new" African leadership that came with the "Winds of Change" were educated in Moscow at the height of the Cold War.

I'll horrify you by suggesting that the Soviet Union played a far greater role in freeing the colonies than the USA.

Virtually all of the "new" African leadership that came with the "Winds of Change" were educated in Moscow at the height of the Cold War.

I didn't mean to imply that the USA freed any colonies. You're right about the Soviets. I've even been to the Lumumba Friendship University in Moscow. But I'd say that WWII was the main reason for the colonies gaining their freedom. The European powers couldn't afford to keep them anymore in the aftermath of the war. Just don't tell PeaceBlondie that war set them free.

....I'd say that WWII was the main reason for the colonies gaining their freedom. The European powers couldn't afford to keep them anymore in the aftermath of the war. Just don't tell PeaceBlondie that war set them free.

What percent of the world's population lives in countries that gained democratic freedoms after 1945, using nonviolent means? ? What colonies or nations prospered for over 60 years without an army? For which waged wars does the USA still have a national debt?

....I'd say that WWII was the main reason for the colonies gaining their freedom. The European powers couldn't afford to keep them anymore in the aftermath of the war. Just don't tell PeaceBlondie that war set them free.

What percent of the world's population lives in countries that gained democratic freedoms after 1945, using nonviolent means? ? What colonies or nations prospered for over 60 years without an army?

Costa Rica

There is zero justifiable reason for USA to be in Iraq/Iran/Afghanistan/Pakistan etc etc

War on Terror my a$$

More like an eye for an eye....or more rightly an eye for a country.

Did it ever occur to US that the supposed 9/11 terror attack was just that?

I wonder what Americans would think of to do to others if America was occupied or made to dance like a marionette

Does the death of 3000 Americans on 9/11 justify sending another 5000 of our sons & daughters to their death? While killing 30,000 Iraqi troops & 700,000 Iraqi Civilians?

Does it justify killing 750 of our sons & daughters in Afghanistan while killing 11,000 Afghan troops & 8000 of the Afghans civilians?

By my totals we have killed at least 749,000 people in those two countries over this war on terror that initially killed 3000 Americans.

We have also lost another 5750 Americans in the process.....Sound like a fair fight? 749,000 > 5750

Yeah that Iraq & Afghanistan is one formidable opponent

Dont even get me started on the number of deformed, maimed, injured in both places.

Yeah sure since we have *support* from others we call it all good.

The bully on the school yard always had support but it was called something else.

If we want to protect America.....Bring them all home. Bring home the soldiers we have in 130 countries on 700+ bases.

That should be enough to form a circle of soldiers all the way around the US holding hands.

These countries pose no threat what so ever to the US no matter what BS the people of the US are fed.

What percent of the world's population lives in countries that gained democratic freedoms after 1945, using nonviolent means? ? What colonies or nations prospered for over 60 years without an army?

Costa Rica

Right - and they're Catholics in Central America. The president in 1948 or 1949 promised to dismantle the army if elected. After inauguration, he took a hammer and literally led the people to destroy it. The colony was previous, and led by pacifist 'Protestants.'

I think we've got this guy out numbered, I'd better give UlyssesG a PM to come rescue him.

I must admit it's refreshing to have this type of discussion without it degenerating into name calling. I love so many things about America, it just so happens I disagree with some of it's government's policies.

Bloody hel_l, I disagree with most of my own government's policies!

There is zero justifiable reason for USA to be in Iraq/Iran/Afghanistan/Pakistan etc etc

More like an eye for an eye....or more rightly an eye for a country.

Did it ever occur to US that the supposed 9/11 terror attack was just that?

Does the death of 3000 Americans on 9/11 justify sending another 5000 of our sons & daughters to their death? While killing 30,000 Iraqi troops & 700,000 Iraqi Civilians?

Does it justify killing 750 of our sons & daughters in Afghanistan while killing 11,000 Afghan troops & 8000 of the Afghans civilians?

While invading Iraq wasn't very popular to put it mildly (especially with those European countries taking massive Oil-for-Food bribes in return for letting Saddam slaughter his own people), Afghanistan has been and still is widely supported. Pakistan has been invaded by Al Qaeda and the Taliban. Are they justified in all their bombing attacks on the Pakistani people?

Maybe it was an eye-for-an-eye. But who says payback must be equal? If I go to someone much bigger and stronger, smack him across the face, I expect to get the holy shit kicked out of me. Throw stones at people with guns, expect to get shot at. That last bit of wisdom is for your Palestinian friends.

Under 2700 Americans were killed on 9/11. Over 300 (11%) were of other nationalities. Just saying, don't forget everyone else just because it doesn't fit well with the point you're trying to make. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of...can_casualities

By my totals we have killed at least 749,000 people in those two countries over this war on terror that initially killed 3000 Americans.

We have also lost another 5750 Americans in the process.....Sound like a fair fight? 749,000 > 5750

Yeah that Iraq & Afghanistan is one formidable opponent

Dont even get me started on the number of deformed, maimed, injured in both places.

By your totals? Uh-huh. Anyone who has actually paid attention to what's been happening in Iraq the past 6 years would know that the Iraqi Sunni, Iraqi Shia, Baathists and non-Iraqi jihadists are the ones who have been doing over 95% of the killing. The US and allies would have been out long ago if the locals could get along. But they can't, because they are their own worst enemy. When the Americans handed over Abu Ghraib prison back to Iraqi control the prisoners begged to go with the Americans. But I agree that we shouldn't be sacrificing our soldiers any longer to keep various foreigners from killing themselves.

btw - the civilian death toll by violence in Iraq since the war began maxes out at 102,000. http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

For what killed them, check out the interactive table link here: http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/360/16/1585/DC1. Pay attention to how many were killed by the various types of suicide bombings and roadside bombs.

If we want to protect America.....Bring them all home. Bring home the soldiers we have in 130 countries on 700+ bases.

That should be enough to form a circle of soldiers all the way around the US holding hands.

I agree with you on bringing all troops home. WHY do we need 35,000 troops along the DMZ in the Korean peninsula when the South Koreans have about 750,000? Japan doesn't need us anymore, let's get out. 150,000 military personnel & families in Germany? What for? Bring them home. Let the rich European countries take care of themselves. Not like they are under any threat from anyone except for Russians turning off the gas. France wanted all NATO bases of its territory in the 1960s and they left. Greece & The Philippines asked the USA to close their bases and leave and they did. It's time for these other countries to do the same. As for Iraq, leave them to fight it out among themselves. We should free the women of Afghanistan from the threat of American Nanking-style rapists and let the Taliban execute them for showing their face or wanting an education. It wasn't that long ago that American soldiers threw acid in the faces of young Afghan girls on their way to school. No, wait, that was the Taliban who did that. Anyway, not the USA's problem.

I would support Obama if he gave an eloquent speech outlining how the world hates the USA because of our military interventions and that he will "hit the reset button" by pulling all of our troops home. Just make it clear that if someone tosses a rock through the front window that the USA will make them sadly regret it. The world wants the US to leave them alone, well, it's a two-way street.

It's funny that you keep refering to America as a bully. When the WTC towers were still burning I said to my European friends with me at the time "You thought America was a bully before? You ain't seen nothing yet". Here it is, 8 years later and the bully-whines are louder than ever.

I think we've got this guy out numbered, I'd better give UlyssesG a PM to come rescue him.

A clear case of quality over quantity.

I was in Vientiane when the 9/11 attacks occurred and noted some interesting reactions among the locals, ranging from shock to satisfaction. No open celebrations though.

There were also some immediate interviews from the US on cable TV that caught my eye, there were a number of the "man on the street" type and a large number of people were saying.... "What have we done to these people? How can we make it right?".

Unfortunately the American people were convinced that revenge was the only option and seven years on, nothing has been made right.

I would say that the number of anti-American terrorists currently plotting attacks would vastly outnumber those who were around in 2002.

Maybe it was an eye-for-an-eye. But who says payback must be equal?

btw - the civilian death toll by violence in Iraq since the war began maxes out at 102,000. http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

I agree with you on bringing all troops home. WHY do we need 35,000 troops along the DMZ in the Korean peninsula when the South Koreans have about 750,000? Japan doesn't need us anymore, let's get out.

........................................................................... Anyway, not the USA's problem.

The world wants the US to leave them alone, well, it's a two-way street.

It's funny that you keep refering to America as a bully. When the WTC towers were still burning I said to my European friends with me at the time "You thought America was a bully before? You ain't seen nothing yet". Here it is, 8 years later and the bully-whines are louder than ever.

Sorry but I see my point was lost/misinterpreted by you.

My point was perhaps 9/11 was the payback to us....I rather not even go there as it is so clouded from day one.

As for the body count....what is the diff in the minutia.

http://www.unknownnews.net/casualties.html

Unnecessary death is just that period.

You obviously would feel differently if your town was accidentally leveled while someone was chasing a handful of bad guys through it.

I say obvious because of your boisterous remark at the end regarding talking to your buddy about 9/11

Dont even start with the acid in the face stories about Taliban. Not that it didnt happen but do you want rape trial by the US soldiers who raped a 14 yr old girl then killed her family posted? They are there for you to see & worse.

What does it change about the reason we are there?

Yes it is a two way street & we the US do not need to control the traffic signal to suit us.

The whole conflict is so steeped in the usual US/CIA jackal BS you nor I will ever know the whole story as to the reasons we now chase those we once employed/used when it suited out needs.

Trust me if we were invaded I would have no problem defending. But what the US govt does in our name is not defending shit.

Perhaps if you still live in the US you may get a chance to see it first hand if all continues as it is these days.

Civil war could be a possibility. Then you would perhaps have a different tune if the same bully force is policing your town.

Not unlike the way they policed New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina.

........

A clear case of quality over quantity.

It might be quality....if you could respond convincingly. But you don't want to respond at all to some posts.

I would say that the number of anti-American terrorists currently plotting attacks would vastly outnumber those who were around in 2002.

As is the number of anti-American terrorists being killed. It's a common misconception by some that America was "safer" prior to 9/11. America was anything but safe as 9/11 clearly showed. While al Qaeda was obviously plotting against the USA (bin Laden openly declared war on America in a 1998 interview), the USA wasn't going around killing terrorists before 9/11. Before then, there were attacks on American targets about once every 18 months or so. Nothing since 9/11 unless you count the recent Fort Hood incident. So to summarize, prior to 9/11 fewer terrorists but more successful against American targets and not being killed except by an occasional Tomahawk. After 9/11, more terrorists, less success (if any) against American targets and being killed on an almost daily basis.

I'm sure al Qaeda believes deep down that they seriously fuc_ked up on 9/11. Before then, the only US & other "infidel" military in the region were a few thousand based out of airbases in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. Now, there are, what, over 200,000 in the region? - and not just flying overhead, but over 100,000 boots on the ground. Before America was considered a paper tiger that was afraid to risk the life of American soldiers (think Somalia 1993). Now, America is an evil invader and occupier that has shown it has no problem going door-to-door in hostile territory and can take casualties without turning tail and running away. Before 9/11 the Taliban openly ruled Afghanistan and bin Laden was walking around free to come and go as he pleased. Mullah Omar is now hiding out, and bin Laden is either dead or living in a cave afraid to show his face even on video. Saddam was a constant thorn in the side of the US & UK. Some say that they US lost or is losing in Iraq but Bush is in retirement in Texas and Saddam & his sons are D-E-A-D, the Baathists are out of power and the country occupied. I'm not claiming that Iraq was involved in 9/11, but the war is a result of 9/11 all the same. Osama should have stuck to attacking American targets abroad. In Oct 2000, just 2-3 weeks before the US Presidential election, al Qaeda attacked the USS Cole off of Yemen. Still, terrorism was never brought up as an issue in the presidential campaign. Democrats & Republicans alike didn't take terrorism seriously. Thanks to al Qaeda that's no longer the case.

Harcourt - upset because I won't reply anymore to your post? I guess your arguments are too good for me to handle. That, or it really isn't worth replying to. Anyway, the others here are giving me better posts to reply to anyway. Sorry.

flying - yes, American soldiers have committed some atrocities in Iraq & Afghanistan. We know about many of these because the US military is prosecuting their own soldiers. You even bring up the trial yourself. When US soldiers commit crimes, the US military brings them to trial. How about the other side? How do our enemies try to police their own ranks? Chop off a head if the bomb they made didn't kill enough women and children? The US and allies go to great lengths to avoid civilian casualties. The enemy TARGETS civilians and hides among them while attacking. But I never hear any criticism of them by the anti-war crowd. That's probably because the so-called anti-war crowd is mostly anti-American hiding behind the noble cause of peace. Can you offer another explanation?

flying - yes, American soldiers have committed some atrocities in Iraq & Afghanistan. We know about many of these because the US military is prosecuting their own soldiers. You even bring up the trial yourself. When US soldiers commit crimes, the US military brings them to trial. How about the other side? How do our enemies try to police their own ranks? Chop off a head if the bomb they made didn't kill enough women and children? The US and allies go to great lengths to avoid civilian casualties. The enemy TARGETS civilians and hides among them while attacking. But I never hear any criticism of them by the anti-war crowd. That's probably because the so-called anti-war crowd is mostly anti-American hiding behind the noble cause of peace. Can you offer another explanation?

Yes I can but it will all lead right back to an eye for an eye till the world is blind.

No use in trying to claim that the ones that get their hand caught int the cookie jar get tried.

Because there are so very many that dont. You can start at Gitmo & just go & go & go.

But what is the point?

Lets just agree to disagree on this one.

Your for whats going on I am not.

I am for defense as I said 100%

Perhaps some will always slip through. But if we continue to kill 100's of thousands in the pursuit of the few I would not call it justified or even fair in the slightest.

Go back & look at the pics I started the thread with. Is this army of terrorist a match? Obviously so as we are there so long against an enemy that has no navy...no air force , awacs etc etc etc.

Smacks of Vietnam doesnt it? In the end the prize will be the same.

Your for whats going on I am not.

I am for defense as I said 100%

Perhaps some will always slip through. But if we continue to kill 100's of thousands in the pursuit of the few I would not call it justified or even fair in the slightest.

I'm not so much for it anymore. It's been 8 years and there isn't much progress anymore. What happened to the billions pledged by nations of the word to rebuild - sorry, nothing there to "rebuild" - pledged to build Afghanistan up? That was a good idea at the time. Anyway, it's been too long and for whatever the reasons, it's not working. I feel sorry for the people that would be left behind to deal with the Taliban or with the nuts in Iraq who would rather kill than rebuild their country. Contrary to popular belief on this forum, Americans aren't the only evil, power hungry bastards in the world. Would some consider it a loss if the US pulled out of I & A? Sure, but so what? The US got slapped on 9/11 and in return beat the living shit out of the other guy (and some not involved). Spin it as a victory or a successful payback and get home. When the world predictably starts whining about all the deaths after the US & allies leave, just remind them (including you guys) that it is what you wanted. You say we've killed 100's of thousands. WE haven't. THEY are doing the killing themselves and the world pretty much agrees that it would get worse if the US & allies pulled out and went home. Again, that's somebody else's problem.

Basically much of American foreign policy can be summed up as "damned if you do, damned if you don't". America will be criticized no matter what they choose to do so they might as well do what they feel is best for America and not worry about anyone else.

Harcourt - upset because I won't reply anymore to your post? I guess your arguments are too good for me to handle. That, or it really isn't worth replying to. Anyway, the others here are giving me better posts to reply to anyway. Sorry.

flying - yes, American soldiers have committed some atrocities in Iraq & Afghanistan. We know about many of these because the US military is prosecuting their own soldiers. You even bring up the trial yourself. When US soldiers commit crimes, the US military brings them to trial. How about the other side? How do our enemies try to police their own ranks? Chop off a head if the bomb they made didn't kill enough women and children? The US and allies go to great lengths to avoid civilian casualties. The enemy TARGETS civilians and hides among them while attacking. But I never hear any criticism of them by the anti-war crowd. That's probably because the so-called anti-war crowd is mostly anti-American hiding behind the noble cause of peace. Can you offer another explanation?

Not upset....disappointed. Seeing as your view opposes mine, I initially thought you were a worthy discussion partner that may be able to open my eyes to something that I had been ignorant to.

I started to respond to your latest post, point by point, but I realise it's useless (and a waste of bandwidth ) if you are so closed minded so as to not be able to carry on a logical debate.

I will comment on your last paragraph, though; You depict anti-war proponants as actually being anti-American.

So, to be pro-American is to be pro-war?

I will comment on your last paragraph, though; You depict anti-war proponants as actually being anti-American.

So, to be pro-American is to be pro-war?

That is what I was speaking to in the last paragraph of my post #73

I personally think the opposite is true & Pro Americans

would vote against it if given that choice.

One of the worst things put forward by former PM John Howard was that to oppose the war in Iraq was to be against Aussie soldiers.

Australians showed what they thought of this by putting him on the unemployment scrap heap.

Must admit I wouldn't mind the weasel's pension though.

Not upset....disappointed. Seeing as your view opposes mine, I initially thought you were a worthy discussion partner that may be able to open my eyes to something that I had been ignorant to.

I started to respond to your latest post, point by point, but I realise it's useless (and a waste of bandwidth ) if you are so closed minded so as to not be able to carry on a logical debate.

Just about everything in your post in question was a BS and after I finished debunking the first half I got tired. Your schoolyard bully analogy was off the mark in so many ways it's not worth going into. You list bad things America might or might not have done but it's a drop in the bucket compared to the good. The vast amount of good America does in the world doesn't excuse the bad (real or perceived), but you seem blind to anything that doesn't fit your narrow view of the world. Yours wasn't the worst though. I've been debating the America-is-evil theme for over 15 years living abroad on two continents but for complete cluelessness nothing can compete with PeaceBlondie equating American presence in Afghanistan to the Japanese and their infamous Rape of Nanking. That has to even have some of you embarrassed.

I will comment on your last paragraph, though; You depict anti-war proponants as actually being anti-American.

So, to be pro-American is to be pro-war?

One doesn't necessarily mean the other. This is one of those logical fallacies. I'll let you Google which one. Anyway, why is it the anti-war crowd is quiet when America's enemies are doing the war waging and violating human rights? Did any of you ever protest the treatment of Iraqis under Saddam? Or his invasion of Kuwait? Or the treatment of women under the Taliban rule? Of course not. I attended anti-war protests in DC leading up the war in 2003 and for a few months after it started. It was made up of a wide array of leftist causes who turn out to march together to make each of their issues seem to have greater support than they really do. Looks impressive on TV though. There were probably as many signs there protesting for the release of some cop-killer in Philadelphia as there were protesting the war.

Not upset....disappointed. Seeing as your view opposes mine, I initially thought you were a worthy discussion partner that may be able to open my eyes to something that I had been ignorant to.

I started to respond to your latest post, point by point, but I realise it's useless (and a waste of bandwidth ) if you are so closed minded so as to not be able to carry on a logical debate.

Just about everything in your post in question was a BS and after I finished debunking the first half I got tired. Your schoolyard bully analogy was off the mark in so many ways it's not worth going into. You list bad things America might or might not have done but it's a drop in the bucket compared to the good. The vast amount of good America does in the world doesn't excuse the bad (real or perceived), but you seem blind to anything that doesn't fit your narrow view of the world. Yours wasn't the worst though. I've been debating the America-is-evil theme for over 15 years living abroad on two continents but for complete cluelessness nothing can compete with PeaceBlondie equating American presence in Afghanistan to the Japanese and their infamous Rape of Nanking. That has to even have some of you embarrassed.

I will comment on your last paragraph, though; You depict anti-war proponants as actually being anti-American.

So, to be pro-American is to be pro-war?

One doesn't necessarily mean the other. This is one of those logical fallacies. I'll let you Google which one. Anyway, why is it the anti-war crowd is quiet when America's enemies are doing the war waging and violating human rights? Did any of you ever protest the treatment of Iraqis under Saddam? Or his invasion of Kuwait? Or the treatment of women under the Taliban rule? Of course not. I attended anti-war protests in DC leading up the war in 2003 and for a few months after it started. It was made up of a wide array of leftist causes who turn out to march together to make each of their issues seem to have greater support than they really do. Looks impressive on TV though. There were probably as many signs there protesting for the release of some cop-killer in Philadelphia as there were protesting the war.

Contradicting is not debunking. Calling something BS is not debunking. Offering disingenuous and fallacious spin is not debunking.

Never mind.

I don't have a lot of problem with what Ron Paul says to be honest. Unfortunately, in today's world, he is not the right packaging for the message (a sad reality). Both the left & right media make him out to be a loon to certain degrees. His position needs someone more like Obama - someone "too cool to make fun of" as it was stated during the election. Someone with more charm, personality, youth, good looks and persuasiveness. Ron Paul is none of those.

He's an interesting guy.

The political party system seems to be very flexible in America, loyalty to the party "line" isn't as rigid as it is in other countries.

There seem to be a lot more independents, or "mavericks". Undisciplined springs to mind.

But then I prefer the Westminster system of government anyway, the three tier presidential system always seemed unwieldy and expensive to me. I like to think that the party I vote for elects the countries leader, and is in a position to dispose of him easily if he strays from the ideals he was voted in for.

He's an interesting guy.

The political party system seems to be very flexible in America, loyalty to the party "line" isn't as rigid as it is in other countries.

There seem to be a lot more independents, or "mavericks". Undisciplined springs to mind.

But then I prefer the Westminster system of government anyway, the three tier presidential system always seemed unwieldy and expensive to me. I like to think that the party I vote for elects the countries leader, and is in a position to dispose of him easily if he strays from the ideals he was voted in for.

Westminster vs Electoral College. As the lesser of two evils, Westminster would be my choice.

Electoral College got Dubbya in. Says alot.

Personally, ideally, neither would be in place.

I don't have a lot of problem with what Ron Paul says to be honest. Unfortunately, in today's world, he is not the right packaging for the message (a sad reality). Both the left & right media make him out to be a loon to certain degrees. His position needs someone more like Obama - someone "too cool to make fun of" as it was stated during the election. Someone with more charm, personality, youth, good looks and persuasiveness. Ron Paul is none of those.

In my naivete, I like to think that the masses would see him as a wise old uncle that's worth listening to.

Plainly his words are appreciated by most, if not all in this discussion...which is a cross-section of POV's.

It IS a sad reality that the masses can be swayed by appearances...or money....or peer pressure/fashion.

In my naivete, I like to think that the masses would see him as a wise old uncle that's worth listening to.

Plainly his words are appreciated by most, if not all in this discussion...which is a cross-section of POV's.

It IS a sad reality that the masses can be swayed by appearances...or money....or peer pressure/fashion.

Hopefully the people will eventually realize that picking politicians based on charisma, looks etc does not fair well in the long run.

Also I am hopeful that through this crisis the people have seen that the two existing parties are basically run by the same wallet.

Hopefully folks see that we are given no choice there. They make the two parties to give the impression of choice.

In a perfect world the ballot in the final elections would include a third choice....NONE of the above.

If enough voters choose that then perhaps we could start anew.

Many folks to this day do not know that Goldman Sachs was the 2nd largest campaign contributor to Obama's campaign

second only to a straw man....The university of California

Goldman was also the 4th largest contributor to McCain the top 3 were Citi Group, Merrill Lynch & Morgan Stanley

Something about not keeping all your eggs in one basket?

That's one of the problems with a two party system. (Theoretically it's not 2-party neccesarily, but in reality it is in most democracies.)

That's one of the problems with democracy as it is practiced.