Ok am gonna simplify my argument as it is to early for this kind of discussion...Basically Bush has won..WE ARE ALL FUCKED!!!!! This time there is no limitations this time its just for fun.....EVERYBODY IS FUCKED!! Especially Americans..... No environment, no cessation of this crazy war on terror, no abortion, no economy, no tolerance, no equality, no peace, no compassion....Just Bush... More terroism, more job losses, more pollution, more poverty, more homophobia, more racism .....more Bush!!! I am normally a very peaceful mellow person but God that guy is such a fucking ****!!!! How for fucking fucks sake can anybody with any fucking form of fucking conscience ever fucking vote for that fucking asshole!!!!! Yeah we had Margaret Thathcher the old witch.........but at least she will be dead soon!! Apologies for my language but it needed to come out..
For those that say Kerry would have been no different than Bush, I see where you are coming from, that's why I don't vote in UK elections, because there is no real difference (just superficial ones) and no ability to effect change. But I would have actually voted in the US election had I been eligible. Bush is not just Bush, he represents a frightening Faustian coalition of Christian fundamentalists and right wing extremist neo-conservatives. Given the power his regime has as leaders of the world's only superpower and the lack of any need for restraint now that this is the Bush regime's final term of power, there is no question that they will take this opportunity to further their agenda of cementing the dominance of the powerful over the weak and shaping the world as America's empire. We are all fucked. I am shocked at just how fucking ignorant a majority of Americans really are. Generalisation I know. But Bush's share of the vote actually went UP! America, I am ashamed of you.
There are big differences though. Do you really believe America would've invaded Iraq if Kerry had been in the Whitehouse post 9-11?
Duh, sorry! Must not skim read at work.... must not skim read at work..... must not skim read at work..... :&
The only good that might come out of this is if the Dems finally get their shit together next time round and put up a candidate who people might actually want to vote for rather than just feel obligated to *coughhillarycough*
Oh fuck yeah! That would seriously fucking own. I was soooooooooo hoping she'd stand this time. Can you imagine how hard it would make negative campaigning for the Republicans? I bet a lot of Americans are still so backward they'd take great offence at anyone dissing a woman! But yeah, I got quite a lot of respect for the old bird as well. Next time, eh?
Hillary? Come on. John Edwards HAS to be the candidate if i had to make a guess. 11 states BANNED gay marriage last night. What does this tell you? THE COUNTRY IS CONSERVATIVE. If anyone wants to put up a female candidate to run against a republican, they are asking for a third term for a republican.
the american empire? come on ;p oh..another thing on margaret thatcher..i know you guys have humor that is...well..crass and tasteless..but do you think there is any taste at all in making comments wishing her dead?
C'mon dude, not like you to be so modest Hell yeah! Crass, tasteless and proud! Yup. You never lived under the bitches reign. Many of us here see her as not far off Hitler. Would you wish Hitler dead?
haha, now that made me laugh. Cultural empire maybe i think that is a rather unfair comparison, but point taken.
Unprovoked attacks on countries in order to put in place different regimes, the aim of shaping the world in America's image, nation building, acting unilaterally as a global police force, focusing strategic military policy upon the protection for the US of global energy reserves, the neo-conservative agenda of full spectrum military and economic dominance of the world. Yeah, that's a form of imperialism.
yeah, it's just a shame Bush has another four years before then with no incentive to remain popular. What a little tube.
well, i really dont want to get into an iraq argument here... but this iraqi mess is still ongoing from the first gulf war(living up to cease fire agreements), so its hardly unprovoked... and i doubt you mean afghanistan(or amybe you do?)
Yes, both these wars were fought with an objective of regime change and both were unprovoked. As for Iraq, without UN authorisation for action beyond the expulsion of Iraq from Kuwait as authorised by UNSCR660 and 678, further military action was illegal and therefore constituted the unprovoked aggressive invasion of a sovereign state, contrary to the UN charter. imperialism (n.) The policy of extending a nation's authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political hegemony over other nations.
That is good,well at least you know were going toward a more controlable society,imperialistic,facist,police state,there is a way out,and that is to go in,makes me wish I were back in Vermont!I like what you wrote,got any advice(I am asking)as to what could be done,anarchy doesn't seem to help,I,ve tried activist activity,special interest org. ect.....I think we will go to the mountain....
from 1441... "Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area," i think we can agree that 1441 is a subsequent resolution. Now, i said i dont want to get into iraq, so this is my last comment on it. Like it or not, all the legalistic jargon to make it legal is there. You can argue that its not, that there needed to be a second resolution, fine. Note that it says AUTHORIZED MEMBER STATES(US/britain/australia of course are member states) to uphold RESOLUTIONS. This clearly says the coalition was empowered to act. Disagree with it, the language is there. We wont control the iraqi elections and we didnt control afghanistan elections. Your definition fails right there.
No your interpretation is wrong. 678 did not and could not authorise "all necessary means" in upholding every resolution which had not yet been written, indefinitely for the rest of time. This suggestion is fatuous. The "subsequent resolutions" to which this refers are those passed between 660 and 678. 1441 does not authorise "all necessary means" in upholding resolutions subsequent to 678, therefore this war was illegal. "the establishment of economic and political hegemony over other nations" goes further than "controlling elections". But even so, you doubt there is American influence in the setting up of the system for elections in Iraq or Afghanistan? US political and economic hegemony over other nations is commonplace around the world, and will certainly be widespread in both Iraq and Afghanistan for many years to come. QED, America is pursuing a policy of imperialism, one which is being and will be furthered by the neo-conservative agenda of the Bush regime.
