i don't know if this is accurate, but I used it anydamnway...

www.iraqibodycount.net

if Bush decides to go into Iran there is going to have to be a draft, and thats when people will finally stand up and say "no more"

You better believe that the antiwar movement is going to be even stronger this time around. I mean, look at how many millions of people protested the Iraq war before it even began? Such protest hasn't happened before to that extent in the history of the world. I mean, it took how long for serious antiwar demonstrations to begin during Vietnam? YEARS after it even began. It doesn't always stop a war, but it makes it a lot harder for the government to begin one.

there is an interesting article about the draft in this weeks Rolling Stone

Has anyone read 'The History of the Pelopennesian War' where Athens plays a valiant role in defeating the evil baddies (Persia) then gets arrogent and self righteous and starts 'exporting' democracy to the whole region regardless of what the native peoples think, batters fuck out little helpless countries that resist 'freedom' and eventually pisses everyone off and sows the seeds of it's own destruction?

Just asking.

On NPR this morning there was some foreign politics expert dude (how's that for credentials?) who said the real test of a democracy isn't the first election, but rather the second. That's when the people who won power have to play by the rules again and be willing to lose power if that's the will of the people. Time alone will tell but you've got to keep in mind that the true test of the new leaders will be how willing they are to embrace the sometimes-bitter parts of "one man/woman-one vote" rule.

But before all that, the ejected Sunni minority - who have been in the catbird seat there for years - will be a big issue for the government to deal with. Most Sunnis didn't vote because they realized they were gonna get bounced anyway but they'll make noise (and more) when the formation and passage of the Iraqi constitution comes to pass.

In the end though, these are just different flavors of the same issues that any democracy has to deal with. And the fact that we can use the words "Iraq" and "democracy" without them being mutually exclusive is ultimately a good thing. Not that I'm glad about 1,200+ military deaths, countless civilian casualities and spending a $1 billion a day, but right now we're at the "lemonade out of lemons" point in this whole mess.

But now I'm unsettled by Seymour Hersh reporting in The New Yorker that the White House has a plan for airstrikes in Iran that it wants to put in action by this summer. It never ends with these jackasses.

Man, I need a drink.

this election is a pr campaign for the bush administration and all it's evil.
stay tuned for the flag waving, baby kissing invasion of iran.

We already invaded Iraq.

I'm really tired of the "even the good things Bush manages must only be a cover for bad things" reaction. It rings as falsely as Bush's attempt to take credit for the success of the elections. Find a happy medium.

Funny, because this is the justification for taxation, affirmative action, and just about every other piece of social legislation.

The life and death aspect of war merely ups the stakes, a question of magnitude. The rightness or wrongness remains unchanged.

I don't think anyone here is a complete pacifist, not even me. If we merely focus on war itself, we can compare this one to past wars and wonder if violence really was necessary based on the rationale. Now, if the rationale was a complete fabrication, and I personally believe it was, then we have some serious problems to deal with. Remember, the burden of proof for the resort to violence is on those who advocate violence, and you have to have really strong arguments.

You know, sometimes war is necessary, but I don't agree the ends justified the means in this case. And I don't even know what the administration's ultimate goal was anymore. Was it oil? Liberating the Iraqi people? Simply eliminating Saddam? Who knows at this point.

I did, what a depressing book. It's nice to see the mistakes of a thousands of years ago are repeated ad nauseum.

I think swiateck brings up a good point. although Iraq has made a baby step toward democracy, will it be able to maintain its own security? That is essential (to me at least) for the other parts of democracy to take hold.

meant iraN.
with an N.
iran.

in time...grasshopper...in time....

I'd give W & co more props for 'delivering democracy' in Iraq. But I stopped believing in democracy a lil more than 4 years ago.

I could cut a fucking promo here, but will refrain. Instead I will remind you that in other countries, the guns come out and there's revolution. In America, we have stability, and the pendulum will swing back.

I'm the furthest thing from a Republican on this board, but the second you quit believing in this country and its true ideals, its greateness, and yes its freedom, is the second you need to get your ass on a plane.

That's the thing, man, you have a voice, you have a vote and you can change things. Or, you can sit around and bitch.

I disagree with this completely, and I think you do too. Bitching about democracy -- and specifically what Bush and his forebears did to it -- is part of that democratic process. If we don't point out his weaknesses -- in this case, that he cares more about foreign soil than his own -- then things won't change. And like Kerry was going to be any better. We need more than two parties.

She can get a party started!

::tags in from the Sen.::
And there's a difference between believing in democracy enough to raise a fuss about it - which you're doing Dusty, big ups - and laying down and saying you've given things up for dead like Damen says he is. That's not gonna do anything. What we need now are people who have ideas, gusto and passion enough to pitch in and try to bring about a change in direction.

Actually, we need NO parties! Every fucking party has it's own slanted platform they expect their members to follow in lockstep. Let's try things without these relics of an ancient civilization, for a change!

I totally agree. Even though I have stated that I pretty much don't like Republicans (which the majority of my friends and family are) I think the party system hanstrings change. Many of the donors I (or my candidates) talk to will say "But I'm a Republican," as an excuse not to give money, time or whatever. It's bullshit. The dude I worked for in Mobile is a great DA, and would (hopefully WILL) make an awesome AG and even Governor, but its getting harder and harder for him to survive politically, just because he has a "D" next to his name, and therefore the good people of Alabama think he hates Jesus.

Oh and Chad, thanks for the back-up, mang. You understood what I was trying to say. What's the quote "The only think required for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing" or something like that.

As I've said before, I will NEVER give up on this country.

KRYLON LOOGAR IN '08!!!

i hadn't heard of that, but reading this article reminded me that you'd brought it up.

You can come up with examples on both sides of the issue. The first elections in Germany after years of living under Adolf Hitler were a U.S led effort. There was much resentment and anger in Europe about this and the U.S. led Marshall Plan. I think Germany turned out okay.

Steve

For all it's flaws, i like the MMP system (we copied it from the Germans) we switched to here in the 90's . All parties get a proportion of seats in parliament equal to the percentage of votes they got (as long as it's over 5%).

It means that the smaller parties do have some influence, as the two main parties usually have to form an alliance with smaller parties like the Greens, and the smaller parties therefore manage to get some of their policies implimented.