Mr. Bush should be proud

[Ugg]

I agree, however the people who receive the money are the people who make the laws. I believe that it would be very difficult to undo the current system. There have been some efforts and maybe in the future more will appear and succeed. Corruption, nepotism and the building of family dynasties has never been more apparent than during the current administration. It's not just the administration but the entire republican party.

[Cat]

I think multipartism is better than bi-partism because:
1) People need to make less compromises in voting because more choice is offered.
2) two big ruling parties will necessarily gravitate towards the static centre, where most people are anyway, while smaller parties at the fringes are mostly the ones advoking change, progress etc.
3) bi-partism necessarily is composed of two big parties that are assured of alternating leadership of the country, which makes them quite sure of their power and self-indulgent, which makes them less interested in what the public opinion really is and more interested in their own affairs (= internal issues to the party). More parties presuppose smaller parties. Smaller parties presuppose more efforts to actually interest the voters in the relevant issues, which may lead to more political partecipation an debate.
4) Bi-partism concentrates the power where there should be none. Parties (as a whole) are not to rule, but the elected representatives are.

These are my illusions, what are yours?

[hulkaros]

Originally posted by mdnky
No, they did the exact same thing you want us to do with Iraq. Baby it, place restrictions, do inspections, etc.

In the end the same thing will happen if we don't do something about him, we'll wind up in a major conflict again...the really scarry thing is this:

It isn't the 30's or 40's...instead of worrying about those horrible things called airplanes and measly little bombs, we have to worry about WMD and nuclear attacks on the battlefield and at HOME. How about the release of biological agents on civilian populations. Have you ever seen what some of these biological agents do to a human? IT ISN'T PRETTY.


Why lay around waiting for Saddam to attack? That would be the most ignorant thing we could do.

Look, we have this thing that we call action-reaction in nature and in general...

So far, it seems that Mr.Bush seems to enjoy being the action part...

Which makes me wonder: What is going to be the reaction? Sadam? Osama? Other fanatics maybe? All these at the same time? Or something worst that we cannot possibly imagine?

I bet Mr.Bush could not see that VERY bad day for humanity of 9-11 and I really hope that he isn't trying to play the Wrath of God part aka Revenge/Avenge for that day too... I think that the coming war will teach Mr.Bush a very serious lesson and I hope that HE is going to be the one and only to have that lesson and not innocent people all over the world: When you start a war be more than sure that you can end it too and not simply start an ongoing vendetta...

War is a mess even when you have the "upper" hand... But I think that Mr.Bush never really understood anything about the Vietnam (9-11 or other war activities around the globe) or the hell that he is going to unleash by going into War. Is really Sadam a threat or someone has to look himself in the mirror? You know? Sometimes the enemy can be within ourselves... Or if you prefer within US of A...

[hulkaros]

Originally posted by jeb1138
I think leaders of nations do this more than you give them credit here. Especially leaders who stand up for what they believe. They take very real risks. Saddam attempted to assassinate the first President Bush even after he was out of office, for example. But I agree -- it could be very interesting to do what you say. It would certainly result in different candidates being elected. Can anyone say "Jesse Ventura for President"? Campaign slogan: (and actual quote!) "Wrestling is ballet with violence." I'm not sure Saddam Hussein would be willing, however...

You know what I really was trying to say: The same people who like to govern our earth when it was time for them to order a war THEMSELVES must go to war... Be it on a ring or the battlefield itself...

Of course you have heard of Alexander the Great?! He HIMSELF was leading his army when it was time for action and not as a coward staying behind and giving orders... And yes, times changed and nowadays we have generals and stuff but still they lack a VERY important characteristic of a TRUE leader: Brains & Guts... And not JUST brains which you know what? In the end I believe that the majority of modern leaders lack this too! Who in his right mind would start a war without REAL reasons? And you know? I may be wrong on this but we have yet to see let alone figure the outcome of the war that Mr.Bush "thinks" that he already won...

The coming war sure isn't another Black Hawk Down, Rambo, Saving Private Ryan, et al movie you know... I'm sure that Hollywood loves Mr.Bush because in the coming years they will get the chance to film MANY war and terrorist movies! I just hope that they will find people to watch them too!

To put it simply: War sucks! War without reasons sucks more! War with dumb reasons sucks infinity times more!

[hulkaros]

Originally posted by jeb1138
I think leaders of nations do this more than you give them credit here. Especially leaders who stand up for what they believe. They take very real risks. Saddam attempted to assassinate the first President Bush even after he was out of office, for example. But I agree -- it could be very interesting to do what you say. It would certainly result in different candidates being elected. Can anyone say "Jesse Ventura for President"? Campaign slogan: (and actual quote!) "Wrestling is ballet with violence." I'm not sure Saddam Hussein would be willing, however...

You know what I really was trying to say: The same people who like to govern our earth when it was time for them to order a war THEMSELVES must go to war... Be it on a ring or the battlefield itself...

Of course you have heard of Alexander the Great?! He HIMSELF was leading his army when it was time for action and not as a coward staying behind and giving orders... And yes, times changed and nowadays we have generals and stuff but still they lack a VERY important characteristic of a TRUE leader: Brains & Guts... And not JUST brains which you know what? In the end I believe that the majority of modern leaders lack this too! Who in his right mind would start a war without REAL reasons? And you know? I may be wrong on this but we have yet to see let alone figure the outcome of the war that Mr.Bush "thinks" that he already won...

The coming war sure isn't another Black Hawk Down, Rambo, Saving Private Ryan, et al movie you know... I'm sure that Hollywood loves Mr.Bush because in the coming years they will get the chance to film MANY war and terrorist movies! I just hope that they will find people to watch them too!

To put it simply: War sucks! War without reasons sucks more! War with dumb reasons sucks infinity times more!

[toast]

doemel:I think the real problem in the US system is not the bipartism, it's all the lobbying.

Lobbying is a consequence of the US financial laws that apply to parties and to their campaigns. Hard and soft money concepts are impossible to conceive for French people, for instance.

Ugg: the one aspect of multipartism that IS better is that it allows ALL people to have a voice in their govt.

Yes, obviously. However, multipartism also fragments the global political trends, in such a way some political parties find it problematic to create consistant coalitions and parliamentary groups.

Cat:
1) People need to make less compromises in voting because more choice is offered.

Consensus is the basis of presidential, parliamentary or semi-presidential semi-parliamentary political systems, don't forget that.
On a very theoretical point of view, compromise begins bipartism (people find a compromise, thus create a big, strong party, hence only two trends appear) and ends multipartism (people create many small parties, then regroup for elections).
Both result in agglomerating votes.

2) two big ruling parties will necessarily gravitate towards the static centre, where most people are anyway, while smaller parties at the fringes are mostly the ones advoking change, progress etc.

You are very right on this point. Don't imagine, though, that those parties have a big audience: they are, most of the time, ignored by 90% of the population, the 10% left being just a bit more curious then the rest.

3) bi-partism necessarily is composed of two big parties that are assured of alternating leadership of the country, which makes them quite sure of their power and self-indulgent, which makes them less interested in what the public opinion really is and more interested in their own affairs (= internal issues to the party). More parties presuppose smaller parties. Smaller parties presuppose more efforts to actually interest the voters in the relevant issues, which may lead to more political partecipation an debate.

False: those are presuppositions, which do not apply in multipartist reality. I'll take my own country as an example where multipartism has not led to more debate than bipartism.
Again: where you don't find an insitutional separation in two parties, you find an ideological separation which finally regroups all parties to two left/right trends.

4) Bi-partism concentrates the power where there should be none.

Americanocentric point
You will find example of bipartism where the parties don't have the same (financial) influence as in the US.

[Cat]

2) two big ruling parties will necessarily gravitate towards the static centre, where most people are anyway, while smaller parties at the fringes are mostly the ones advoking change, progress etc.

You are very right on this point. Don't imagine, though, that those parties have a big audience: they are, most of the time, ignored by 90% of the population, the 10% left being just a bit more curious then the rest.

True, but it's those 10% that make it worthwhile for me to vote, instead of beginning aparty by myself...
Moreover small parties can take more radical and progressive stances and position, which, in a watered-down form, can be taken over by the centrist mainstream partis. They are useful as organs that make proposition which other parties would not come up with and, however small, generate pull, by getting media attention, comparing in debates and challenging the ruling parties etc.

You're probably right on 3) ... maybe more hopes and idealism there than realistic political analysis ... however I said "may lead to more political partecipation an debate."

4) Bi-partism concentrates the power where there should be none.

Americanocentric point
You will find example of bipartism where the parties don't have the same (financial) influence as in the US.

Point taken! In fact I had the US in mind when I wrote this ...

About hulkaros point: It might happen, since Saddam has challenged Bush to a public TV debate ... Well, OK: it won't happen probably, but this is as close as it gets anyway. Would be definitely nice to see though.