Mr. Bush should be proud

[jeb1138]

Originally posted by hulkaros
If THEY had the REAL guts THEY should be the ones that had a REAL fight inside a ring or something...

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...

 

[Cat]

Posted by banyo_boy:

Another, countries (us too) could take a lesson fro Santa Ana, general of the Mexican army that defeated the Alamo. His armies were order that they not to kill anyone but men with arms against them.

This is a bit out of context, since in this case we are talking about an ongoing conflict where clearly one side was attacking the other. His order was a good one, I hope that, unlike last time, the US forces will follow it too...

But, we nowadays, don't care about history. We just care when the next Tom Cruise movies is coming out.

I don't get this one ...

So, if someone who comes up to you and broadsides you with a 2x4, you will do absolutely nothing... I doubt anyone has that restraint.

Wrong example, since you ahve to take into account our previous histories: Did I ever threaten or harm the guy? Did he previously harm me? Does he clearly and undoubtedly try to attack me? Certainly I wouldn't attack him or provoke an attack by drawing a weapon, which is more or less what the US is doing now with Iraq...

No, but you are using that Biblical passage out of context. The woman who was to be stoned, by law under Old Testament law, commited adultery. This was a personal sin that did not affect anyone but the adulterers. The mob then dispersed. Jesus said the the woman, "Go and sin no more." (John 8)

Why is it out of context? We are accusing Iraq of having sinned against UN resolutions, the punishment seems to be war, and america seems to be very eager to get to the stone throwing part... while it hasn't yet even concludively been proven before the UN that Iraq has in fact sinned...

We can use that agument with 9-11. The firemen didn't have the right to go into the buildings to interfere with the people for their own good.

You seem to miss my point by trying to apply it to an entirely different context. If asked, the people in the Towers would have consented. Moreover all of them were in clear and present danger.
I have some doubt that the Iraqi people would ask the americans again to help them, since last time they didn't. Claiming to be working in the interest of the population, while killing it is a bit far-going meddling...
Rather take this example: a women is delivering a child, both could die in the process... who do you save? Mother or child? SAving the one implies risking the others life.. are you ready to take this kind of decisions? Are you ready to decide that you well can sacrifice 200.000 Iraqi's in order to better the other's lives? That is a great responsibility you are taking then ...

You would sit and watch some one get the crap beaten out of them. I seriously hope not.

Again, by the use of a far fetched example you misinterpret what I am saying. I would try to separate two guys fighting, I would stand up for the victim of a bully, but I would not go and beat up someone before he even lifts a finger. I would try to talk them out of fighting, not hit them myself!

Also, are we not to help each other globally? Since globalization is so huge, why suddenly is everyone so happy in their own countries, thinking they will not get hit next.

Helping each other by starting wars is a very interesting perspective on globalization... I'm not at all happy in my country, I'd like it (the Netherlands) to integrate better into Europe as a whole, to drop barriers to immigration and import, to spend more on help to third-world countries, to invest in clean and durable sources of energy for the good of the entire planet etc. Hitting someone is one of the best methods to be hit back: it's called Newtons Law of SocioDynamics and Escalation ... to every hit corresponds a hit back of opposite verse and equal or greater force ...

What happens if we do stop? I guess we will just live in a world hoping some misguided and misinformed people doesn't bomb us.
I am not for this because not all our allies are supporting it, but I really don't want to see more killing by these loons.
BTW, these misguided people are trained from childhood in schools. These are 2nd and 3rd generation misguided people.
I am disappointed that people will let lunatics run around unchecked.

Instead of bombing them, you could try to build them schools, instead of destroying their electricity and water supply, you could try to help them, instead of leeting them remain poor and misguided and victims of religious fundamentalism, you could try to educate them.

You too are misguided since your childhood in believing that the way you view the world is the good one. So do I. But at least I try to overcome my limits, while you seem just comfy inside them. Don't american children get brainwashed too from their early childhood, by letting them sing nationalistic songs and swear undying loyalty to their homeland? Where's the difference?

 

[Cat]

Posted by jeb1138:

I believe that absolute standards exist unalterably, that God comprehends and acts in complete harmony with them, and that I can discover them by employing my intellect and seeking help, revelation, and confirmation of past revelation from God. I do believe it is impossible for me to comprehend all truth as a mere mortal, but that does not preclude its existence, and it does mean that I should try to learn and live by as much truth as I can so that I may align myself with what is good and shun the evil. Because? Because it is right.

Since you know you don't know all the truth, how can you decide whether or not somthing is a part of the ineffable grand design that you cannot (yet) comprehend? Are you ready to take decision that are no more than a bet (like Pascal)? If you lack knowledge of the absolute truth, in a phenomenological sense, there is no such thing as an absolute truth, i.e. if it can principally have no effect whatsoever on my existence, it may as well not exist. Still it is true, that "The good life for man is best spent in seeking the good life for man"!

Good post jeb

 

[chevy]

Originally posted by jeb1138

I believe that absolute standards exist unalterably, that God comprehends and acts in complete harmony with them, and that I can discover them by employing my intellect and seeking help, revelation, and confirmation of past revelation from God. I do believe it is impossible for me to comprehend all truth as a mere mortal, but that does not preclude its existence, and it does mean that I should try to learn and live by as much truth as I can so that I may align myself with what is good and shun the evil. Because? Because it is right.

Your way of thinking is sooo... middle age.

We had several wars and cruisades in Europe, and a very painful inquisition because of that type of thinking.

 

[banjo_boy]

Originally posted by Cat Instead of bombing them, you could try to build them schools, instead of destroying their electricity and water supply, you could try to help them, instead of leeting them remain poor and misguided and victims of religious fundamentalism, you could try to educate them.

You too are misguided since your childhood in believing that the way you view the world is the good one. So do I. But at least I try to overcome my limits, while you seem just comfy inside them. Don't american children get brainwashed too from their early childhood, by letting them sing nationalistic songs and swear undying loyalty to their homeland? Where's the difference? [/B]

They have to want to learn first. You can not teach something without a want to learn.

Also, there is a HUGE difference between Country loyalty and fanaticism. To be proud of your country is one thing. To be proud and to WANT to kill people who don't believe what you do is another.

I don't want this war as much as anyone else. My question still is: Why are we so gitty with the idea of gloabalization and "everyone getting along" , but if someone is in trouble we "should keep to ourselves".

If all the anti-war, UN loving people have their way, guess what? 9-11 is going to happen again and it will be worse than before just because the world didn't keep everyone else in check. I do not want this war at all just because my neighbors in Iraq and elsewhere, fellow humans, will get hurt or die. Guaranteed there will be civilian deaths. Why would anyone want it? But, why would we not want to protect innocent lives from future dangers? We can not sit down and tell Sadddam that he is wrong and should be educated to do right. We also can't sit around singing Kumbya thinking that just because we are doing that, Saddam is going to stop funding terrorism and his own weapons.

So if all of us were misguided as children, how do you know you are pursuing the "right" ideals. If we were misguided by our parents and teachers, who misguided them? Their parents. Domino effect! Everyone in the world, from the very beginning, is then misguided! And we are just plodding along in this thing called time and space trying to make sense of what life is for. So, it looks like we are pretty limited because there is nothing else outside of being misguided.

Also, our society now could care less about educating the mind about math, literature, reading, and especially history. But they are concerned about the latest movie or newest CD. And yes, other do understand what I am talking about.

It has become very obvious also that the tolerance level became very intolerant when it came to jeb1138's comment.

BTW, think globally! That "type of thinking" has also been the reason for the rise of many countries and laws. Yes, the wars and cursades were stupid (the stupidest thing in Religious history), but you tell me what is bad about the education of the lower case when the Protestant Reformation happened. Education was only for the rich and clergy. Religion, Christianity especially, has done more for the world that most could even imagine.

Well, Jeb! Let's pick up our "Middle Age thinking" and move on. I guess the "enlightened" folk want to be alone in "their misguidedness".

 

[AdmiralAK]

Originally posted by edX
there are many of us who would argue that Bush wasn't elected - he took control in the midst of scandal and confusion over our voting processes. it's fact that the majority of americans did not vote for him.

This is a big thread, sorry if I am repeating a point, however there are 3 points I want to make here (about my friend Ed's comment and the thread).


1) The voting system in the US does not take into account majority vote. The electoral college has power to elect when all is said and done. The democrats in my view tried to twist the process that has been in place since the founding of our republic to get his way. That is wrong.


2) The two party system sux big time. we, as the american people, need to create more parties that represent US (us not U.S.) the people who vote. All too often we compromise because there are only two choices and we do not vote our conscience but we vote for either of the lesser of 2 evils, or to spite someone. -- We as americans have sooooo much choice as consumers, but when we go to vote there are only two choices.



finally
3) what I am saying might be controversial but here it goes, I am FOR the war. I am for the war as a last resort. Saddam must be kicked outta there and never come back. Period. I do not support inspections. We had inspections during the clinton years and what did it get us? Almost no where. With a decade to conceal any weapons that they might have, inspections are even more useless, and to consider that inspections are being held up because "someone doesnt have a key" --- that my friends is a load of bull --- Diplomacy should be first and foremost, however the option of war should not be discounted.




Admiral

 

[toast]

My own words were:
"War is a primitive, pre-Cold War means to win primitive domination. I understand African nations can still use war, but I don't understand post-industrial countries can still consider it as an option."

Satcomer: Be careful! Your statement looks like a very subtle form of racism.

Must be a VERY subtle form of racism then, 'cause I jus't figure out what's racist in my post. African people are just our equals (if not our superiors according to some anthropologists), while African states are politically speaking primitive. This is debatable, if you want to launch the topic start a thread and tell me by PM. Be ready to defend your point, though.

mdnky: The way you talk Toast you would rather them use a WMD (biological or nuclear) on another country before anyone takes an action to stop it.

Yes. That's justice. If you want to write theory of justice again, take some time to do it. Don't you understand 'pre-emptive strike' is nonsense ? If pre-emptive strike policy was applied, the US would be immediately bombed, just after Pakistan and India. This makes no sense.

Again, this is the same carelessness that led to WWI, and WWII.
No, you are wrong again. WWI and WWII have much older factors than 1911 and 1933 events. And Iraq is certainly not starting WW3 tomorrow, that's US propaganda which shows a complete ignorance not only of contemporary history (starting from 1900 to nowadays), but also of immediate recent actuality.

I'll repeat again: parallels between WWars and Iraq are what is to be called propaganda. Do I need to explain that ?

 

[Cat]

So if all of us were misguided as children, how do you know you are pursuing the "right" ideals.

In fact, I don't. But I try to check whether they are right. I call them in question. I debate them. I try to overcome my limits, and do not simply acceptem as dogmatically given. Thus I strife to improve my opinions and actions.

If we were misguided by our parents and teachers, who misguided them? Their parents. Domino effect! Everyone in the world, from the very beginning, is then misguided!

ROFL! The funny thing is, you are right! Everything you were taught created prejudices in you. They are not necessarily false or wrong or bad, but they are prejudices in that they form and condition your decisions and opinions before having had any real experience. Nobody can prevent starting without prejudices of this kind, but everybody should IMHO try to accept that they are in fact a very limited (and limiting) factor in the way you percieve, judge and react to the rest of the world. Thus you should try to improve them, not raising them to dogmas. Question them and strenghten, change or otherwise improve them through debate and research! I cannot guarantee the results will be absolutely right, but at least the method is.

And we are just plodding along in this thing called time and space trying to make sense of what life is for. So, it looks like we are pretty limited because there is nothing else outside of being misguided.

Yes indeed, and that is very sad... the tragic human condition... life is absurd. Have you ever read Baudelaire? Beatiful in a very horrific way, is his short poem Le Cadavre (my French isn't perfect...) "The Corpse". Reminds me of Keats sometimes... *deep sigh* or Leopardi ... beatiful... and in the end we're all gonna die anyway ... *deep sigh* ... oh well .... *shrug* ... like Italo Svevo said in "La coscienza di Zeno": "Life isn't good or bad, but interesting."

 

[doemel]

I read earlier someone said we have been messing with the Middle East for decades now. Guess what! They (the Middle East) have been battling longer than most countries were around/ organized!

it was atually me who said that. i do agree that "they" have been battling around for a long time. but so has every other people for thousands if not hundreds of thousands of years. so this point is invalid as stated by you.

The US is not the only "aggressers" in the world. 10 years ago, Iraq invaded Kuwait. There are so many battles in Africa it would make your head spin. Does anyone know how many people are killed in China each year? North Korea? Iraq? And these are their own people! Come on! We might look like aggressers because we don't sit on our butts and enjoy cheese and wine all day, but we are hardly the ones that started the whole thing.

you miss the whole point. while i agree that the US is not the only aggressor (they are also not the only ones claiming to be "good" or "righteous" or whatever term they use to set themselves apart from their adversary) i still want you to realize that a lot of the conflicts you're talking about (Africa, Middle East...) are a direct or indirect result of first European imperialism and these conflicts would probably not exist if we didn't go there, define territorial constraints at will and split up ethnic groups lumping them together with other ethnic groups in the first place. take a look at a history book. you'll certainly find nice colorful maps of how exactly the brits, frenchies, dutch and at one point even the germans and italians split up that huge pie a.k.a. Africa. then try to find a map that shows which people lives in which country and you'll see that even after decades of bloody conflicts, ethnic cleansing and genozide the borders are still arbitrary.
the situation in the Middle East is not very different.


My main challenge with these protest is that if the US and Britain drops the whole thing and in a couple months BOOM! Kuwait or the US gets hit again.What then? The US is going to be labeled as wimps, gutless to stand up to terrorists, and paper lions.

if we'd follow you logic we would have to bomb the Saudis first. but...oh no! we have very important oil deals with the Saudis and they don't stand in our way to more oil, so we can't bomb them! is that how you'd justify that the US is not doing anything about the country that was a major investor in the Al Qaeda network? i hope not.
i for my part have not seem any evidence of Iraq supporting terrorists more than most of it's neighbor countries. you'll quite likely find someone in about every large country on this planet that is somehow connected to a terrorist group and even supporting it. does that mean we should bomb all these countries? i don't think so. 9/11 and Iraq are two totally different issues, so let's PLEASE keep it that way. i am sorry about what happened on 9/11 but quite frankly: you've already had your revenge in Afghanistan. and speaking about Afghanistan: the US still has not installed a regime there that would better the situation of the population, namely the women and children. i for my part fear they again took side with someone that might get back at them in the future. it's happened repeatedly before and i don't see the US govnt. having learned the lesson yet.


Our country was not founded by a bunch of ninnies. But nowadays, it's hard to find people who actually have solid beliefs in a world of "no absolutes". There is evil and there is good. Killing people is evil.

i don't think we're getting anywhere with the "good-and-evil-does it-exist?" debate. i for my part beliefe that there are indeed shades of grey in the world and that what a certain shade of grey is to me is probably something else for you.
i do agree though that killing is evil (for me). and i refer to any kind of killing, no matter who you are and on which side you are.


However, in this case, involuntary evil has to fight voluntary evil. We didn't volunteer to get attacked 9-11.

there is no such thing as involuntary violence.


We want to protect ourselves and others.

so does everyone else.


The only thing I know is that if a small army of terrorists came into the MidWest, they would have no chance whatsoever.

For me, diplomacy. But, sometimes, kids have to be taken to the woodshed when words don't work.

there's a huge difference between punishing only the culprit and punishing all the people that happen to live in the same country as the culprit.

 

[toast]

Doemel just made a very ture point about Afghanistan that deserves careful reading and thinking here.

I've been working on a strange problematic today in class: are democracies the best regime to propagate democracy elsewhere (ie outside their borders) ? In other words, are democracies the best exporters of their own values ?

AdmiralAK: 2) The two party system sux big time. we, as the american people, need to create more parties that represent US (us not U.S.) the people who vote.

Multipartism is not systemically better than bipartism. I live in a multipartist country, where all parties can be positioned on a bipolar scale (from x-left to x-right). Therefore, there is no more political diversity in my country than in yours.
Plus, the actual American party system (money, money, lobbies, money, more lobbies, more money) makes birth of new parties a fantasy. Think about it, find some examples, you'll make it by yourself.

 

[Ugg]

Originally posted by toast
Multipartism is not systemically better than bipartism. I live in a multipartist country, where all parties can be positioned on a bipolar scale (from x-left to x-right). Therefore, there is no more political diversity in my country than in yours.

I agree with what you say, Toast, however, the one aspect of multipartism that IS better is that it allows ALL people to have a voice in their govt. One of the biggest problems with a bipartist system is that a large percentage of the voters are left without a voice. Some people speculate that this is why the voter turnout is so low in the USA. Of course, we might just be lazy, apathetic couch potatoes too

 

[doemel]

Multipartism is not systemically better than bipartism. I live in a multipartist country, where all parties can be positioned on a bipolar scale (from x-left to x-right). Therefore, there is no more political diversity in my country than in yours.
Plus, the actual American party system (money, money, lobbies, money, more lobbies, more money) makes birth of new parties a fantasy. Think about it, find some examples, you'll make it by yourself.

I couldn't agree more, but I think the real problem in the US system is not the bipartism, it's all the lobbying. It is a legal form of corruption! Keep in mind that corporations or individuals that have enough dough can "buy" both parties (not that the difference is all that fundamental) and therefore they have things their way in any case. We see it in sports: Why is there so much corruption in sports that involve lots of advertisment/licence and other money? And why should it be different in politics? I recommend to put strict limits on the money that can be received for electoral campaigns and you'll have a system that's more democratic (for the people). This might even get the couch potatoes to be more active politically. And it opens the door to mulitpartism.

 

[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.