what's BAD about democracy(for once)?

[Teek]

Bush if he wants can become a Dictator. And he most likelly will.

Uh, no he can't. That's constitutionally impossible.

And just so you know ,you actually think anyone in Eastern Europe loves you guys? %70 of Ukrainians wished they still lived under the Soviet Union, while %90 of Russians want to revert back to Socialism. And on top of that they've showed how thankfull they are to the us by protesting against you guys and burning and making a mockery out of your flag.

We're not altruists. Most of us don't care what the rest of the world thinks about us, frankly. Let them rot in their Red Jailhouse, for all I care, if that's what they want.

[Cloud No.9]

it was also constitutionally impossible in germany.

and not caring about the rest of the world is far different from going round invading it an torturing civillians. which isn't very nice really.

[Madame Adequate]

it was also constitutionally impossible in germany.

The Wiemar Republic had been in force for about fourteen years before it was demolished by Hitler. Most people probably didn't know much about it, there was only going to be one small group of youths who were well-educated in it (And that's assuming it was part of the school system.), and being so young they wouldn't have had the power to do much about it anyway.

America, on the other hand, has a constition some two hundredm plus years of age. Every student who goes through school learns about it, and having been there for so long there are plenty of older, more powerful people who know about it and are now in a position to make a difference.

Incomparable situations.

[Cloud No.9]

considering how the patriot act breaks the constitution it obviously isn't working.

[Teek]

That's very true, Cloud. However, it is an incomparable situation. If Bush had another possible term and whatnot, it could be possible. However, he is going slowly, if his goal is dictatorship. He has taken some civil liberties and started an illegal war (but NOT for the reasons you like to advocate), but he doesn't really have the time left for dictator.

Besides that, more than half of Congress hates Bush, more than half of the population dislikes him as president, and a much, much higher percentage would not tolerate a dictator, especially Bush. I mean, the people of Germany wanted Hitler in office (more or less) and wanted him to become dictator; Bush wouldn't last two seconds here. I know a bunch of guys in our military who absolutely hate Bush, so don't pull some "military force" part.

[Cloud No.9]

all bush would need to gain a better acceptance is another terrorist attack. before 9-11 he was stuck around the 50% margin. the 12th of september he was up at 95%. now i highly doubt the us would orchesrate or allow a terrorist attack purely to gain a tighter grip on the population. but if one was to occour i'm sure the chance would be abused.

can i ask hachifusa why you say the war was illegal?

[DarkLadyNyara]

all bush would need to gain a better acceptance is another terrorist attack. before 9-11 he was stuck around the 50% margin. the 12th of september he was up at 95%

At this point, another terrorist attack would do more harm to Bush than good. After 9-11, he promised to make us safer, but a second attack on US soil would likely show alot of people just how much of the war on terror is absolute B.S.

[FFGuevara]

A second terrorist attack would actually prevent him from becoming a Dictator since everyone will lose faith in him. We cannot predict the future but the US is going down the same road the Third Reich went in the 30's and 40's. What destroyed Germany was that it underistimated Russia. If the US attacks a Country with a underistimated Military (Brazil, Iran, N.Korea and China) you'll get owned if you pull the same BS you did in Iraq.

[Teek]

can i ask hachifusa why you say the war was illegal?

Only Congress is allowed to declare war; the president has no such power. It was clear from the beginning that this was Bush's war, and it was also clear that he was using every tactic possible to get there. I mean, if they did have WMDs, it wasn't a big enough threat to merit the war. It's clear here, just as in the rest of the world, that this was revenge on his part.

It was not illegal, however, becuase other countries didn't support it. Frankly, I wouldn't care about that; America doesn't answer to the rest of the world, and nor does any country. It wasn't illegal because we invaded them first; we had weak reasoning, but ultimately they were a "criminal state" and any free society had the right to invade.

[Cloud No.9]

all countries answer to the rest of the world. that's why we have an internaational court and why we had the nuremburg trials and are currently trying milosevic.

no country has the right to invade another country unless it has real reason. "they blew up my radio station" is not a good reason.

[Teek]

"I enslave and torture my people" is a good reason, usually.

[Cloud No.9]

would we all be talking differently if iran had wandered across the border? if iraq was free for anyone to take would the world have cared just the same if iran had went to take baghdad.

and mugawbe enslaves and tortures his own people. but it ain't a good enough reason for him.

[Madame Adequate]

and mugawbe enslaves and tortures his own people. but it ain't a good enough reason for him.

Actually yes it is, I've said for some time now that if we are taking an interventionist policy, Mugabe should be among the first to go.

[Cloud No.9]

but the problem is americaq is taking a selectivelly interventionist policy.

[DarkLadyNyara]

"I enslave and torture my people" is a good reason, usually.

Not for America. There are plenty of torturers and murderers that America has ignored or actually supported. Saddam (prior to invading Kuwait) being a prime example.