Thread: Strike against Syria

Originally Posted by Brenngun

As you rightly say the USA is a republic however it employs a democratic system a.k.a. a democracy. The fact that an elected representative may vote opposite to the majority of their constituents wishes, or every constituent is not asked to cast a ballot to decide every issue doesn't mean it's no longer a democracy. You may not like this fact but it is irrefutable (see below). If in the future you don't have the right to elect your official representative you would then not have a democracy. Short of that ... you got a democracy. Period.

To borrow a phrase "what's absolutely astounding". To me it's the number of citizens who don't use the one most powerful tool they have in their hands (their vote) to affect democratic change. They don't seem to take it seriously. They think it makes no difference. This couldn't be farther from the truth. If you don't like the way your government is working then organize and communicate your displeasure to your elected representative. Do it effectively and continuously. Don't just complain about it or theorize why it doesn't or won't work. Ultimately use your collective vote to change it. After all it is a democracy.


de·moc·ra·cy

[dih-mok-ruh-see]
noun, plural de·moc·ra·cies.1.government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by
them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.

A democracy is 2 wolves and a rabbit voting on what to have for dinner. A republic is a well armed rabbit contesting the vote. PERIOD !

Originally Posted by bill3152

Its like a menu, you want steak but theres only chicken and fish. Thats the voting system. I may like fish better than chicken but I cant pick the steak cuz it isnt on the menu. .

I disagree you can vote for your steak and get it once in a while.

Jesse Ventura - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I voted for him not thinking that he would win. I did not want the "fish or chicken". Most I talked to did for the same reason.

Originally Posted by Brenngun

Please correct me if I'm wrong but the Supreme Court overturns them because they impinge on the constitutional rights of the minority in question. The Constitution as it was designed protects the minority in this example. It then gets kicked back to law makers to pass legislation further clarifying the rights of all citizens. Isn't this the way it's supposed to work?




Please Crouton no offence has been taken. This has been a very gentlemanly discussion. We have stated our cases in a friendly and respectful manner. That's the pure essence of a civilized dialog.

Now allow me to state that nowhere have I ever said the USA in not a republic. There is no doubt that it is. It's also understood that it is not a direct democracy (none exist anywhere) but most certainly is a representative democracy as you stated above. It would then be fair to say that the government of the USA is a form of democracy and thereby allows the citizenry to affect change.
This has been my only point all along.




That's a fairly general and dismissive assertion
I think you'd be very surprised by how much more Canadians know about the USA versus the opposite statement. In fact my experience is that the average Canadian knows more about the US than the average American does. A bold statement I know but one grown from direct experience. I was born, raised and educated in the US mid west. Moved to Canada more than 20 years ago and have thoroughly experienced both ends of this equation. It's not close. Give them a bit more credit.




Thanks and I agree but don't think you can't change it. You can.

My point of contention on the Republic vs. Democracy bit is that by definition, a Democracy ALWAYS goes with majority vote. Even if it is a panel of representatives, they still bring their vote based on the majority vote of those they represent.

In a Republic, the only thing democratically decided is who the representatives are, and, this does not include the President, who is only voted into the office by the electoral college (the representatives), not the popular vote. The popular vote is simply to let the representatives know who the majority of their constituents would like to see as President. The representatives are allowed to vote however they see fit, though ideally, they would vote the way the majority of their constituents do.

The only reason that the US is a representative democracy is because our representatives (excluding the President) are elected by a democratic process, or majority vote. The only other democratic voting we do is simply to let our elected officials know how the majority feels, and even then, they can still vote the other way, which is, by definition, not democracy, or else the majority vote would always have to prevail.

I know this is kinda just semantics, and I'm not trying to kick a dead horse here, but it gives insight as to why so many of us are upset that our elected officials are seeming to continue down a path that the majority of citizens do not want them to go down.

The real problem is that the executive branch of our government is also starting to abuse their power and not follow the processes set forth in our Constitution. When you couple that with so many blatant attempts to trample our constitutionaly protected rights, such as the right to refuse unwarranted searches and seizures protected by the 4th amendment being completely disregarded by the NSA, yeah, we tend to get a little bit ticked off at that. And, if as an American citizen that doesn't tick you off, I have to wonder how abreast you are of how your own country works. If you are in the know, and it still doesn't make you upset, well, that's your right to feel that way, but at least you're informed where so many others aren't.

Originally Posted by MickR

As per above, the world is probably really only complaining about the US big stick, because the US big stick ONLY ever acts like the big stick, if there is something to GAIN from it. Be it Power, Prestige or Money. Maybe just stepping back and saying, "Hey, look at that turkey on the other side of the world! Geez his neighbours are gonna be p!ssed off with him!" might be the right thing to do sometimes. Or perhaps, just jump in and help sort the sh!t out without first checking what's in it for themselves.


Anyway, all that is aside to my actual belief (until proven irrefutably wrong with non fabricated evidence to attest to the facts) that Syria didn't do this to it's own people. I don't think it's about how the US should or should not behave. Or what form of government is running the show. If something needs to be done, then the evidence should be brought forward and put on the world stage for discussion and appropriate action. It isn't the job of the US to posture and bark and foam like a mongrel dog on a chain before finally pulling free and attacking. Although it does seem to do that (rightly or wrongly)!

But don't take offence at what I say, I don't even like my own government!

Why ???

Why should we??? Look back through this thread,, and read only the posts from non-Americans and give me one good reason why we should help any one ???

As it stands today

The UN says No
The American people say No last poll I saw was 60% against 30% for and 10% lost
We have France still willing don't know what the French people think
Haven't heard about AU
The Senate wasn't looking good, unless we take it farther then just a "Strike"
Congress won't meet until next week
The UN won't ever have proof of who used the weapons just if they were used


So again, WHY should we do anything ??? There is NO upside for the US even according to you we are just a mongrel dog on a chain so unless there is some raw meat for us to feast on WHY should we care when no one else does...

The world should really Pray that Glen is not President

I dunno, I'd vote for ya. Just sayin'...

I was uncertain as well, but I knew I could come here for the lowdown

Originally Posted by Jimbo

I'm a bit out of the loop - what is the US intending to do? Attack Syria?

James.

Originally Posted by Brenngun

That's a fairly general and dismissive assertion
I think you'd be very surprised by how much more Canadians know about the USA versus the opposite statement. In fact my experience is that the average Canadian knows more about the US than the average American does. A bold statement I know but one grown from direct experience. I was born, raised and educated in the US mid west. Moved to Canada more than 20 years ago and have thoroughly experienced both ends of this equation. It's not close. Give them a bit more credit.

Actually you started with this statement...

Originally Posted by Brenngun

The constitution was written within no party system (completely independent). The advent of the party system sprang from the very first special interest group not liking the fact that they didn't win enough votes to pass laws they wanted but the majority didn't. The actual majority ruled (sounds like democracy in action). How horrible it must have been for the minority. All votes would now be up and down with no party line to worry about. Imagine your elected representative actually representing you. Wow.
There's so much more but I'll stop there. Let me know when you get this done. Then we can talk about real change.

This thread started me to wondering, as a Texan. Not taught this in school, I was curious. Much info has been gleaned by looking hard at the history of Syria (Spent on my labor day holiday), from ancient times, particularly before and after WWI, up and until present times. It has been very educational to see the ride of the Syrian people, French occupation, their leadership, independence, and their effects upon their neighbors and vice-versa. They seem to have reaped what they have sowed, for the most part, in their victories and defeats. Nothing seems to really be new here, IMO. I cannot see, for the life of me, how the United States has anything to gain and everything to lose by lobbing some shells their way. They are said to be isolationists in the 20th century.
My opinion is to isolate them further and let their people deal with it. The Russians are ready to let it play out, so is most of the world. Our representatives (U.S.) say "no boots on the ground". How can you bomb a place without going in? Seems a chicken s..t atttitude to make a statement such as this. How can you attack anyone without going in? The American People are sick of our brightest young people perishing in hopeless combat while the trash takes over the streets in our own country. Anything we do will come back to haunt us and will surely effect the outcome in the negative. History shall record it.
Always has! JMHO

Originally Posted by sharptonn

This thread started me to wondering, as a Texan. Not taught this in school, I was curious. Much info has been gleaned by looking hard at the history of Syria (Spent on my labor day holiday), from ancient times, particularly before and after WWI, up and until present times. It has been very educational to see the ride of the Syrian people, French occupation, their leadership, independence, and their effects upon their neighbors and vice-versa. They seem to have reaped what they have sowed, for the most part, in their victories and defeats. Nothing seems to really be new here, IMO. I cannot see, for the life of me, how the United States has anything to gain and everything to lose by lobbing some shells their way. They are said to be isolationists in the 20th century.
My opinion is to isolate them further and let their people deal with it. The Russians are ready to let it play out, so is most of the world. Our representatives (U.S.) say "no boots on the ground". How can you bomb a place without going in? Seems a chicken s..t atttitude to make a statement such as this. How can you attack anyone without going in? The American People are sick of our brightest young people perishing in hopeless combat while the trash takes over the streets in our own country. Anything we do will come back to haunt us and will surely effect the outcome in the negative. History shall record it.
Always has! JMHO

The man does make a good point.

Originally Posted by Nightblade

The man does make a good point.

Thank you, Nightblade. Yes, atrocities are occurring. I will say atrocities seem to have been the norm for these people for many centuries. I was saddened to learn of these things. A sad situation. I urge all of you to investigate and see for yourselves the way Syria has conducted it'self, even from it's early days. It is truly an ancient country and yet has not done anything but to destroy itself and make war upon it's neighbors and itself, yet seems somewhat weak in retrospect. A very educational read.
Very interesting .