>
We organized a recount just fine. And we held the recount just fine. Then Al Gore sued because the recount somehow still didn't make him President.
Like I said, "anti-democratic", in practice, always seems to mean "anti-Democratic". If the Republicans win, it's "anti-democratic".
> Not to mention the fact that the unelected
> Supreme Court decided that its powers were superior to
> the Electoral College (that "fine" "democratic" institution)
> in matters of, well, elections ...
Um, dude. No offense meant, but you clearly have no idea what the issues were in Bush v Gore. That's okay, it isn't your constitution, but... I mean, I don't tell you whether the ArchViscount of Wanking-upon-Shrubbery has violated the Haggis Perfuming Act of 846, because I don't understand English law well enough. Capisce?
> Frankly, your Electoral College system is outmoded,
> outdated, and just plain SUCKS !!
"We musn't underestimate American blundering. I was with them when they blundered into Berlin in 1918."
...from a movie you probably haven't seen...
> Unfortunately, you have all the WMDs...
You mean France gave up its nukes? I, for one, would sleep easier if that were so. (Even as we speak, some Third Executive Assistant Minister of Bombes Nucleaire is talking over drinks with his mistress's brother at Total-Fina-Elf, who allows as how they could all do very well if they'd just happen to leave a few small warheads sitting out when the good gentleman from the Syrian embassy drops by.
> Because you guys routinely veto any international treaties
> you dislike, and also unilaterally denounce any past treaties
> that may become personally irksome to your present
> commanders-in-chief ?
Yup, we don't sign treaties we don't like. Mean old us!
Now, could you name for us countries which *do* sign treaties they don't like? I mean, aside from fascist dictatorships we had to stomp on before they pissed all over some effete continental's croissanterie?
> Seriously, what pisses me of most about Bush (and Blair)
> is that they didn't have the brains to say the simple truth :
> they wanted Saddam removed NOT because of any
> non-existent WMDs, but because he was
> a blood-thirsty dictator who ordered a genocide or three,
> and needed punishing and removal.
This is actually pretty much what Bush said in his State of the Union. He also talked about the danger that Saddam would pose *in the future* when he developed the WMDs he so clearly wanted. He put very little emphasis on current WMDs, except as evidence of Iraqi violation of UNSC 1441. (And nobody seriously contends that Iraq didn't flagrantly violate UNSC 1441.)
We don't mind WMDs in the hands of stable democracies, like Britain. We can live with WMDs in the hands of stable tyrannies, like China. We don't see any reason to permit them in the hands of avowed enemies, legally already at war with us, who are known to be supporting terrorism--like Iraq was.
--AMS
Powered by hypermail