Hakan,
I don't disagree with most of what you said. In fact, it doesn't
necessarily conflict with my earlier email.
But, you are assuming that when a country with a two party system, has an
election, the two who are nominated, represent the best leaders the
country has to offer. That's in a perfect world. Furthermore, there are
numerous studies showing that no matter who is running, the winner of the
election is the one with the biggest campaign budget.
We have a flawed, two party system that caters to big business and has
little interest in campaign reform. His "stamp of approval" as you say,
came from corporate America.
"According to figures supplied by Public Citizen, in only five of 34
United States Senate races in 1996 did the winner spend less than the loser."
http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~askin/LEXIS(R).htm
By the way, "Americans" as the Canadians correctly point out, isn't just
those living in the United States. my quote "Those Americans.....!" was
sarcasm.
Mike
Hakan Falk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
To both Mikes,
Before the election, I was inclined to take the argument that Bush did not
represent the Americans. When he was first elected, he promised to be a
uniter and a lot of more things that have been contrary to his actions
during the first term. When he got elected the first time, it was
technically by electoral system and the courts, not by a populous majority.
Now he was reelected with a comfortable populous and electoral majority and
it cannot even be blamed on the electoral system.
In a democracy, he now represent the US and the citizens of US, his actions
got the stamp of approval from the American people. It was no surprises
this time, everybody knew what he stands for. I still agree that some
individuals (stateless) cannot be blamed for his victory, but Bush
represent all Americans and in a democracy. This is how it works in a
democracy.
If you are not a citizen of US, you can still claim that Bush and the US,
do not represent the Americans. The Canadians and central and south
Americans, can with authority say that Bush and US do not represent them.
Hakan
At 07:19 PM 2/1/2005, you wrote:
>"Those Americans.....!".
>
>If your are not American and anti-American, know this:
>
>There are plenty of Americans who watched the coronation -- like the 80+
>thousand protesters (myself included) who marched in NYC on March 20th,
>2004. Many were more interested in cheering on the demonstrators along the
>parade route than the parade itself.
>
>Many who haven't lived here in the US, don't know how complex the culture
>is and how many are screaming foul, knowing they are not being represented
>in a duopoly we call the federal government.
>
>Many of us who are not atheists, don't subscribe to nationalistic dogma
>and have the benevolence to see the trouble with those who only find it in
>their hearts to say "God Bless America".
>
>Mike
>
>Anti-Fossil wrote:
>Luc,
>
>I would like to clarify a couple of things for you, as it appears to me that
>perhaps you do not know all that you think you do.
>
>First, I do not personally know of one single person who actually watched
>president dumb-a** on his ridiculous inauguration day. I am sure there were
>plenty, but my point is that there are a great many people in this country,
>in my opinion, who do not subscribe to his brand of insanity and are working
>night and day to limit his damage. I am a simple man and do not claim to
>know the inner workings of world politics, or even top level American
>politics. But I know this, if you dismiss all of America because of the
>policies of an obviously lacking President, then you do so at your own
>peril. This country should not be judged to be the sum total of her
>leadership. That simply isn't the case. America is about her people. Say
>what you will about us, the fact is that I personally know at least 6
>soldiers who are either in Iraq right now, or have rotated back, and I can
>tell you first hand not one of them wants to be there. Do we still sound
>like "war mongers" to you? I could pass on stories they have relayed to me,
>about things that have happened over there, that would give you a different
>perspective, but I'm not sure it's worth the effort. Personally, I am of
>the opinion that you are just anti-American, and that is unfortunate, but
>also quite popular today.
>
>The only other point I wanted to make was that if we do get into a war with
>China and/or Russia, God forbid, I think it would be in the worlds best
>interest to appeal to all parties involved, and do whatever is required to
>prevent any conflict from starting. Who knows what would be left for
>collateral, or to be damaged for that matter.
>
>AntiFossil
>Mike Krafka
>Minnesota USA
>
>*********************************************************
>"If you think you are too small to make a
>difference try sleeping with a mosquito."
>Dalai Lama
>*********************************************************
>"Experience is the comb that nature gives us
>when we are bald."
>Belgian proverb
>*********************************************************
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Legal Eagle"
>To:
>Sent: Sunday, January 30, 2005 5:12 PM
>Subject: Re: [Biofuel] What the Rest of the World Watched on Inauguration
>Day
>
>
> > I can still see that image in my mind's eye and it always troubles me
> > deeply.
> > When the words "colateral damage" is applied to Americans at home after
>they
> > get into a war with Russia and/or China over global control of natural
> > resources I wonder just who is going to be feeling anything for them ...
> > anything at all. Won't be the warmongers that are slaughtering the
>innocent
> > that much is certain.
> > They will reap what they have sown and there will be none to deliver.
What
> > was once a brave group of men and women are now reduced to nothing short
>of
> > barbaric pirates. All for the "glory of God" no doubt... NOT !
> > Luc
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Keith Addison"
> > To:
> > Sent: Sunday, January 30, 2005 2:01 PM
> > Subject: [Biofuel] What the Rest of the World Watched on Inauguration Day
> >
> >
> > > See also:
> > >
> > > http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0128-24.htm
> > > Published on Friday, January 28, 2005 by CommonDreams.org
> > > Why the Children in Iraq Make No Sound When They Fall
> > > by Bernard Chazelle
> > >
> > > ---------
> > >
> > > http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0128-35.htm
> > > Published on Friday, January 28, 2005 by the National Catholic Reporter
> > >
> > > What the Rest of the World Watched on Inauguration Day
> > >
> > > by Joan Chittister
> > >
> > > Dublin, on U.S. Inauguration Day, didn't seem to notice. Oh, they
played
>a
> > > few clips that night of the American president saying, "The survival of
> > > liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in
> > > other lands."
> > >
> > > But that was not their lead story.
> > >
> > > The picture on the front page of The Irish Times was a large four-color
> > > picture of a small Iraqi girl.
> > > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/picture_gallery/05/middle_east_s
> > > hooting_in_tal_afar/html/3.stm
> > > Her little body was a coil of steel. She sat knees up, cowering,
>screaming
> > > madly into the dark night. Her white clothes and spread hands and small
> > > tight face were blood-spattered. The blood was the blood of her father
>and
> > > mother, shot through the car window in Tal Afar by American soldiers
>while
> > > she sat beside her parents in the car, her four brothers and sisters in
> > > the back seat.
> > >
> > > A series of pictures of the incident played on the inside page, as
well.
>A
> > > 12-year-old brother, wounded in the fray, falls face down out of
the car
> > > when the car door opens, the pictures show. In another, a soldier
decked
> > > out in battle gear, holds a large automatic weapon on the four
children,
> > > all potential enemies, all possible suicide bombers, apparently, as
they
> > > cling traumatized to one another in the back seat and the child on the
> > > ground goes on screaming in her parent's blood.
> > >
> > > No promise of "freedom" rings in the cutline on this picture. No joy of
> > > liberty underlies the terror on these faces here.
> > >
> > > I found myself closing my eyes over and over again as I stared at the
> > > story, maybe to crush the tears forming there, maybe in the hope that
>the
> > > whole scene would simply disappear.
> > >
> > > But no, like the photo of a naked little girl bathed in napalm and
>running
> > > down a road in Vietnam served to crystallize the situation there
for the
> > > rest of the world, I knew that this picture of a screaming, angry,
> > > helpless, orphaned child could do the same.
> > >
> > > The soldiers standing in the dusk had called "halt," the story
said, but
> > > no one did. Maybe the soldiers' accents were bad. Maybe the car motor
>was
> > > unduly noisy. Maybe the children were laughing loudly --
> > > the way children do on family trips. Whatever the case, the car did not
> > > stop, the soldiers shot with deadly accuracy, seven lives changed in an
> > > instant: two died in body, five died in soul.
> > >
> > > BBC news announced that the picture was spreading across Europe like a
> > > brushfire that morning, featured from one major newspaper to another,
> > > served with coffee and Danish from kitchen table to kitchen table
in one
> > > country after another. I watched, while Inauguration Day dawned across
>the
> > > Atlantic, as the Irish up and down the aisle on the train from
Killarney
> > > to Dublin, narrowed their eyes at the picture, shook their heads
>silently
> > > and slowly over it, and then sat back heavily in their seats, too
>stunned
> > > into reality to go back to business as usual -- the real estate
section,
> > > the sports section, the life-style section of the paper.
> > >
> > > Here was the other side of the inauguration story. No military bands
> > > played for this one. No bulletproof viewing stands could stop the
impact
> > > of this insight into the glory of force. Here was an America they could
>no
> > > longer understand. The contrast rang cruelly everywhere.
> > >
> > > I sat back and looked out the train window myself. Would anybody in the
> > > United States be seeing this picture today? Would the United States
ever
> > > see it, in fact? And if it is printed in the United States, will it
also
> > > cross the country like wildfire and would people hear the unwritten
>story
> > > under it?
> > >
> > > There are 54 million people in Iraq. Over half of them are under
the age
> > > of 15. Of the over 100,000 civilians dead in this war, then, over half
>of
> > > them are children. We are killing children. The children are our enemy.
> > > And we are defeating them.
> > >
> > > "I'll tell you why I voted for George Bush," a friend of mine said. "I
> > > voted for George Bush because he had the courage to do what Al Gore and
> > > John Kerry would never have done."
> > >
> > > I've been thinking about that one.
> > >
> > > Osama Bin Laden is still alive. Sadam Hussein is still alive. Abu Musab
> > > al-Zarqawi is still alive. Baghdad, Mosul and Fallujah are burning. But
>my
> > > government has the courage to kill children or their parents. And I'm
> > > supposed to be impressed.
> > >
> > > That's an unfair assessment, of course. A lot of young soldiers have
>died,
> > > too. A lot of weekend soldiers are maimed for life. A lot of our kids
>went
> > > into the military only to get a college education and are now shattered
>in
> > > soul by what they had to do to other bodies.
> > >
> > > A lot of adult civilians have been blasted out of their homes and their
> > > neighborhoods and their cars. More and more every day. According to
U.N.
> > > Development Fund for Women, 15 percent of wartime casualties in World
>War
> > > I were civilians. In World War II, 65 percent were civilians. By
the mid
> > > '90s, over 75 percent of wartime casualties were civilians.
> > >
> > > In Iraq, for every dead U.S. soldier, there are 14 other deaths, 93
> > > percent of them are civilian. But those things happen in war, the story
> > > says. It's all for a greater good, we have to remember. It's all to
free
> > > them. It's all being done to spread "liberty."
> > >
> > > From where I stand, the only question now is who or what will free us
>from
> > > the 21st century's new definition of bravery. Who will free us from the
> > > notion that killing children or their civilian parents takes courage?
> > >
> > > A Benedictine Sister of Erie, Sister Joan is a best-selling author and
> > > well-known international lecturer. She is founder and executive
director
> > > of Benetvision: A Resource and Research Center for Contemporary
> > > Spirituality, and past president of the Conference of American
>Benedictine
> > > Prioresses and the Leadership Conference of Women Religious. Sister
Joan
> > > has been recognized by universities and national organizations for her
> > > work for justice, peace and equality for women in the Church and
>society.
> > > She is an active member of the International Peace Council.
> > >
> > > © 2005 The National Catholic Reporter
