*DAMN R6 Forum

The Republican party took over complete control of the country Tuesday night. They now have a majority in the Senate (51-48-1), they kept their majority in the House (228-206-10) and gained gubernatorial seats as well (28-22-2). Along with their control of the executive branch, they now will theoretically be able to mold the country as they please. Does this scare anyone else? Obviously, the two major US parties both tend to be fairly centrist. But without any powerful opposition, who knows what they will be able to get passed. Undoubtedly, this cannot be good for the country. I also see this as the failing of democracy: for midterm elections like the recent ones, turnout averages about 35%. These candidates don't represent a majority because they were not voted on by a majority. The US government was supposed to have been built on a system of checks and balances, but in my opinion this system is very ineffective when all branches of the government are controlled by a single party. Civic participation in America is dead, and I find it to be very pathetic. Obviously it is the cause of this democratic breakdown, but which do you think would be easier to modify: The lazy behavior of the people, or the system that America has become so accustomed to? One of the two needs to be remedied.

sorry for the unorganized nature of this post

It is still techincally 51-46-1 in the Senate with the races in South Dakota and Louisiana up for grabs still...

As for Gubernatorial seats, the GOP actually lost 2 seats Tasty, but maintained an advantage.

Also, I must say about Mondale, once a loser, always a loser. He tried using Wellstone's name as a sympathy vote like Carnahan, but it didn't work. SPeaking of Carnahan, she didn't get re-elected either, heh.

Ahahaha. Yay Republicans! Ah, I admit, I am a Republican, and I'm terrified... Seriously... Think of the control we are giving Bush. Practically anything he wants will be passed in the senate... Especially dealing with the Iraq issue... Like... Drafts... (From 18-30 I believe)... Meaning almost everyone here should be a little frightenned. (Except for selected lucky girls!) Anyway, it's ashame that California again is overly Democratic.  Not a single Republican won a single state position in California (as far as I can see)... So sad...

Ben

Yeah, Democratic sweep in California...ugh. If Simon wasn't portrayed as a fraud, he would have defeated Davis in a landslide.

Also, don't worry about the draft, this wouldn't be a huge war anyway. First the reserves and the national guard go, followed by the Army regulars, then if needed, a draft. We would have to send in hundred's of thousands of troops into Iraq, and with today's military capabilities, that wouldn't happen.

As for Bush and the Senate...he already has an Iraq bill passed by the Democrat Senate which would give him tremendous power if a war takes place.

you guys didnt address my post at all? it wasn't meant to be a celebratory message. nor was it supposed to be partisan. just because you are a republican doesn't mean that it is a good thing for them to completely control our country. as far as mondale and carnahan? those are disappointments to me. as far as that simon character, i dont know anything about him but today my political science professor said that he ran one of the worst campaigns he had ever seen and that if he had done an even halfway decent job than he could have won. also for you californians, have you been hearing the rumours about arnold schwarezenegger running in 2006 as a republican for governor. that should scare even republicans? oh man thats almost as precious as jesse ventura's former governorship in minnesota. why do people vote for celebreties anyway? ridiculous. im getting off my own topic here, so I'd better stop.

I disagree... Althought the draft not be necessary with the military at an all time high, we are not yet at war, and when we are at war, people won't want to join!

Anyway, thats not what I dsiagree with... I doubt the war will be as easy as you state. First of all, in the other wars it was clear Hussein had the desire to surrender. He will NOT surrender now, before we had the mission to set him straight, now the mission is to dethrone him. He will not stand for that. They will fight back hard. They will use any means necessary, and get friends on their side. This means biological weapons... Iraq has recentlyopenned its doors with Saudi Arabia for the first time in years! They are trying to get Saudi Arabia to kick out our military bases I bet. Frankly, this war will NOT be like the last one.

Hussein will use any means to destroy us in as many ways possible. All the normal missles he has stored will be used... All the firepower and biological weapons will be fired at our troops. The casualties will be horrific. So far we have countries opposing us too... What happens to them if we go to war? Will they oppose America like China did in the Korean War? Too many variables right now to say this will be easy. It won't... I can almost guarentee you that!

Ben

i recently attended a speech from Jim McDerment, my local represenative. he got alot of press for going to iraq and also saying he believed that Bush would mislead the american people. To start with, i'm one of the few in seattle who suports a war. he did bring up one issue that i found interesting though.
The UK and US have interests in the oil in iraq, with companys like exon, or BP. And france and russia are aposing us. There has been talk between iraq, france, and russia about letting them come use the oil fields.
He also spoke about how many iraqie people said they wish we killed saddam the first time because his rule is so bad, he sells oil in exchange for food which he distributes and controls in the country.

Tasty, I think the problem is with the people mostly, not the system. When only 1 in every 3 people goes out to vote, it is pathetic. So instead of having a government compromised of what everyone wants, armchair QBs and all, we have a government of what 1/3 the country wants. Now, in a way, this could be good. Hopefully, it means that the third who is voting is well informed and careful about their choices. However, we need more participation from our country. It seems that for the most part people only get patriotic for short times in moments of crisis (ie 9/11), but their interest wanes quickly. I don't see how any changes in the system would change this, but if some small tweaks would help voter turn out, I would be in favor of it.

Just to chime in on the California gubernatorial race, the big reason why Davis won is his massive war chest. I can't even count the number of derogatory commercials he put out slamming Simon. Simon had some pretty good ads to refute stuff or put the egg on Davis face for stuff like the energy crisis, but with such a small amount of money in comparison it was tough. If nothing important comes along, Davis will be passable. I do like what he does for education. However, if we ever need any real decision making like in the energy crisis, we are fucked.

Ben maybe you shouldnt be a republican if that party dosent support your views. Anyhow I am scared shitless. What if they start doing new security checks on immigrants (such as myself)? I am afraid of my rights as a foriegner. I know the Nazi Ashcroft does hate us. Also I have a comment on the Minnesota Race. Absentee ballots did not count for Mondale but they counted for the republican. This is because the absentee votes went to the guy that got killed. I am not blaming this on anyone, but I am just noting that these voters did not get their voices heard. Some will argue they did. I dont know. It is a shady area of election law. Also Wellstone was one of the only voices of dissent on Iraq and in a hot race for the senate seat wich was so badly needed by the Republicans. I am not saying there was foul play, but it does seem too conveinient. Just let that point sit for a while before posting right away on it. I am also scared that many of FDR's reforms (one of my political idols) will be reversed. The Death Tax could be repealed, lower welfare etc. All of these socialist reforms made to help the common man in the 30s will be repealed, the common man will become poorer as a smaller minority accumulates more wealth. As Gore said (and I hate quoting Gore but this statistic is true) 1% of the nation controls 99% of the wealth. Those stats sound alot like where I come from, Communist Russia!

Tasty,
          IN reply to your post yes I am very scared. The fact that some news companies say that still in the Senate some Democrats will have to cross party lines on some bills doesnt re assure whatsoever. They may have been elected however bush now has almost complete power such as a dictator. There is no question in my mind that instead of pushing issues such as welfare support, such as Public Services, such as things we take for granted, will be forgotten by Bush's imperilistic ways. It is true that in all of the U.S.A.s might we need to help the world however giving bush total power is not  the way to do it. We are going to Attack Iraq and other countries and something is bound to go wrong. I believe that in order to go marudering across seas we must first look what it is we are defending. We arent currently defending numbers such as 1 in 5 children are born into poverty I mean do we just forget about them? No. We cannot and I will not. Before we bow down and give our powers to bush we need to help our own country first, because folks its not like it says in your textbooks, history is whitewashed by the US, your textbooks wont tell you about the lax prosiqution of Prostitutes and sex offenders, it wont tell how poor people are, it wont tell that we could be spending billions more on Welfare programs and programs for other unfortunete kids by selling off Weapons to allied countries, we can do things such as this to help YOUR fellow Americans when infact many of us are choosing to turn thier back to that and fight wars. It will not solve much, if anything. What has Bush done recently to the US? Nothing, we will be the aggressor and I hope we get an awekening, however rude it may be, on what the world, and our country is REALLY like. So maybe you should stop and think what your stars and stripes stand for. 10 out of those stars are impoverished. Does that sound right to you?

Name recognition at the polls is still the number one vote getter.  Sad but true.  It's why signs with nothing but names are all over, especially in your face right before you walk into the school to vote.


And why wouldn't people vote for Jesse Ventura?  Did you happen to watch any of his speaches?  Follow his campaign at all?  His fight to get into the debates?  I did, I was very interested.  I would have voted for him here if he ran.  Why?  Because he told it like it is, not offering the stars, not slandering the others.  When asked if he would change this or that, he was the only one to say "no, I can't.  The governer can't do that, it's up to the state legislature.  I can only veto things from them when I think it's crap, not change something that already exists."  The first completely honest answer I'd heard from anyone running for office that I can remember.


Not that I'm a fan, but what's wrong with that?  Schwarezenegger seems to be a pretty intelligent guy when interviewed.  I don't know where he stands on most of the issues, but I would never discount him for being an actor.

Hell, being an actor is no worse then being a lawyer.  Probably better in my opinion.  He has his own money, so is less likely to be beholden to companies that donate.  

The question is, why would you automatically discount these guys like that?

I was somewhat interested in Ventura's campaign, and certain aspects of it were attractive. Living in Iowa and having most of my family in Minnesota has caused me to hear as much about his policies as I do any other governnor. However, I would not have voted for him. Looking at his term in office, did he ever get the chance to remove his foot from his mouth once? He offended everyone, including his own legislature and therefore got nothing done. He spent more time as a guest on talk shows and appearing in wrestling competitions than he did thinking about the state of Minnesota. So while his campaign was interesting and while he did fight for third parties, he did a horrendous job as governor.

How could being an actor be better than being a lawyer? Someone that is trained in how government works versus someone that knows next to nothing about it and has spent their entire lives living in a sheltered fantasy land? Its true that actors have their own money, but this just indicates that they know nothing of the plights of ordinary people. I personally prefer someone that has spent their lives working within the government making the final decisions on policy rather than someone who has spent their lives in a forum where public policy matters little to not at all. And as far as my opposition to Arnold Schwarzenegger (besides my fundamental doubt that an actor will make a good governor, especially in a state like California that is very difficult to govern) I just imagine him being another Ronald Reagan, and even imagine the horror of him running for president after a term of office in California. In my opinion, Ronald Reagan was one of the worst presidents of the twentieth century. America already receives disrepect because of the leaders we pick for our country? can you imagine the international reaction to an Arnold Schwarzenegger presidency? Obviously this is all quite far-fetched right now, but it could happen.

That is an exageration.  He was at what, 1 or 2 wrestling matches while he held the office?  So, you say he did a horrendous job, back that up for me.  What did he specifically do that was so horrendous?  


That's enough of a quote to start with.  No, it could NEVER happen.  Why?  Where was Arnold born?  What does the law say about the office of President?  Nope, it is impossible today for Schwarzenegger to be President.  

You are stirring up the emotions Tasty, but not much meat to your arguments.  I don't like career poloticians.  Lawyers right laws for lawyers.  I want somebody that wont be looking to make loop holes in the fine print, but someone that will care about the big picture.

As for actors not being seated in the real world.  Many have gone to Ivy league schools.  Most did not grow up with a silver spoon in their mouths.  Talk about not knowing the plights of the average person.  Most actors struggled before they made it.  Harrison Ford was a construction worker when he was discovered.  Kevin Bacon waited tables.  Most of them did this.  Most of your career poloticians were like Bush.  They grew up in very rich family's (yeah, they know about the plight of the average person, they heard about it from their butlers).  

The difference is, old money vs new money.  New money at least knows what it's like to struggle.

hillary clinton got elected,  and she is a dumb bitch  ;)
as far as celebrities getting elected, its the voters fault, if you don't like it vote against them.
Also, alot of women bitch about not having a women president, but 52% of the population in the US is female so if they want a woman president they should elect one.

This extra long post is for bucc, anyone else can disregard it


Here are some quotes from the Minnesota Star Tribune (December 24th 2000) by Conrad DiFiebre and others found in a Lexis Search:

anger at Gov. Jesse Ventura's moonlighting job with the XFL already has spurred legislative proposals to prevent or limit such involvement.

Farmers are still strapped with low commodity prices, but Gov. Jesse Ventura's outspoken criticism of state relief payments makes another round of them "an uphill battle," said House Agriculture Committee Chairman Tim Finseth, R-Angus

?Gov. Jesse Ventura will not submit a transportation funding proposal to the Legislature, Transportation Commissioner Elwyn Tinklenberg said.
??????Legislators didn't act on the governor's plan last session, Tinklenberg said, so they can come up with their own scheme.
??????Last session Ventura proposed shifting 100 percent of the excise tax on vehicles, which goes into the general treasury, to roads and transit operations, starting in 2002.
????Legislators didn't buy the proposal. Instead, they earmarked $405 million of one-time surplus money to eliminate bottlenecks in the metropolitan area and improve regional highways in the outstate regions.
??????But so far, not a shovelful of dirt has been turned with that $405 million, a fact that irritates key legislators.

Here are some from a November 18, 2001 Tribune article by Dane Smith and Patricia Lopez:

Publicly, Ventura's tendency toward volatility has become more pronounced. In one high-profile incident, he insisted on his right to interrupt a public radio-show caller who questioned his leadership _ a scene that culminated in Ventura removing his studio headphones. The startled caller said simply, "What a leader you are! . . . My gosh." ?????That outburst and Ventura's withdrawal from some public venues, such as news conferences, have prompted some of the harshest criticism of his tenure, speculation that he won't run again and concerns even among his supporters.

?Minnesota reporters questioning ABC's exclusive access at ground zero got an earful from Ventura and Wodele. Afterward, Ventura vowed that he was "not going to do any more interviews" with local media. He stopped publicizing his daily schedule, citing security concerns, and said he might ban reporters' use of tape recorders in interviews with him. At one point, he said he intended to have local news reporters "running and hiding like the Taliban." He advised citizens not to read local newspapers or watch local TV news, alleging that half of everything reported is wrong or distorted. He suggested that people get their information from talk radio instead.

- Sliding economy: Meanwhile, bad news about the state's economy and dwindling revenues began to mount, and the possibility of a $1 billion-plus shortfall in the next legislative session is shaping up as Ventura's biggest long-term headache. Minnesota is not alone in facing state money woes. But while governors of other states have begun issuing executive orders and calling special sessions to curb spending, Ventura has remained virtually mum. That left him open to recent criticism by former Gov. Arne Carlson, who urged quick executive action on the budget problems.


these are only from two articles; I could easily find more. Ventura is rude and babyish when people disagree with him. While governor, he appeared in two wrestling matches, numerous non political talk shows, accepted a permanent job as an XFL referee on TV, and made a cameo in a Hollywood movie. He let the Minnesota economy stagnate, did little to solve the growing problems in Minneapolis/St. Paul, and offended his constituency on a frequent basis. Although many Minnesotans still liked his rough-around-the-edges style, I think that when you get down to the actual substance of his term, you will find that he accomplished very little for Minnesota. I'm not saying he didn't try; he just didn't do a very good job, that's all.

bucc, as for a Schwarzenegger presidency, yes I looked and you are right, he was born out of the US. I didn't realize this. However, that doesn't change you argument about lawyers versus actors. Although many actors did have humble beginnings, they now live in an ethereal world that none of us really know. i think that to be a successful hollywood actor, one's grip on reality would significantly decrease as they become further and further removed from it.


As for your arguments about lawyers, as you would say:"there is very little substance here." You make one single generalization about how laywers will write laws for lawyers? by that logic, wouldnt actors write laws for actors or vice versa for any other field? Why do you automatically assume that lawyers are going to be out to pervert our government? I don't think that this is fair. Then you reference career politicians. These have nothing to do with lawyers, and I never made any argument supporting them, although I will now because you have insulted them as well. Not all career politicians are from old money. In fact, a very small percentage of them are - you are just referring to the more famous ones, like Al Gore and George Bush. The longtime incumbents from Iowa (Tom Harkin, Jim Leach, and Charles Grassley) all grew up in Iowa, attended public school in Iowa (Harkin on federal student loans), and have represented Iowa for many years in the house and senate. They could all be considered career politicians though, since they have been involved in a political field for most of their lives and have been reelected several times. I don't think its a fair generalization for you to insult people who run our government as a career just because a few have perverted the term and receive all of the national attention.

To respond to Bucc and tasty -

It's not really fair to make generalizations about either actors or lawyers.  Some lawyers are corrupt, some actors are sheltered.  Either way, both groups have their better members and their black sheep.  However, the advantage to lawyers comes from the fact that they at least have enough understanding of the country's laws to pass their state's bar exam.  This is a guarantee that they won't be clueless, however the way they use that knowledge is the problem.

As for the topic of this thread -

Yes, it scares me.  I hate living in a country and seeing so much wrong with it, but being rather powerless.

If for whatever reason, a draft were instated, I could potentially be robbed of my life before I reached an age of making any kind of contribution to society.

Yet I love this country. . .but that doesn't make me want to die for it.  In fact, I feel that the most pointless thing anyone can do is die for their country, except in the most extreme of circumstances.  Maybe it sounds egotistical, but I know I could do far more for the nation alive than I could in my death.  

Unfortunately I have been raised to question authority.  I'm not a pacifist in that I believe war is never justified, but I could never accept orders without knowing at least some idea of why.  I won't kill people for a war I don't believe it.

So. . .with Bush running the country, there is some concern for me.  One can only hope cooler heads will prevail.

In 2008 I will be 21. . .and I sure as hell don't plan on being dead.

Tasty,

I explained the lawyers make laws for lawyers part.  But I'll try again.  Look at the tax code someday.  Read it.  Have you noticed how overly complicated it is?  Why do you think that is?  Could it be to make it hard to find loop holes?  Could it be to ensure that these lawyers and their associates have ample materal to apply their trade upon?  

Our founding fathers were not lawyers (most of them weren't, some were).  I don't think that an elected offical needs to be a lawyer.  I think that if we had more common people in office, it would be a much better government.  

I don't think you should discriminate upon a candidate just because of what field they chose to make their living in.  You should do that on the person themself.  I'm not saying I'd vote for Arnold, because I haven't heard his stance on many issues.  But what I'm saying is that I'd listen to his stance, just like I would any other.  He may be the right man for the job.  What I wont do is not even listen to him, just because he was an actor.  Hell, he wasn't even an actor until after he was already well known as an Austrian body builder who won Mr Universe something like a record 8 times.  

I'd much rather judge the person, not the label.

Also, one other thing I have against most career poloticians is that they have grown up in the system playing the game.  They all owe favors.  Too many are corrupt.  Time to freshen the pot.

To your Jesse Ventura statements, LOL, I don't actually see much there I'd defind as "horrendous".  So he did work one day a week when the Governer would normally be playing golf or something.  Big deal.  It was not against the law, it just pissed off some people.  Yes, he pissed off the press, yes, he stopped talking to that guy on the radio (I've seen and heard that segment, btw).  The caller was a jerk.  And, haven't you also said that the media distorts the truth?  So the governer says it and it's a bad thing?  He was being a person.  Being governer doesn't make you give up your rights to be a person and speak your opinions.  In my opinion, we've been too politically correct for too long, and shaking that up is a good thing.  It also showed that the legislature wouldn't do what he wanted, how is that reflecting bad upon him?

Hell, he was the Bobby Knight of governers.  And I'd have Bobby Knight coach any day of the week.

He tried to put some of the reporters in their place.  It was about time someone stood up to some of them.  I like freedom of the press, but the press went from reporting facts and then having editorials to everything having a slant.  What's wrong with him voicing his opinions on how bad the media has become?

Also, given those flame wars he had, what makes you think that any of the good he did would get any press at all?

"I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country."

I don't really have much else to add, but I couldn't pass up a golden oppurtunity to quote one of the greatest movie scenes ever.

Taxcodes are complicated because its a complicated system. You think its the lawyers but it is infact the law makers. I may be late on Jesse Venture but it was outrageous he appointed an Independent ofr that short time because at a Funeral of a Soccer player they talk about soccer, at a feuneral for a lawyer they talk about great cases, it is no dfifferent for a politian and I think the service was very fitting and to be looked down upon by the governor is compleatly out of line

Zaitsev, those lawmakers are the lawyers I was talking about.  Thanks for showing my point for me.

Cossack, I see you have posted in this thread so I will make some points to you why a Republican rise to power is a GOOD thing for you, especially since you are a Russian planning to go home soon.

I literally just came out of a lecture/seminar (3 hours long) for my Globalization class 30 minutes ago and we had a Russian economics professor and a Russian poly-sci professor argue why a Republican rise to power was good for Russia.

For sometime now, the Democrat Senate has blocked moves made by Republicans attempting to help and assist Russia by admitting them to the WTO and increasing trade with them. By having a Republican Congress and Presidency, such proposals and offers can be passed and authorized immediately thus providing an almost immediate life to the Russian populous and the economy. I am sure you of all people would enjoy seeing a greater relationship between Russia and the United States, with prosperity following in its path.

As for you thinking that Ashcroft would go on some Nazi purge type thing, if he wanted to expand it more, he probably would have already done it since he had the authority under the Patriot Act. It is also very unlikely that they would be targeting Russian's in Texas...now if you were of Middle Eastern decent and acted suspiciously, that would be a different story.

I see some other stuff posted here by others that I could rip on, and be assured, I will tear you a new asshole (meaning I will refute your arguments with proven facts) if I feel you are posting recklessly...but I am tired after listening to two Russian guys talk for hours so I will get around to you people tomorrow or after the weekend.

bucc, i am not going to respond to any posts now bc i am really drunk, i am just going to say that i hope you dont leave too because of some people's RETARDED comments and that i enjoy arguing with you. thx bucc.

Cool if I proved your point on that, Im glad we agree but they dont make it complicated so they can get more money (Politicans have a set salery) they make it complicated so that extreme rigght wing people cant extort it.

Tasty,

I enjoy our arguments too.  It's always good debating with someone that puts some honest thought and effort into it.  It provides another perspective.

Zaitsev, Politicans have a set salery, while they are in office.  But the law firms that they work for, and will return to, that their friends and associates work for, they do.  The consultant deals that they get after office, etc etc etc.

And don't blame it on the right wing, or the Republicans.  You can't tell me that Clinton (either one of them) is any less currupt then any far right Republican.  Hell, the far right and far left are actually likely to be less corrupt, since they would have a harder time selling out thier ideals.  

Anyway, it's not about conservative or liberal, Democrat or Republican.  It's about the best person for the job.  I don't think that you can discount someone just based upon the fact that they have been an actor.  Being an actor doesn't automatically put you out of touch with reality like Tasty said (and that is an awefully conservative, Republican statement Tasty).  Being a career politician doesn't automatically make you corrupt (but if it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck).  

Ass, I should restate what I meant. I worry as a citizen (american) that rights will be taken away. It is true I in favor a better relationship between to America and Russia. Its crucial for the whole world. What I am more concerned about is the disruption of many of FDR's reforms. I think the republicans will take out money from Social Security, welfare, ect for their war machine. I also think that the Patriot Act is a sin against democracy. It baisicly says they can hold you on cause of suspicion, you can see how this authority given to someone has mentaly unstable as Ashcroft is not a good thing.
On another note, ass you know of John Dorschner? I know the guy though my father. I am sure you know him or of him, here is a little essay he has written:

P.S. Cant post the essay now, something is fucked up with earthlink email.
P.S.S Looks like its fixed, here you go:

We are using the attached article in class.  It articulates that the bushies have been closet 19th century realists all along and that with the outcome of this week's election, will now come out of the closet and abandon any lip-service to the liberal world order that previously both republicans and democrats embraced (including g.w.'s father), and that the united states worked so hard to establish after winning WWII.  If this article is correct, the bush administration could cause the united states to abandon its cherished principles and return to a 19th century world.  In such a world the united states would no longer feel that it had to justify the use of military power by citing higher moral ends - the exercise of power for national greatness would be sufficient.  It would abandon the pretense of furthering democratization and would openly ally itself with any autocratic regime that supported u.s. interests.  It would no longer respect international law or the sovereignty of other nations, but would openly propound a doctrine of "naked imperialism", in which military power could be applied to provide resources for the state, and assure the status quo.  In such a world the united states could attack any nation it wanted without reference to the united nations.  If this article and its assertions are correct, the bush administration could be a turning point in world history.  In the post bush world, the united states would no longer cast itself as the "liberal hegemon" bent on establishing and maintaining the liberal economic order, meant to benefit all countries of the world (as clinton asserted), but rather would be a 19th century "great power" bent solely on pursuing american national interests, regardless of the impact on the rest of the world.

Such a radical backward shift in international relations would
fundamentally change the world and leave it unrecognizable.  The implications for members of the armed forces would be enormous. American military personnel would no longer be able to justify military action in terms of higher moral principles or defending the united states against aggression, rather military personnel would be expected to fight in pursuit of power only.  The liberal economic order would be vastly undermined, the world would revert back to amerchantalist
system that we have not seen since before world war II, and the United States and its professional armed forces could be involved in a series of wars that could be open-ended.  In such a world the united states
army's role would then more closely resemble that of the british army's
during the height of the british empire, when it routinely fought wars around the world to subjugate peoples in what we now call the "developing world" and bring them under british control.  In the extreme instance, the resulting "pax americana" would come to resemble the "pax romana," when the roman legions became killing machines that
could defeat any opponent and were no longer defending the roman republic but rather extending the roman empire.

While I would have dismissed such ideas as wild rhetoric by leftist extremists just months ago, the bush administration's purported plan for an open-ended occupation of a post-saddam iraq by the american military caught me completely by surprise and caused me to engage in extensive rethinking.  The american army has not been asked to play such a role since world war ii, and in that instance it did so to establish democracy in states which were previously totalitarian and integrate those states into the democratic mainstream.  It is not clear whether the bush occupation plan has the same high ends.  Left-wing critics of the bush administration routinely state that the proposed invasion of iraq is not meant to establish democracy in the middle east and the arab world, but rather to open the iraqi oilfields to american dominance and exploitation, a classic case of 19th century merchantalist policy.  I previously would have dismissed such views as the rantings of left-wing lunatics, but sometimes I can't help thinking that the world is changing beneath our feet and what seemed lunacy just months ago may not be so anymore.  Merely suggesting that the american army would occupy iraq for five years or more, opens the united states to criticism that it has ulterior motives.

I have grown quite close to my military colleagues in the 18 months that I have worked side by side with them here at west point.  I have also grown close to my students, the cadets.  I think that these policy shifts are a disservice to the military and to the cadets, who will have to lay their lives on the line in support of these aspirations.  If things do not go according to plan in iraq, thousands of professional soldiers could be killed, while the civilians who
propounded these policies remain comfortably out of the line of fire. Such a development could profoundly demoralize the american military and undermine hundreds of years of tradition and pride.  Professional soldiers deserve better treatment.  It often appears that this administration does not have the best interests of the military at heart, and is callously willing to risk their lives and honor in
pursuit of policies that are not well thought-out.

I only regret that the democratic party did not wish to entertain these theoretical ideas and submit them to public debate before the election, but rather chose to remain passive in the face of what they perceived as a republican juggernaut.  I can't believe that the american people have fundamentally changed and really wish for the united states to fundamentally change its international behavior in such a drastic fashion, especially if there is a potential for the united states to be drastically harmed in the process.

as for the outcome of the GOP elections:
if the American public really thinks they have been misrepresented, they have only themselves to blame. It is for this reason i regard the midterms as legit.
And regarding Democracy, America never was a democracy, i dont give a damn how much people claim it is. From the beginning we have always had people twisting and bending the true will of the people in numerous ways ranging from the electoral college institution to the media, and until we have one big ass 3 billion person convention hall in D.C., Athens-style, you're never going to witness a true democratic government in America. Democracy worked in Greece because of the small population and the fact only males, for the most part, could vote. Democracy is dead, welcome to the US.

and some misc. points to note:
a prevalent notion in this thread is that some of you are scared that Bush will get whatever he wants, and the republicans will run amok. Have you ever heard of a filibuster? Well, to be simple, it's a thingie which checks back absolute majority power in congress. If the Democrats really don't want something to pass, it won't.  This is mostly applicable to high profile issues, such as social security privatization and ANWR. However it is likely that because of the GOP that the conservatives will be able to pass Homeland Security and Terrorism Insurance bills in the lame duck session. This isn't entirely bad but still an example of what conservatives CAN now do. Analogously a good/bad outcome of the GOP is also that Bush can probably make his 10 year taxcut plan permanent, which could both stimulate our declining economy and improve the standard of living or explode the budget deficit. Which is more likely i dont yet know. Anyway, i think from all this you can conclude there is still going to be a relatively strong balance of power, and there really isn't much to fear. The only thing I worry about is going to war but it's simply because im a pacifist in general and I dont approve of unilateral action. However, an interesting update from 2 days ago: An Iraq proposal has been approved by the UN. Who knows what doors this will open? It could change the whole face of the issue.

im ending my argument with buccaneer - its just turning into nitpicky rhetorical stuff. cookie, as far as the usage of filibuster as a means of stopping legislation??honestly, how often is this used and to what extent has it been successful. The Democrats have been too timid to use the filibuster even in situations where many liberals considered it essential. Remember the nomination of John Ashcroft as attorney general? The Democrats could have ridden that one out, but instead gave up. I have sincere doubts in both the legitimacy of the system and in the Democrats ability to actually do anything.


BTW the NY & LA Times are rags!!!!

if you read the NY times or LA times they specifically say a filibuster is very likely in the case of ANWR or SSP.

CHANGING TOPIC:
   What will war in Iraq accomplish? This somewhat ties in because it is more likely now with the current Government Officials that war occurs. I doubt the people will all raise up against Saddam, Bush Sr. wanted them to do that and they got slaughtered, watch the movie THREE KINGS which is mainly fiction but still the only way to get the refugees free was to do it illegally. I think that we will have a hold up in a few years in our glorious war on terror and just then, I will be draft age. And hurray I am a newbie but thats post 100 for me