Quote:
Originally Posted by kathaksung
Because you work for them. And this is only a tactic of harassment. That's the answer.
----------
Fake democracy
It looks like a system of democracy, it is only a covert totalitarian under the cover of "freedom".
Both parties work for one master: the Inside group. When people get angry with one party then the Inside Group let the other party go to perform on the stage so people thought there is a change and relaxed then.
But when the issue relates to the interest of the Inside group, whichever the party is, they would vote for the interest of the Inside Group not for the people. Iraq war is an unjust war, Demo joined GOP passed the Iraq war Authorization Bill. Now though Demo knew it's against people's will, they still released the funds too for another war - Iran war.
We saw in May, the House suddenly ended a confrontation with Bush administration, released the Iraq military fund. Bush got what he needed for Iran war. The expense for Iraq operation is about 56 billion each year. This time Bush got more than 100 billion, almost double than ordinary expense. What is extra money for? It's for Iran war.
You see, Demo not only released military fund, they also covertly approved for another war. The only person who doesn't know is the public.
Of course, they always have an excuse. This time it is: support our troops.
You can oppose Bush's policy. It is democracy. But you must support our troops. It is patriot. Anyway the troops are under Bush's command. So support our troops is actually support Bush. It is tricky.
Who played as a dummy in this game?
|
Are you implying that, with current US foreign policy, it can be pretty hard to convince the rest of the world that we are really trying to simply export our shinning beacon of democracy, whenever we deny and disparage their sovereign state's rights?
I think the PCIG should allocate more time to committee meetings and less time to micro-managing the US political economy. Maybe they can convince the party of massive deficits to take some time off next election cycle to better formulate their supply side economic theories.
What do you think of a hypothetical scenario, where the UN is given a mandate to provide for the domestic tranquility of any states experiencing anarchy (e.g. Iraq)? From this perspective, the US could simply request the UN be authorized to fulfill any obligations for ensuring the domestic tranquility of that state.