The illusion of innocence

Bobcatdog

Democracy, can a people vote into power a government which carries out terrible wrongs and still cling to the belief they are "innocent" civilians while every day watching the direct/indirect deaths caused by their votes, I say no, whilst your soldiers are killing and causing deaths then you who voted into power and still back the people who cause these daily deaths are as fair a target as the soldiers themselves, would you not agree ?

solas

nice title, would be better in humanities.
I'm assuming your referring to the state of US democracy.
I've been tempted the last few days to copy a transcript of a conversation I had with a US friend recently. I have nothing but respect and admiration for her and while we don't discuss politics very often, I was interested in her opinion on some things. She being a republican.
In some ways its easier now to see how and why Hitler came to be.
The Illusion of innocence is a nice way of saying pure ignoranance.

in the same way as we dont hold germans responsible for the holocaust, it would be hardly fair to hold Americans responsible for the holocaust taking place in Iraq..or elsewhere for that matter. I think we're all responsible for allowing it to happen.
It's the sad story of "never again".

AmenToThat

solas wrote:

in the same way as we dont hold germans responsible for the holocaust, it would be hardly fair to hold Americans responsible for the holocaust taking place in Iraq..or elsewhere for that matter.

There is one fundamental difference. Many Germans did not know what was going on in the concentration camps in their name and in any case were to busy trying to stay alive at the time to care what was happening to a load of Jews and gays!

This is not the case today, there is news coverage on the radio, tv and net 24/7 and all the information is a mouse click away. Also there has only been one murderour attack on US soil (9/11), the ecomomy is doing well and the army is an all volunteer one so the argument that Americans/British public have more pressing issues to deal with is not valid.

As I have said earlier it is my belief that the American and British publics have made a concious decision to go along with the ideology of Bush/Blair and so must shoulder some of the responsibility for their actions. This is not to excuse the actions of suicide bombers but the idea that the American and British publics are somehow 'innocents' in all this simply doesnt hold up in my opinion.

Hobbes

Bobcatdog wrote:

Democracy, can a people vote into power a government which carries out terrible wrongs and still cling to the belief they are "innocent"

I didn't vote for Haughty!

This is not the case today, there is news coverage on the radio, tv and net 24/7 and all the information is a mouse click away.

Except that you have people who are just lazy. A large number of US citizens still think Iraq had WMD and ties to AQ because they are told this.

You don't have to control all the media, just the right ones.

It is even going on in the UK. Watchin various UK news I hear comments like "First attack on UK soil in peacetime" and "We still do not know why they attacked us". Unbelievable.

zuma

Hobbes wrote:

It is even going on in the UK. Watchin various UK news I hear comments like "First attack on UK soil in peacetime" and "We still do not know why they attacked us". Unbelievable.

So was the UK at War or something when the IRA was bombing London???

simu

zuma wrote:

So was the UK at War or something when the IRA was bombing London???

Shhh... you're spoiling the drama.

DadaKopf

Why do people have to jump to extremes like Hitler to make a point? I wish people would think more carefully.

Personally, I'd say state and government have a twin responsibility, but with the current setup of Western democracies - still extremely unequal economically and politically - governments are heavily insulated against political pressure from all but the richer sections of society. Effective responsibility lies with governments, but moral responsibility to do something about our democratic dysfunction lies with civil society. Many of these problems are attitudinal, but many are structural and systematic. The powerful stay at the top and get more powerful, the guys below either run with the illusion that they have power, or they resign themselves to cynicism.

A report on the state of American democracy has recently been published by the American Political Science Association. By the 1970s, it had been acknowledged by one top democracy analyst that

Corporate capitalism ... tends to produce inequalities in social and economic resources so great as to bring about severe violations of political equality and hence of the democratic process.

Thirty years later, things in America haven't changed - maybe they've gotten worse.

murphaph

Good post dadkopf, corporations really do run the world, or more precisely-those who pull the strings of corporations also pull the strings of governments, which they treat like large holding companies.

Give it 200 years and there will be mass revolutions again. The string pullers won't be able to maintain the balance (giving you just enough to survive each month, be it $30 a month in a third world country or $2000 a month in a first world country with a $1000 mortgage repayment-you get the picture) and poverty will become so great that people will have no choice but to just take over industry as happened with the marxist revolutions we saw in the last century.

I'm not a socialist, a marxist or any 'ist but that's what I think goes on and that fine balance won't be maintainable going forward. The facade of democratic governments that we see have long been manipulated by these string pullers-it's just more obscenely obvious with the Bush administration.

Hobbes

DadaKopf wrote:

Why do people have to jump to extremes like Hitler to make a point? I wish people would think more carefully.

I disagree. It isn't an extreme and is a very good comparision. If you want more updated comparisons, English knowing what the whole NI issue was about, or Chinese (in China) view on the world stage (tibet). Or North Koreans view of the world who honestly believe they can kick the snot out of other countries.

DadaKopf

Hobbes wrote:

I disagree. It isn't an extreme and is a very good comparision.

Solas made a direct comparison between the Nazi holocaust and America's invasion of Iraq. They're not the same.

AmenToThat wrote:

As I have said earlier it is my belief that the American and British publics have made a concious decision to go along with the ideology of Bush/Blair and so must shoulder some of the responsibility for their actions. This is not to excuse the actions of suicide bombers but the idea that the American and British publics are somehow 'innocents' in all this simply doesnt hold up in my opinion.

I don't agree. In a way, that's like saying that the Brits deserved being bombed because everyone supported the war, which is probably the logic the terrorists used, if Iraq weighed heavily on their minds.

A great many people in Britain and the USA opposed the war, but what effect did it have? Hardly any, except in the PR game. Rather than people in Britain and America (here, too) taking a conscious decision to oppose or support their government's war effort, they resigned themselves to dejected cynicism. Politicians do derive political power from apathy as much as fervant support, perhaps moreso, and I honestly don't see how being conned by a regime to believe something false is making a conscious decision about anything. I don't think that means blame the people.

Citizens, I think, have a responsibility to be educated, but also the freedom not to be, supposedly as insurance against indoctrination. I think the government did what they wanted in pursuit of "the national interest", i.e. corporate interests and the power and legacy of various politicians, and while around half the people in Britain opposed the war, protest achieved little. It's worth keeping in mind, though, that the global social justice movement - under the Make Poverty History campaign - has had some kind of effect both in terms of governments' decisions and people's mindsets and civic participation (although I'm skeptical of the depth of this).

We are, however, responsible for the shils we put into government in the first place. But then, as I said, so many people are systematically excluded from participation that wonder whether we can be so proud of our democracies at all. Especially given that we're trying to export our versions of democracy around the world, supposedly in the developing world's interests.

toiletduck

Hobbes wrote:

Except that you have people who are just lazy. A large number of US citizens still think Iraq had WMD and ties to AQ because they are told this.

iraq did have WMD's and while while you're right about people thinking he had links to AQ, this isn't hard to understand, since Saddam gave $25,000 to the families of palestinian suicide bombers. He was assisting terrorists there and it's not hard to jump to the conclusion that he would support other anti-western terrorists.

Hobbes wrote:

It is even going on in the UK. Watchin various UK news I hear comments like "First attack on UK soil in peacetime" and "We still do not know why they attacked us".

Really? That "peacetime" remark is truely surprising.




I dont think that civilians are legitimate targets. whatever reasons the bombers had, the deliberate targetting of civilians is wrong.

solas

Solas made a direct comparison between the Nazi holocaust and America's invasion of Iraq. They're not the same.

I understand how you might view that as being extreme but I was basing the statement on a discussion I had recently....or even moreso the discussions Ive been having via the intarweb over the last three years.

US (02:45:32): ah
US(02:46:01): so you feel because american is a "super power" that we are indifferent to everyone else's opinion
US (02:46:26): you know that may not be far off
me (02:46:37): well your from the super power
US (02:46:39): because we look at the other's criticsm as
US (02:46:54): one of placating evil
US (02:46:59): or terrorism
US (02:47:06): and the attitute here is
US (02:47:17): this is bs and we do not have to tolerate it
US (02:47:31): now there are lots of different opinions on how that is best done
US (02:47:55): but the idea that terrorists can come into a peaceful country and reek havoc on the innoncents
US (02:47:58): is so offensive
US (02:48:15): and we know we can stop itr
US (02:48:20): so for us to do nothing
US (02:48:24): and sit by
me (02:48:30): im not suggesting no one does nothing
US (02:48:32): is like a sin of ommision

The general consensus from my experience of talking to americans is that all muslims, in fact all people of middle eastern descent are evil backward terrorists who are only interested in destroying "US freedom"
US (03:13:36): everyone of those countries would kill you if they had the chance
US (03:13:44): just because you are christian

when I spoke about finding common ground the rsponse is..
US (03:21:17): common ground for muslim = we have back the ottoman empire, all chrisitians erradicated.

as you can see, from an american perspective, it's pretty cut and dry..

US (03:02:59): a gunman goes into a crowd and starts firing bullets at children
US (03:03:04): do you shoot the gunman?
me (03:03:17): if i had a gun
US (03:03:19): yes
US (03:03:21): you do
me (03:03:24): yes
US (03:03:39): ok simple act of violence against innocents
US (03:03:48): seems pretty cut n dry

illusion of innocence or pure ignorance?

oh..and btw..the discussion was about the effects of the war in iraq, following the london bombings.

toiletduck

there is no "holocast" in iraq. if you say there is, show me the death camps, show me the proof (i.e. not just wild figures of 100,000 dead).

solas

holocaust:Great destruction resulting in the extensive loss of life.

I know its not as simple as that, I'm not suggesting iraq is an innocent by- stander in all this, but there are as many innocent iraqi's as there are Americans yet it seems american lives have a higher value.

toiletduck

solas wrote:

holocaust:Great destruction resulting in the extensive loss of life.

then you must equally apply that term to saddams rule e.g. iran-iraq war, killings of the marsh-arabs, killing of the kurds, living life of luxury owhile ordinary iraqis died in their thousands during the sanction years etc.

but there are as many innocent iraqi's as there are Americans yet it seems american lives have a higher value.

of course american lives are more important to americans than others, just like the way we hear about irish deaths on the roads each night but rarely if ever hear of the thousands who die in other countries on the road.

DadaKopf

Back to the topic,

whilst your soldiers are killing and causing deaths then you who voted into power and still back the people who cause these daily deaths are as fair a target as the soldiers themselves, would you not agree?

I'd have to say "no".

toiletduck

whilst your soldiers are killing and causing deaths then you who voted into power and still back the people who cause these daily deaths are as fair a target as the soldiers themselves, would you not agree?

no, besides how do you know who voted them in (and who voted against them) and therefore (in your opinion) are fair targets?

solas

then you must equally apply that term to saddams rule e.g. iran-iraq war, killings of the marsh-arabs, killing of the kurds, living life of luxury owhile ordinary iraqis died in their thousands during the sanction years etc.

have you considered Americas role in all of this?

of course american lives are more important to americans than others, just like the way we hear about irish deaths on the roads each night but rarely if ever hear of the thousands who die in other countries on the road.

yes, but we're not talking about accidents here are we?

DadaKopf

I think it's true to say there's a strong, but concealed, racial issue in all this. It's gone on for hundreds of years. I don't want to make comparisons with other periods, but on both sides, there's a lot of demonisation going on and we're scarcely aware of how powerful it is.

Kingsize

History books often describe Hitler as a dictator despite the fact that he was elected into power & George w himself reckons it would be "a heck of a lot easier" if he were a dictator
i only hope that books are still legal 60 years after the end of the current war.
I have heard the figure of 1.5 million people dead as a result of sanctions against Iraq (innocent presumably but for the fact that they"elected" Saddam in constantly).
Saddam is looking quite alive & healthy nowadays his reason for invading Kuwait is not too far from the line of "protecting our way of life" being put out by the U.S/U.K

toiletduck

solas wrote:

have you considered Americas role in all of this?

yes, not just america but lots of other countries had roles to play in this, not to mention certain sections of iraqi society for letting it happen.

yes, but we're not talking about accidents here are we?

true, but apply it to murders. same results.

Kingsize wrote:

George w himself reckons it would be "a heck of a lot easier" if he were a dictator

:rolleyes: christ, you do know that was said in jest dont you?

DadaKopf wrote:

It's gone on for hundreds of years. I don't want to make comparisons with other periods, but on both sides, there's a lot of demonisation going on and we're scarcely aware of how powerful it is.

totaly agree

toiletduck

Kingsize wrote:

I have heard the figure of 1.5 million people dead as a result of sanctions against Iraq (innocent presumably but for the fact that they"elected" Saddam in constantly).

they didnt die because of the sanctions, iraq still had enough money for the medicines etc. but instead was used to keep saddam and his associates in luxury.



this thread has certainly gone off topic!

Kingsize

I did know that was said in jest but perhaps a liitle too close to the truth to be funny.

Kingsize

none of us should be under any illusions, i dont deserve to be killed in my prime no more than anyone else but rest assured if /when the bomb goes off hereIts highly likely that i'll be cowering in fear under my table like the rest of us.
while our elected crooks eat jaffa cakes in some bunker in wicklow

solas

then you must equally apply that term to saddams rule e.g. iran-iraq war, killings of the marsh-arabs, killing of the kurds, living life of luxury owhile ordinary iraqis died in their thousands during the sanction years etc.

from here

Saddam consolidated power in a nation riddled with profound tensions. Long before Saddam, Iraq had been split along social, ethnic, religious, and socioeconomic fault lines: Sunni versus Shi'ite, Arab versus Kurd, tribal chief versus urban merchant, nomad versus peasant. Stable rule in a country torn by political factionalism and conflict required the improvement of living standards. Saddam moved up the ranks in the new government by aiding attempts to strengthen and unify the Ba'ath party and taking a leading role in addressing the country's major domestic problems and expanding the party's following.

Saddam actively fostered the modernization of the Iraqi economy along with the creation of a strong security apparatus to prevent coups within the power structure and insurrections apart from it. Ever concerned with broadening his base of support among the diverse elements of Iraqi society and mobilizing mass support, he closely followed the administration of state welfare and development programs.

At the center of this strategy was Iraq's oil. On June 1, 1972, Saddam Hussein led the process of expropriating Western oil companies, which had had a monopoly on the country's oil. A year later, world oil prices rose dramatically as a result of the 1973 world oil shock, and Saddam was able to pursue an all the more ambitious agenda through skyrocketing oil revenues.

Within a period of just several years, the state provided some social services to Iraqi people unprecedented in other Middle Eastern countries. Saddam initiated and controlled the "National Campaign for the Eradication of Illiteracy" and the campaign for "Compulsory Free Education in Iraq," and largely under his auspices, the government established universal free schooling up to the highest education levels; hundreds of thousands learned to read in the years following the initiation of the program. The government also supported families of soldiers, granted free hospitalization to everyone, and gave subsidies to farmers. Iraq created one of the best public-health systems in the Middle East, earning Saddam an award from the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). [1] [2]

In order to diversify the oil-dependent economy, Saddam oversaw and advocated a national infrastructure campaign that made great progress in building roads, promoting mining, and development of other industries to diversify the oil-dependent economy. The campaign effected a comprehensive revolution in energy industries. Electricity was brought to nearly every city in Iraq, including many communities in the countryside and far outlying areas.

Before the early 1970s, the majority of the population resided in the countryside, where Saddam himself was born and raised; and peasants accounted for roughly two thirds of the populace. This number would decrease dramatically, though, during the rapid industrialization and urbanization of Iraq in the 1970s, which was propelled by Saddam's channeling of oil revenues into the rapidly growing Iraqi industrial sector and the new Ba'athist welfare programs.

Nevertheless, Saddam focused intensely on fostering loyalty to the Ba'athist government in the rural areas. After nationalizing foreign oil interests, Saddam supervised the modernization of the Iraqi countryside, the mechanization of agriculture on a large scale, and the distribution of land to farmers.6 He broke up the large holdings of the landowners and gave land to peasant farmers. The Ba'athists established farm co-operatives, in which profits were distributed in accordance with the labors of the individual peasant and the unskilled were trained. The government's commitment to agrarian reform was demonstrated by the doubling of expenditures for agriculture development in 1974–1975, a policy that Saddam largely spearheaded. Moreover, agrarian reform in Iraq improved the living standards of the broad strata of the peasantry and increased production, though not to the levels for which Saddam had hoped.

By focusing on the implementation role (often to the point of micromanaging), Saddam became personally associated with Ba'athist welfare and economic development programs in the eyes of many Iraqis, thus widening his original popular base of support while co-opting new sectors of the Iraqi population. Part of a combination of "carrot and stick" tactics, expanding government services forged patron–client ties between Saddam and his support base among the working class and the peasantry and within the party and the government bureaucracy.

Saddam's ruthless organizational prowess was credited with Iraq's rapid pace of development in the 1970s; development went forward at such a fevered pitch that two million persons from other Arab countries and Yugoslavia worked in Iraq to meet the growing demand for labor.

Saddam saw himself as a social revolutionary and a modernizer, following the model of Nasser. To the consternation of Islamic conservatives, his government gave women added freedoms and offered them high-level government and industry jobs. Saddam also created a Western-style legal system, making Iraq the only country in the Persian Gulf region not ruled according to traditional Islamic law (Sharia).

they didnt die because of the sanctions, iraq still had enough money for the medicines etc. but instead was used to keep saddam and his associates in luxury.

The first Persian Gulf War (1991) corresponded with a sharp decline in living standards and the human rights situation.

DadaKopf

Jeez, this is going way off-topic.

'Holocaust' is an extremely emotive term and, surprise, surprise, instead of discussing the actual topic of the thread, two people have descended into yet another argument over whether Saddam was like Hitler, Iraq like Nazi Germany, the invasion like WWII, ad nauseum.

Can we, please, not go down this tired, wrong road and get back on topic? It's actually much more central to the overall issue than nitpicking over a word.

solas

The post is titled illusion of innocence, asking the question of whether Americans are directly responsible for the the atrocities of the war in Iraq because of their electoral decisions. Most people here have sort of agreed that its not a case of innocence rather a case of ignorance.
If the OP wantd a yes or no answer then he could have used the poll option.
I don't find discussing the subject of the root causes as being off topic.
the thread might do better in humanities were open discussion is permitted.

DadaKopf

That's exactly my point. It doesn't matter to the argument whether the word 'holocaust' applies to Saddam, Iraq or whatever. The discussion is about to what extent civil societies are responsible for what their elected leaders do in their name in any context. Note the OP didn't specify the context.

The Corinthian

toiletduck wrote:

iraq did have WMD's

Actually it didn't:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4484237.stm

You appear to be demonstrating the topic of this thread.

and while while you're right about people thinking he had links to AQ, this isn't hard to understand, since Saddam gave $25,000 to the families of palestinian suicide bombers. He was assisting terrorists there and it's not hard to jump to the conclusion that he would support other anti-western terrorists.

Are you suggesting that the families of suicide bombers are terrorists? Reminds me of the old gag about suspects being innocent until proved Irish.

solas

I didn't want to assume he was refrring to US democracy, but I did pose the question.. which hasnt been clarified yet.

solas

The discussion is about to what extent civil societies are responsible for what their elected leaders do in their name in any context.

if the context was reversed and our elected representatives were able to find common ground and consequently resolution in peaceful diplomatic terms, I'm sure we would all want to take responsiblity. I'm sure we would be quite proud of ourselves as a civil society.

toiletduck

/off topic

The Corinthian wrote:

Actually it didn't:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4484237.stm

You appear to be demonstrating the topic of this thread.

:rolleyes: i was actually refering to the 80's and 90's when iraq DID have wmd's.

Are you suggesting that the families of suicide bombers are terrorists? Reminds me of the old gag about suspects being innocent until proved Irish.

no of course not, but giving money to the families could definitely be interpreted as an incentive to terrorists, dont forget that a lot of palesitians are pi$$ poor.

DadaKopf

Many other Middle Eastern states did the same - like Egypt, who receives vast amounts of military aid and one quarter of the African aid budget from the USA.

The Corinthian

toiletduck wrote:

:rolleyes: i was actually refering to the 80's and 90's when iraq DID have wmd's.

Isn’t that being a little disingenuous with the facts? You make a statement of fact from the 1980’s along side other, more recent, claims and then you’re confused that your meaning has been misconstrued?

It’s easy to see how a case for war could be constructed as a result:

US: Let’s invade Iraq.
UN: Why?
US: Because they’ve been known to have WMD.
(US invades)
UN: Where are the WMD?
US: Oh, we meant they used to have them...

no of course not, but giving money to the families could definitely be interpreted as an incentive to terrorists, dont forget that a lot of palesitians are pi$$ poor.

I’d probably agree with you were it not for Israel’s policy of bulldozing the homes of the families of suicide bombers. Of course, I’m not saying that Saddam was a philanthropist, but I would as a result think your claim that he was promoting terrorism to be rather exaggerated.

iregk

Ok i've kind of stayed out of this but thought right I'll throw in my two cents. The thing is its all about money and manipulation. The first casualty of war is the truth.

Sure we like to think the soldiers are targets but its not that clear cut in iraq. The western US media like to paint this picture of a war happening and huge fighting going on. In reality this is not the case. The degree to which the US public has been brain washed is unreal. In a recent survey by an independant news paper (washington post or journal one or the other) 80% of americans thought Sadam was responsible for 9/11 and that he and OBL were best mates!

Translate this to their soldiers and its the same. Reading an article before that had an interview with a soldier heading into Iraq and his comments were amazing. "I just want to get in there and get my nose dirty and get some revenge for 9/11" says the brave gi. As the reported said: "but you know iraq had nothing to do wtih 9/11" soldier:"well thats over my head, ive been told they did so thats what i believe!"

How much more ignorant can you get. Americans like to think they have one of the worlds greatest democracies when in fact they are the worlds largest distatorship. When your in a country that tells you what to look like, what to eat, what to think and what to say and then you have the balls to say you enjoy great freedom. Yes American of course you do.

toiletduck

The Corinthian wrote:

Isn’t that being a little disingenuous with the facts? You make a statement of fact from the 1980’s along side other, more recent, claims and then you’re confused that your meaning has been misconstrued?

my original comment was a response to a statement "that most americans believe iraq had WMD's."I was merely pointing out that they did.

I’d probably agree with you were it not for Israel’s policy of bulldozing the homes of the families of suicide bombers.

i would think this policy is to diswade suicide bombers i.e. you cant punish them after the attack, but you can punish their family. (im not condoning or condemning the policy, merely pointing out the rationale as i see it.)

Of course, I’m not saying that Saddam was a philanthropist, but I would as a result think your claim that he was promoting terrorism to be rather exaggerated.

well why give the money if your not promoting terrorism?

iregk wrote:

Americans like to think they have one of the worlds greatest democracies when in fact they are the worlds largest distatorship. When your in a country that tells you what to look like, what to eat, what to think and what to say and then you have the balls to say you enjoy great freedom.

the US isn't a dictatorship or did i just imagine the elctions in november?
here in ireland, we're told what to think (constant ad's against racism, for recycling etc.), what we should eat (ad's for healthy eating etc.). What do you mean by "what to look like?"

DadaKopf

well why give the money if your not promoting terrorism?

Apart from resisting Israeli aggression, Hamas also runs health and other community services - I could easily imagine giving money to Hamas would at least be as much a form of humanitarian aid as well as aid to violence. And clearly, there's political capital to be gained by the regimes donating the money.

The Corinthian

toiletduck wrote:

my original comment was a response to a statement "that most americans believe iraq had WMD's."I was merely pointing out that they did.

Fair enough.

i would think this policy is to diswade suicide bombers i.e. you cant punish them after the attack, but you can punish their family. (im not condoning or condemning the policy, merely pointing out the rationale as i see it.)

I understand the rational, but were the UK to have done the same to the families of IRA bombers and the Irish government responded by giving them financial aid, would this necessarily be encouraging terrorism?

well why give the money if your not promoting terrorism?

To garner support in the Arab World during a period where Arab governments were largely isolating Iraq.

the US isn't a dictatorship or did i just imagine the elctions in november?

An election does not a democracy make.

toiletduck

The Corinthian wrote:

I understand the rational, but were the UK to have done the same to the families of IRA bombers and the Irish government responded by giving them financial aid, would this necessarily be encouraging terrorism?

not really applicble her because the IRA didnt use suicide bombers and so if they were caught, they would be punished. but to answer you're question, yes i would consider it supporting terrorism.

To garner support in the Arab World during a period where Arab governments were largely isolating Iraq.

agreed but it also promoted terrorism imo.

An election does not a democracy make.

true, but if believe america is a dictaorship please point out how this is.

iregk

Duck, (seemed easier than calling your toilet!) by no stretch did you imagine the elections in november, but on the same token you never seen a fair democratic election either. What you seen was what CNN, NBC etc.. told you was happening.

What none of these mentioned as they are all owned by sections of the same group that own the bush family is that either way the outcome was going to be the same. Bush or Kerry. These two apparently at logger heads candidates are part of the same group, society and club. They work to the same goals and they are both puppets. It made no difference which one took the election as effectively the US people were voting for the very same unseen people that hold the real power in the US. Bust and Kerry are puppets creating the illusion of a democratically elected president. The last runner not from this group was Al Gore and well even though he won the election who took office?

Thats a hell of a democracy. Yeah you all voted for him but we are still putting this guy in power so take it like the bitch you are!!! I'm not saying ireland is somehow immune to all of this, we are not we are very much on the same patch but not to the same degree as the US.

toiletduck

iregk wrote:

They work to the same goals and they are both puppets.

who is the puppet-master(s) in your opinion?

iregk

In my opinion the puppet masters are shape shifting reptilians... hahaha just kidding. They are those lovely corporate moguls of the Illuminati...

solas

*thud*