Apparently, you aren't aware that barely even half the country votes. The highest voter percentage was during the late 19th century, but now it's steadily declined. It is the fact that many people neglect what's going on in their country or they just don't care anymore, and they let those who vote for the wrong things to spearhead the way
Apparantly your not aware that
1) No voting is a rational response to an irrantional system, if people don't feel there is someone who represents there views they won't vote.
2) I cannot think of one democracy except for maybe some of the countries like the Eastern Bloc or African nations where voter numbers are going up. Certainly in most European Countries, GB, France, Germany, numbers are reducing.
3) You can't measure the amount people care in votes. Its the amount of activism or just people talking about politics is just as important. In Britain, voter numbers have been falling for years, with turnout in the general election barely reaching 50%. But in the last year the amount of people in the political process has shot up with 3 massive and we're talking 500,000 protest marchs on fox hunting, the war in Iraq and top up fees.
So base interest in politics may not be declining.
America was not the only country attacked during 9/11. There were many other representatives from different countries inside the WORLD Trade tower who died as well.
Despite the representation of people from outside America, this was not an attack on the world. If you wanted to kill a lot of nationalities and really attack on a world scale, you'd attack the UN or the European Parliament. This was an American target, an attack on Americanised and Western vaules that was aimed at causing as much death and descrution as possible.
Americans are stupid in a sense, and they confirmed it even more when they reelected an idiot to lead them. What you're saying is that, influenced by outside remarks, America voted this way. I'm not sure what that proves.
Americans aren't stupid. You just cannot say that. If I said all French people smell then that would be offensive and untrue, saying Americans are stupid is the same. And again only half the voters voted for him. I'm not saying this is the only reason for Bush's win, I'm sure there are others but it did not help, everybody saying how stupid Bush was and how he should not win.
So what? Americans voted blindly for Bush even when his tax cuts only benefitted the rich. He's having the middle class pay out of their ears.
No he has a range of policies. He obviously appeals to something in people. Maybe its a religious stance or maybe its to do with his trade policies. I don't know by people voted for him.
See, that's the thing I don't want. Why is he invading other countries at a time when he needs to reshape his own country first?
See, now what I don't want is to go back to a time when America just looked after its own affairs ,did not bother with the rest of the world, and took an isolationist stance. As fair as I see, its agreed the League of Nations failed partly because there was no American involvment. Do you not think Britain had internal problems in 1939 when we declared war on Germany? If the Americans had joined in the war then, it may not hav lasted till 1945. Or if they had joined in the first world war at the beginning, there may not be a million men British men in French fields.
Ever consider that a bombing campaign is probably not such a bright idea?
Well seen as without the bombing campagin, Sinn Fein (because of its links to the IRA and the Provos.) would not be allowed in the power sharing executive because they would have very little hold over the British Government.
And would the Palestine problem be in the news if there were no suicide bombings. No it would just pass us by. I have no doubt that given the chance, the paramilitaries would start again.
I know damn well that terrorism comes from within. The PIRA blew up Manchester City Centre. All that was left standing was a post box. And that was on my birthday. Nobody has ever been convicted.
But you cannot compare that; which while wrong was for a cause. The IRA was a protest movement which expressed itself in violence with the actions of someone like McVeigh who as far as I can tell had no reason to do what he did.
I've had this arguement before. Violence on occasion is a necessary political tool. I'm not saying it right I'm saying its the way it is.