is BUSH being forced into accepting WORLD OPINION?

Question

is george w bush having to bow to world opinion, and tell israel to call off the dogs, i think it can only be good for the future ,that the USA does not dictate how the world behaves

Answer 1

Today, democracy is often assumed to be liberal democracy, a form of representative democracy where the ability of elected representatives and the will of the majority to exercise decision-making power is subject to the rule of law, and usually moderated by a constitution which emphasizes the protection of liberties, freedoms, and rights of individuals and minorities. This form of government has become increasingly common in recent times, so that almost half of the world's population now lives under liberal democratic governments

Conversely, an illiberal democracy is one where the protections that form a liberal democracy are either nonexistant, or not enforced. The experience in some post-Soviet states drew attention to the phenomenon, although it is not of recent origin.

History of democracy
Main article: History of democracy
The history of democracy is made complex by the varied concepts and definitions used in different contexts and discussions. Democracy can range from the very broadly based institutions in which adult universal suffrage is used to elect representative, to very informal assemblies in which the people voice their opinions, and leader act upon those feelings, to elected representatives who have limited power under an unelected monarch.
Since World War II, democracy has gained widespread acceptance. This map shows the official claims made by world governments with regard to democracy, as of June 2006.
Governments that claim to be democratic and allow the existence of opposition groups, at least in theory.
Governments that claim to be democratic but do not allow the existence of opposition groups.
Governments that do not claim to be democratic.The earliest forms of democracy may have originated in the bands and tribes of prehistoric times. These groups of people often assigned the eldest member of a group to be its leader. Larger societies tended to be less democratic for the simple reason that technology for communication was extremely limited. For the largest societies, democracy was perhaps less efficient than a strong central ruler in managing the complex economic and military spheres associated with civilization. The Iroquois Confederacy is a modern example of tribal democracies that likely existed beyond the written record.

The Sumerian city states are believed to have had some form of democratic setup initially. They became monarchies over time. This is probably the first use of democracy by a civilized, urban society, rather than by a nomadic tribal entity. [2]

An early use of democracy was found in republics in ancient India, which were established sometime before the 6th century BC, and prior to the birth of Buddha. These republics were known as Maha Janapadas.

Athenian democracy is the earliest well-documented democratic system, and the word democracy was coined in ancient Greece in the 5th century BC. Records are intermittent from the time before this era, although there is contemporary documentation from Chios, probably from 575- 550 BC, of a council and assembly. It appears that voting rights were gradually expanded from a small group of landed aristocracy to eventually all eligible males who had completed mandatory military training, usually at the age of 20. Women, slaves, and metics were excluded from this citizenship, which leads to estimates that around one tenth or less of the population of Athens was eligible to vote. All Athenian citizens were free to vote on creation of laws, a segment could vote on when to go to war, and anyone could speak in the Assembly. This type of government is known as a form of direct democracy. Athens also had representative leaders, most selected by allotment rather than elected. Athenian democracy was effectively ended by the city's defeat by the Macedonians who abolished it in 323 BC.

The seeds of representative democracy were arguably started in the Roman Republic. During the middle ages, there were various shades of democracies varying from very inclusive oligarchies to attempts at full democracy, such as the Althing, in Iceland, the Italian city-states of medieval Italy, the tuatha system in early medieval Ireland, the Veche in Slavic countries, and Scandinavian assemblies. Democratic principles and elements are also found in societies ranging from the early Indian republics (c. 6th century BCE) to the Iroquois Confederacy in North America (second millennium CE to the present).

The Parliament of England was the first major step towards a fully democratic system during the Middle Ages. It had its roots in the restrictions on the power of kings written into Magna Carta. The first elected parliament was De Montfort's Parliament in England in 1265. Parliament was initially elected by only a few percent of the population and the system had problematic features such as rotten boroughs. The power to call parliament was at the pleasure of the monarch (usually when he or she needed funds). After the Glorious Revolution of 1688, England became a constitutional monarchy with regular sittings of parliament, although still subject to the monarch. During this time the two party system of the Whigs and Tories also developed. Parliament then gradually gained more decision-making and legislative powers until the reign of Queen Victoria at which time the monarch essentially became a figurehead.

The United States can be seen as the first liberal democracy, with a relatively wide franchise (although initially limited by property and gender restrictions, and the existence of slavery) and the United States Constitution protected rights and liberties.

A few years later, Revolutionary France adopted the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen and, although short-lived, the National Convention was elected by all males.

Liberal democracies were few and often short-lived before the late nineteenth century. Various nations and territories have claimed to be the first with universal suffrage.

20th century waves of democracy
20th century transitions to liberal democracy have come in successive "waves of democracy", variously resulting from wars, revolutions, decolonization and economic circumstances. World War I and the dissolution of the Ottoman and Austro-Hungarian empires resulted in the creation of new nation-states in Europe, most of them nominally democratic. The rise of fascist movements, and fascist regimes in Nazi Germany, Mussolini in Italy, Francisco Franco's regime in Spain and António de Oliveira Salazar's regime in Portugal, limited the extent of democracy in the 1930s, and gave the impression of an "Age of Dictators". The status of most colonies remained unaffected.

World War II brought a definitive reversal of this trend in western Europe. The successful democratization of the occupied Germany and the occupied Japan served as a model for the later theory of regime change. However, most of Eastern Europe was forced into the non-democratic Soviet bloc. The war was followed by decolonisation, and again most of the new independent states had nominally democratic constitutions.

In the decades following World War II, most western democratic nations had a predominantly free-market economy and developed a welfare state, reflecting a general consensus among their electorates and political parties. In the 1950s and 1960s, economic growth was high in both the western and communist countries, later it declined in the state-controlled economies. By 1960, the vast majority of nation-states were nominally democracies, although the majority of the world's populations lived in nations that experienced sham elections, and other forms of subterfuge (particularly in Communist nations and the former colonies.)


Countries highlighted in blue are designated "Electoral Democracies" in Freedom House's 2006 survey Freedom in the World.A subsequent wave of democratization brought substantial gains toward true liberal democracy for many nations. Several of the military dictatorships in South America become democratic in the late 1970s and early 1980s. This was followed by nations in East and South Asia by the mid- to late 1980s. Economic malaise in the 1980s, along with resentment of communist oppression, contributed to the collapse of the Soviet Union, the associated end of the Cold War, and the democratisation and liberalisation of the former Soviet bloc countries. The most successful of the new democracies were those geographically and culturally closest to western Europe, and they are now members or candidate members of the European Union. The democratic trend spread to some nations in Africa in the 1990s, most prominently in South Africa.

The number of liberal democracies currently stands at an all-time high, and has been growing without interruption for some time. As such, it has been speculated that this trend may continue in the future to the point where liberal democratic nation-states become the universal standard form of human society. This prediction forms the core of Francis Fukayama's "End of History"

On one account, called minimalism, democracy is a system of government in which citizens give teams of political leaders the right to rule in periodic elections. According to this minimalist conception, citizens cannot and should not “rule” because on most issues, most of the time, they have no clear views or their views are not very intelligent. Joseph Schumpeter articulated this view most famously in his book Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy [2]. Contemporary proponents of minimalism include William Riker, Adam Przeworksi, and Richard Posner.

A second view is called the aggregative conception of democracy. It holds that government should produce laws and policies are close to the views of the median voter — with half to his left and the other half to his right. Anthony Downs laid out this view in his 1957 book An Economic Theory of Democracy. [3]

A third conception, deliberative democracy, is based on the notion that democracy is government by discussion. Deliberative democrats contend that laws and policies should be based upon reasons that all citizens can accept. The political arena should be one in which leaders and citizens make arguments, listen, and change their minds.

The three conceptions above assume a representative democracy. Direct democracy, a fourth conception, holds that citizens should participate directly, not through their representatives, in making laws and policies. Proponents of direct democracy offer varied reasons to support this view. Political activity can be valuable in itself, it socializes and educates citizens, and popular participation can check powerful elites. Most importantly, citizens do not really rule themselves unless they directly decide laws and policies.

Another conception of democracy is that it means political equality between all citizens. The typical modern democracy relies on the assumption that the majority of the votes establishes the will of the people, as opposed to majority rule of the entire demos (population). This can be used as an argument for making political participation mandatory, like compulsory voting, or for limiting the influence of the wealthy, like Campaign finance reform.[5][6]

These conceptions of democracy are based on the question of what a democracy ought to be. A fifth and quite different conception of democracy is based on the assumption that a democracy performs a function for the members of a collective who create it and that individuals in a democracy play roles. This conception assumes that the actual people who occupy these roles and perform this function in a real democracy are self-interested. The conception was invented by economists and is sometimes called an economic approach to democracy. It is represented by the field of Public Choice.

Another conception of democracy is that it is majority rule and is justified under utilitarian reasoning. The advantanges of democracy seen under this conception is that the majority of the population are satisfied with the governance they live under. The disadvantage is that the minority live under the power of the majority sometimes termed the tyranny of the majority, or mob rule. This can lead to the marginalisation of large portions of a population if the will of the majority is not restrained by a strong and just constitution and legal system.

"Democracy" vs. "Republic"
The definition of the word "democracy" from the time of ancient Greece up to now has not been constant. In contemporary usage, the term "democracy" refers to a government chosen by the people, whether it is direct or representative.

In constitutional theory and in historical usages and especially when considering the works of the Founding Fathers of the United States, the word "democracy" refers solely to direct democracy, whilst a representative democracy where representatives of the people govern in accordance with a constitution is referred to as a republic. Using the term "democracy" to refer solely to direct democracy retains some popularity in United States conservative and libertarian circles.

The original framers of the United States Constitution were notably cognizant of what they perceived as a danger of majority rule in oppressing freedom of the individual. For example, James Madison, in Federalist Paper No. 10 advocates a constitutional republic over a democracy precisely to protect the individual from the majority. [4] However, at the same time, the framers carefully created democratic institutions and major open society reforms within the United States Constitution and the United States Bill of Rights. They kept what they believed were the best elements of democracy, but mitigated by a constitution with protections for individual liberty, a balance of power, and a layered federal structure forming what we now call a constitutional republic.

Modern definitions of the term "republic", however, refer to any state with an elective head of state serving for a limited term, in contrast to most contemporary hereditary monarchies which are representative democracies and constitutional monarchies adhering to parliamentarism. Older elective monarchies are also not considered to be republics.


The democratic state
Though there remains some philosophical debate as to the applicability and legitimacy of criteria in defining democracy (see philosopher Charles Blattberg, From Pluralist to Patriotic Politics: Putting Practice First, Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2000, ch. 5. ISBN 0-19-829688-6) what follows may be a minimum of requirements for a state to be considered democratic (note that for example anarchists may support a form of democracy but not a state):

That there is a demos, a group which makes political decisions by some form of collective procedure. Non-members of the demos do not participate. In modern democracies the demos is the adult portion of the nation, and adult citizenship is usually equivalent to membership.
That there is a territory where the decisions apply, and where the demos is resident. In modern democracies, the territory is the nation-state, and since this corresponds (in theory) with the homeland of the nation, the demos and the reach of the democratic process neatly coincide. Colonies of democracies are not considered democratic by themselves, if they are governed from the colonial motherland: demos and territory do not coincide.
That there is a decision-making procedure, which is either direct, in instances such as a referendum, or indirect, of which instances include the election of a parliament.
That the procedure is regarded as legitimate by the demos, implying that its outcome will be accepted. Political legitimacy is the willingness of the population to accept decisions of the state, its government and courts, which go against personal choices or interests.
That the procedure is effective in the minimal sense that it can be used to change the government, assuming there is sufficient support for that change. Showcase elections, pre-arranged to re-elect the existing regime, are not democratic.
That, in the case of nation-states, the state must be sovereign: democratic elections are pointless if an outside authority can overrule the result.

Dissent
Anarchists oppose the concept of the state, including democratic ones, as inherently corrupt and coercive. For example, Alexander Berkman [5] refused to recognize the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania enough to defend himself at his trial. Many social anarchists tend to support a non-hierarchical and non-coercive system of direct democracy within free associations. However there is some disagreement between anarchists. Many expect society to operate by consensus, as in News from Nowhere or The Dispossessed.

Some Individualist anarchists are vocal opponents of all or some forms of democracy. Benjamin Tucker said, "Rule is the evil, and it is none the better for being majority rule....What is the ballot? It is neither more nor less than a paper representative of the bayonet, the billy, and the bullet. It is a labor saving device for ascertaining on which side force lies and bowing to the inevitable. The voice of the majority saves bloodshed, but it is no less the arbitrament of force than is the decree of the most absolute of despots backed by the most powerful of armies."[6] Pierre-Joseph Proudhon says, "Democracy is nothing but the Tyranny of Majorities (see tyranny of the majority), the most abominable tyranny of all, for it is not based on the authority of a religion, not upon the nobility of a race, not on the merits of talents and of riches. It merely rests upon numbers and hides behind the name of the people."[7] According to Robert Graham, "in General Idea of the Revolution Proudhon ostensibly rejects both unanimous and majoritarian direct democracy. Read more closely, however, his criticisms can be confined to national forms of direct democracy designed to replace representative government but which will effectively perform the same political functions." He says, that for Proudhon a "person is only obligated to do that which he has freely undertaken to do" and therefore, the "only form of direct democracy compatible with this conception of obligation is one in which it is recognized that a minority which has refused to consent to a majority decision has assumed no obligation to abide by it. Majority decisions are not binding on the minority. Any agreement to the contrary would itself be invalid because it would require the minority to forfeit its autonomy and substantive freedom."[8] Central to Proudhon’s notion of contract is the idea of self-assumed obligation. Hence, Proudhon's opposition to Rousseau's social contract. He says, "What really is the Social Contract? An agreement of the citizen with the government? No, that would mean but the continuation of [Rousseau’s] idea...The social contract is an agreement of man with man...by which man and man declare themselves essentially producers, and abdicate all pretension to govern each other."[9]

Some far right and monarchist groups also oppose various forms of democracy

Answer 2

Who teaches you this very silly notions not only about our President, but about the Anti-Christ? Let me help you out with some basic facts: 1. The American Socialist Party has denounced Obama as a "free-market centrist". So if THEY say that, what are you going to do--teach the American socialist party what a socialist is? 2. The so-called Anti-Christ has been readily identified by Biblical scholars (not preachers---SCHOLARS) as the Emperor of Rome---I mean, really, who else "usurps the power of God" and also lives in a city with 7 hills? Have you been to Rome? How many hills? Exactly---7. So my point is that your understanding of both socialism and the Anti Christ is based on nothing factual---it sounds to me, if you don't mind me saying---more like right-wing hysteria and fear. Don't let fools poison your mind. Make up your own mind by studying the facts at hand.

Answer 3

No - Bush has forced world opinion into accepting him. And let's not forget that it was Lebanon that started the war, not Israel. The Israelites were defending themselves. And if there was a cease fire it would only be on one side. Hezbollah would keep firing rockets - is that right? I don't think so. It would be like Mexico firing rockets on the US, and the US retaliating - and then deciding to cease fire while Mexico continues to fire rockets.

Answer 4

You almost buried your liberalism... almost but not quite.
The US has NEVER dictated the worlds behavior only liberals and leftist believe that. But then I guess defend oneself is percieved by some to be dictating... No I don't think the president is bowing to world opinion, he's at least trying something different. All the dems have been screaming to do the same things that haven't worked before... just because it *looks* like they're doing something.

Answer 5

No. But he is being forced to take orders from the NEW WORLD ORDER.

However, if he is truly a man of faith he can supersede all that by our prayers and by courage on his part.

(If he really is a Christian like he says he also needs to read the Bible to see what it has to say about Israel. A modern version like The New Living Translation would help.Then he needs to pass the word to his official diplomat to the Middle East.)

Answer 6

USA doesnt dictate anything but being 1 of the superpower is having the responsibilty not to jump the gun, "International Forces" that are assembling is not just made up of US , There are many allies among the world that wish freakish terrorist extremists are disarmed, even President of Iran is nuts he just outlawed words like pizzas.......

Answer 7

Of course Bush is bowing to world opinion. The United Nations was created by world leaders for the sake of peace in the world. How do you think it looks to other world leaders, when we condone, even advocate, Isreal's bombing of civilians in Lebanon. Up till George Bush's administration, we were viewed in the world as a super power. Not any more. George Bush only got the UN involved when he wanted to go to war with Iraq because he had to. Instead of waiting for the UN investigating commision to look for WMD, Bush rushed in to war, against the UN's wishes to wait & see if WMD could be found, he inilaterally pushed for war, telling Congress we had to act NOW to protect American citizens from the mushroom cloud that was sure to come. Guess what? No WMD. Bad intel. (Had to oust a CIA operative to pay her husband back for saying so), Once again, Bad intel. How do you think this makes us look to other world leaders? Do you think they trust Bush's type of Govt? A Govt he has created with help from his conservative base (who incidently control both houses of Congress). He told Congress only what he had to, to get their approval to go to war. Now we know the intel was wrong (or fixed?) to cop a plea for war.

Are we still a super power to others? My answer is no. The world no longer views us as a super power. How can we be viewed as a super power by others in the world, when we ignore the world laws that we helped to create? The Geneva Convention--only a scrap of paper to Bush-torture was ok with him, until McCain tried to save Bush by creating a bill saying it was unlawful to torture others. And hey, we weren't torturing them anyway, right? Of course we already knew that--thru the Geneva Convention. But we passed a bill into law anyway. To make it look good. Oh yeah, did I mention the secret prisons, where we weren't torturing anyone? The Supreme Court sided with the UN there too. Now all we have to do is create another law in Congress, so that we can continue to hold detainees as long as we want. The world hates us, they want to kill us, and will, so long as we invade their part of the world for the sake of democracy. Sadly, we have already lost the war on global terror. We are like a pup with their tail between their legs. We are penniless, we owe almost every country in the world money, courtesy of Bush's global war on terror. The next two generations (and more), will pay this debt, billions of dollars in interest alone. We may never see another surplus in our economy. Not in our lifetime, anyway. Maybe not in our childrens lifetime. Our economy is belly-up (no matter what Bush says), and when it crashes, our democracy and way of life, will crash with it. Maybe it is past time for change. How will we ever protect our shores then? Bush has already tried to outsource US control, not once but twice, to foreign countries. Scarey thought, isn't it? But whatever we do, let's not control our borders. Why? It's good for the economy--don't you listen to the news?

Answer 8

I would not say that at all. The war will drag on for a while longer
it appears Hezbolla is cracking.

Answer 9

He hasn't done that in 6 years - I sure hope he doesn't start now!!

Answer 10

Wanna bet?

Answer 11

i seriously doubt that..since the world does not share his views...