Why don't the American people take over their government?

Question

There's no question that their government (republicans or democrats) are a bunch of liars who don't care what their countrymen want. They don't care that the American people don't want the Iraq War. They don't care that American soldiers are being killed in the name of oil. They don't care about the welfare of sovereign countries including allied nations.

I know you Americans are still celebrating Christmas but I don't care if your guzzling down your turkey and watching some football game. Football game on Christmas?! What a joke!!!

ok maybe a football game on Christmas isn't so bad. it may distract people from the overwhelming materialism of christmas and afterall who am i to criticize when i like American football myself!!

BiCUBIC: How does the system still work exactly? George W. Bush still in power despite the fact that the Democrats got re-elected? Doesn't sound like it works to me. It's pretty much like democratic dictatorship!

rockandroll58-79: Voting occurs in most countries. How can the United States be the greatest country on the planet? If that is true than Australia must have been arbitrarily removed from the nomination process!

At least we have a prime minister and not some idiot that make war whenever he wants to!!!

Answer 1

“We’re not winning but we’re not losing!”




Few weeks ago, in response to a question about Iraq, George Bush said: “Absolutely yes, we are winning!”

Two days ago, in response to a question about Iraq, George Bush said: “We’re not winning but we’re not losing!”

The president that does not change his opinion is changing his opinion. He can, with respect to Iraq, retreat from the decisive clarity to ambiguity and confusion. It so happened that, in the time period separating the two answers, Bush, for sure, lost in…the United States.

“We’re not winning but we’re not losing!” is the headline of the present moment in the American Policy towards Iraq, a characterization expressing the onset of the feeling of the quandary, even though he accompanied that [statement] with an obstinacy that rejects the acknowledgment.

But the problem is that the situation is deteriorating. It is not feasible that the President was not briefed on the official reports speaking about approximately one hundred and fifty daily military attack operations in Iraq, most of which are against the American forces, although the most bloody ones are against Iraqis.

If we assumed that the President read the Baker-Hamilton Report, then the conclusion, that he passed over the lines stating that the calculation method of the number of operations is not accurate because it does not record all what happens, would be due to us.

The report cited an example about a day during which less than one hundred operations were reported to have been carried out, while the truth is, more than one thousand operations were carried out [during that same day].

With simple arithmetic, and building on comparisons with previous reports, it is possible to say that a military operation is carried out in Iraq every minute or two and that the pattern is to increase.

“We’re not winning but we’re not losing!” is a strategy at which steadfastness is difficult. Clearly Bush wants the application of rotting breaks to curtail the deterioration. He requests supplementary budgets to go around the Congress. He is inclined toward the proposal of increasing the fighting forces in Baghdad contrary to opinions of field commanders whose assessments he previously vowed to respect. These remedies are no longer sufficient and weeks will not pass before the white house is forced to make up its mind. It is axiomatic to point out that Bush had been trusting that he will win in Iraq. And what is worse than that is that he built a regional and an international strategy [based] on that hypothesis.

Yes, he established a tight linkage between Iraq and all the crises of the region, not only that, but also between winning in Iraq and the restructuring the “Big Middle East,” and more than that, between the “Aspired for Iraqi Model” and Americas position at the heart of the international relations. Bush imagined a hypothetical Iraq that enabled him to restructure Iran, Syria, Saudi, Egypt, the Palestinian Issue, Lebanon and the Islamic World…He built a high rise building whose strong foundation is the winning in Iraq.

During this Ideological euphoria, Bush made political and diplomatic decisions that were transformed into tangible actions towards adversaries. And when he partially adjusted by moving from the duality of Democracy-Dictatorship to the priority of the new duality of Moderation-Terrorism, he tried to maintain, where possible, as in Lebanon, elements of the first equation.

But the policies that were being pursued, and, to a large extent, are still being pursued, become futile if “We are not absolutely winning in Iraq.” Not only that, but [these policies] could come back to haunt those who pursue them and increase the predicaments facing them.

The Baker-Hamilton Report came to touch this point specifically. It states that the policy that ought to be followed regionally, if we were not winning in Iraq, can not be the same policy that we follow as if we were winning in Iraq. Thus, instead of Baghdad being a starting point for change in Tehran, Damascus, Riyadh, Cairo, Ramallah and Jerusalem, these capitals are now invited, to each play its role, for to help in changing the American policy in Iraq, and secure a graceful exit for it.

It is not a secret that the Baker-Hamilton Report rests on an introduction that conclusively resolved that the American victory in Iraq is out of reach. Broad American elite agrees with this evaluation which seems to be convincing even to even circles in the Republican Party. The report issued few days ago by the “International Crisis Group” takes the same approach, even though it calls for more fundamental remedies whether in Iraq or the dealings with the whole regional milieu.

If “We are winning in Iraq” could lead to a particular regional policy (complete restructuring [of the region]). And if “We are loosing in Iraq” could lead to another regional policy (The search for stability through settlements). But the question being raised today with persistence is about the regional policy if “We’re not winning but we’re not losing!”

The current [Bush] administration has no clear answer. More than that, the implemented answer and that remains most probable is: We are continuing in our regional policy regardless whether we are winning or loosing. This answer has

no dividend except aggravation of the crises. And this is what we are seeing, with decisive clarity, these days in Lebanon and Palestine.

In front of this dilemma, the [Bush] administration is receiving support from American right-wing circles, known for putting Israel in the central position of the United States policy in the region. This support stands on the formulation of a new theory the essence of which is that there is no latitude for any linkage of any kind between what is happening in Iraq and other regional issues.

What is the relationship between Al Anbar and Darfur for example? These circles ask. These circles may be partially correct in this example; except that they go on to claim that the “Domino Theory” is fundamentally false because there is no relationship between Iraq and Palestine, neither between Iraq and Syria or Iran!!! “National disasters do not transform to regional disasters” (Robert Satloff). Therefore, [according to this theory], the Baker-Hamilton committee’s “sages” are, in truth, imbeciles who are ignoring the last quarter century that confirmed the “Strength of the National State!” and abolished any border crossing!

These are the same circles that provided the theoretical foundation for the complete change originating from Baghdad the guidepost! That was during the days of marketing the war and wagering on its outcomes. But today, their tendency is to avoid bearing the responsibility of the ultimate results after the failure of the initial stages.

What these circles reject is not the linkage between the region’s crises (The positive domino from their perspective) but the proposed new orientation for this linkage (The negative domino from the same perspective).

The Lebanese Authority tied it dynamism with the confident “Absolutely, we are winning!” Bush. What is to be done (As Ziad el Rahbani asks) now that Bush moved the stage of “We’re not winning but we’re not losing!”? And what is to be done, really this time, if Bush is loosing?

Answer 2

They just might do that. But it will be a quiet revolution, call it an election. In Canada in 2004 the Canadians voted out the liberals mainly because of their lying and stealing of millions of dollars from the Canadian taxpayers. Money was given to false sources and funnelled through secret accounts and sent back to fund the liberal party. When the Canadian people understood what was happening they took action the democratic way and at the next election voted in a new government. People in general don't like to be deceived or used regardless of their nationality. But sometimes it takes awhile for the actions of their government to be realized by the majority of the voting population. Eventually, whatever the truth is all of the details of the Iraq war will come out to be public knowledge and the citizens of the United Stated will have to make their own decisions from there.What ever the outcome we will all have to live on with the the results and try to mend relationships between countries. The most action from the American People is a election,investigation and possibly a war crimes trial for top government officials.

Answer 3

The Smith Act of 1940 made it a criminal offense for anyone to knowingly or willfully advocate, abet, advise, or teach the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing the Government of the United States or of any State by force or violence, or for anyone to organize any association which teaches, advises, or encourages such an overthrow, or for anyone to become a member of or to affiliate with any such association.

Also, revolutionaries could easily be confused with terrorists in this new millennia.

"Love it or leave it" aren't the only options. Infact they aren't options at all, since the global reach of the US empire will affect you nearly anywhere you live. Even if you leave, you won't leave the US influence behind.

We don't need to take it over, don't need to leave it, just need to change it a little.

Additionally, the U.S. isn't a democracy, nor is it a dictatorship, it's a republic that practices democracy. The countrymen don't lay down the law, they elect a few that do it for them. Though I disagree that "the system is working" as somebody else said, I do appreciate this country and political system that has provided more happiness than most.

Though the threat of revolution should hang over the heads of our politicians, they have become much more well equipped by creating a police state and they know this. It would be a massacre of americans killing americans, without thinking. We've gone too long without a revolution already - we're too far gone. We have to think of other solutions to our problems and create change.

Answer 4

a brilliant form of human beings blame our governments, and somewhat have hatred of their hearts for our leaders at circumstances, yet this basically shows how dumbed down we've all grow to be, it somewhat is basically like killing the messenger. that is not our governments who's the muse clarification for peoples anger around the globe, as we've distinctive governments and heads in international locations around the globe, yet that is not basically one us of a have been the individuals are aggressive against their ruling bodies that is international extensive, So we could look someplace else for the reason; the element we stumble on this is the catalyst for all peoples issues around the entire international is the Banking cartel, and as we've considered some sturdy human beings have recognized this threat and tried to shelter it and payed with their lives. So till the individuals awaken to the Banking Perils we can lose each and every thing.

Answer 5

guess what this is the best country in the world. I dont care what country or what politicians are liars. We elect the best liar bar none. But even liars have a tendency to tell the truth at times. The main time they lie is election time, normally while in office they do what they feel and say. unless like hilliary they plan on running the next year. So what country do you live in? We should know since apparently you have all the answers and yours is flawless

Answer 6

The American people do what is called VOTING, not out
there trying to overthrow the government like some 3rd World Country. Voting is what makes this country the greatest on the face of this planet.

Answer 7

Because we Americans are asleep at the wheel, and the politicians know it. They are propaganda experts running this country and never tell us the truth about what they are secretly doing to our country behind our backs. They are going to keep us asleep until they get all their crooked ways made into societal law then.......... guess who will be crying when its too late.
Below is a good website to read about some of the scary and outrageous stuff going on in our land currently. America had better WAKE UP !!

Answer 8

G W Bush will be gone come next election. We will elect the next corrupt politician. We are proud of our governments moronic ways. We have the money and lifestyle we want. The rest of the world doesn't care about our welfare , so we will enjoy our life.

Answer 9

Football ..did someone say football !!! yeah yeah...
I love this country!
oh by the way..this isn't the 60's..answer to your question..and i am glad there is football on today.
Americans have to start worrying about themselves,because every time we try and help another country out,we get criticized for it..and shot at also.

Answer 10

Americans are not all evil. But they aren't very bright. They tend to worship capitalism and value quick gains over long-term stability of the planet. That's why they don't oppose their government,

Answer 11

They do it every election- its called Democracy. In 2004 Mr Bush won the re-election bid because most Americans supported his policies. In 2006 the other party won mainly in the lines of getting out of Iraq. The system works buddy.