 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
History Forum / General / British History / July 2008Israel Has A Year To Stop Iran Bomb, Warns Ex-Spy
Stand by for heavy rolls. DSH Lux et Veritas et Libertas --------------------------------------------- Israel has a year to stop Iran bomb, warns ex-spy By Carolynne Wheeler in Tel Aviv and Tim Shipman in Washington Last updated: 10:42 PM BST 28/06/2008 The Telegraph A former head of Mossad has warned that Israel has 12 months in which to destroy Iran's nuclear programme or risk coming under nuclear attack itself. He also hinted that Israel might have to act sooner if Barack Obama wins the US presidential election. Shabtai Shavit, an influential adviser to the Israeli parliament's defence and foreign affairs committee, told The Sunday Telegraph that time was running out to prevent Iran's leaders getting the bomb. Mr Shavit, who retired from the Israeli intelligence agency in 1996, warned that he had no doubt Iran intended to use a nuclear weapon once it had the capability, and that Israel must conduct itself accordingly. "The time that is left to be ready is getting shorter all the time," he said in an interview. Mr Shavit, 69, who was deputy director of Mossad when Israel bombed the Osirak nuclear facility in Iraq in 1981, added: "As an intelligence officer working with the worst-case scenario, I can tell you we should be prepared. We should do whatever necessary on the defensive side, on the offensive side, on the public opinion side for the West, in case sanctions don't work. What's left is a military action." The "worst-case scenario, he said, is that Iran may have a nuclear weapon within "somewhere around a year". As speculation grew that Israel was contemplating its own air strikes, Iran's military said it might hit the Jewish state with missiles and stop Gulf oil exports if it came under attack. Israel "is completely within the range of the Islamic republic's missiles," said Mohammed Ali Jafari, head of the feared Revolutionary Guard. "Our missile power and capability are such that the Zionist regime cannot confront it." More than 40 per cent of all globally traded oil passes through the 35-mile-wide Strait of Hormuz, putting tankers entering or leaving the Gulf at risk from Iranian mines, rockets and artillery, and Mr Jafari's comments were the clearest signal yet that Iran intends to use this leverage in the nuclear dispute. Despite offering incentives, the West has failed to persuade Iran to stop enriching uranium. Israeli officials believe the diplomatic process is useless and have been pressing President Bush to launch air strikes before he leaves office on January 20 next year. They apparently fear that the chances of winning American approval for an air attack will be drastically reduced if the Democratic nominee wins the election. Mr Obama advocates talks with the regime in Tehran rather than military action. That view was echoed by Mr Shavit, who said: "If [Republican candidate John] McCain gets elected, he could really easily make a decision to go for it. If it's Obama: no. My prediction is that he won't go for it, at least not in his first term in the White House." He warned that while it would be preferable to have American support and participation in a strike on Iran, Israel will not be afraid to go it alone. "When it comes to decisions that have to do with our national security and our own survival, at best we may update the Americans that we are intending or planning or going to do something. It's not a precondition, [getting] an American agreement," he said. This is the same scam as in 2003 that the U.S. had a year to stop Iraq nuclear bomb. The U.S. and the spy systems often do not have credibility and ability to spy. Examples: In the 1960s, Op Plan 34 A repeatly dropped South Vietnamese commandos and supplies without knowing that DRV captured all of them and asked for more drops for sophisticated communication gears and medicine. The Gulf of Tonkin attack of the USS Maddox. The Son Tay prison raid. The Olympic bombing in Atlanta. The anthrax case against Steve Hatfill. The Iraq WMD. For the Middle East, Valery Plame, Richard Clarke, and Scott Ritter are more reliable than the government. > Stand by for heavy rolls. > [quoted text clipped - 73 lines] > or planning or going to do something. It's not a precondition, [getting] an > American agreement," he said. This is a fundamental problem with the USA. Their inability to have Philby/McLean/Blunt equivalents in contentious parts of the world. That all parts of the world are clamouring for "democracy" is another of their erroneous mindsets. > This is the same scam as in 2003 that the > U.S. had a year to stop Iraq [quoted text clipped - 139 lines] >> not a precondition, [getting] an >> American agreement," he said. > This is a fundamental problem with the USA. > Their inability to have Philby/McLean/Blunt [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > for "democracy" is another of their erroneous > mindsets. At federal level, US "democracy" is a hollow democracy. The system allows two corrupt parties to take turn to run the country. Each party is controlled by lobbyists so the interests of people are frequently ignored. Nations that can influence U.S. Congress through their lobbying power control U.S. foreign policy and the decision to go to war. Because of foreign lobbies the U.S. government would go to a mutual destruction nuclear war or impoverishment of its people for a foreign nation. Congress and government took money from working Americans then give them to nations that have influence on Congress, it robbed everyone to pay the foreigners. This is a type of American democracy that the world don't like. At state and city levels "democracy" is much better than the federal level. > > This is the same scam as in 2003 that the > > U.S. had a year to stop Iraq [quoted text clipped - 139 lines] > >> not a precondition, [getting] an > >> American agreement," he said. The recent activities of president candidates of both parties showed that the U.S. is juts short of being a colony where soldiers must fight and die for foreign mother land, the same way that people in common wealth nations fought for UK during World War II. During the past wars (WW I, WW II, Korean, and Vietnam wars) U.S. presidential candidates never had to justify their view points to any groups that lobbied for a nation before the election. All of them never had to present their commitments at any organizations promoting interests for French Americans, Korean Americans, or Vietnamese Americans during these wars. And Prime Ministers or Presidents of France, South Korea, South Vietnam never flew to Washington DC to attend the visits of U.S. presidential candidates to these foreign lobbying organizations. But that was what happened at the recent AIPAC meeting when U.S. presidential candidates pledge their commitment to Israel in front of Israel Prime Minister. And past U.S. presidential candidates did not have to travel to the foreign lands France, England, South Vietnam before election. Today both McCain and Obama mist travel to Iraq. All American president today must act like members of foreign government and work for foreign interests to be elected. They betrayed their own people for the interests of foreigners. The U.S. is celebrating the 4th July but the independence day is a hollow one, because the U.S. is not an independent nation. It is just a colony of another nation. > On Jun 29, 4:55 pm, "Peter Jason" <p...@jostle.com> wrote:> This is a fundamental problem with the USA. > > Their inability to have Philby/McLean/Blunt [quoted text clipped - 166 lines] > > >> not a precondition, [getting] an > > >> American agreement," he said. > The recent activities of president candidates of both parties showed > because the U.S. is not an independent nation. It is just a colony of > another nation. Which one?  SignatureWilliam Black I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach Time for tea. "William Black" <william.black@hotmail.co.uk > The recent activities of president candidates of both parties showed > because the U.S. is not an independent nation. >It is just a colony of another nation. > Which one? > William Black "We are All Members of Likud Now." http://www.counterpunch.org/sunderland0510.html > "William Black" <william.black@hotmail.co.uk > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > "We are All Members of Likud Now." > http://www.counterpunch.org/sunderland0510.html Ah. So you're mad. I thought as much... SignatureWilliam Black I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach Time for tea. http://www.brasschecktv.com/index.php?call=category&id=23 >>"William Black" <william.black@hotmail.co.uk >> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > I thought as much... It's a sad state of our democracy that only the Israeli opposition, and the Iraqi insurgents can stop the neocons' insanity. >>>"William Black" <william.black@hotmail.co.uk >>> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >It's a sad state of our democracy that only the Israeli opposition, and >the Iraqi insurgents can stop the neocons' insanity. I bet you don't even know what a neocon is, just think it sounds disparaging so you use it. Signature"Everything in excess! To enjoy the flavor of life, take big bites. Moderation is for monks." Yep... He's all of 16. DSH >>>>"William Black" <william.black@hotmail.co.uk >>>> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > I bet you don't even know what a neocon is, just think it sounds > disparaging so you use it. > Yep... > [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > "Everything in excess! To enjoy the flavor of life, take big bites. > > Moderation is for monks." ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Higher in the thread, Tiglath stated that the U.S. would exercise an overwhelming retaliation against any nation that uses nukes against Israel. Is there an official treaty behind this remark ? What if Israel makes a nuclear strike first ? The problem with a Jewish first strike is that it makes future diplomacy with several other Middle East states more difficult if not impossible. If the US has been drawn into a treaty that locks us into retaliation if Israel is the first to strike, then the treaty should be revisited by the next president in order to give us more wiggle room. I don't think either France or Israel should react preemptively until there is a smoking gun, an actual Iranian atom bomb test. David H ~~~~~~~~~~~ > I don't think either France or Israel should react preemptively until > there is > a smoking gun, an actual Iranian atom bomb test. I don't think that they'll test one. If they stick to the Chinese 1965 bomb design that was given to the Pakistanis, the bomb design is already tested and it's military characteristics are known. That means that all they have to do is to build them and then scrap and replace them when their shelf life is exceeded. My guess is that they're never, ever gonna openly test. And there's no way to prove or disprove whether they've got a weapon or not unless you've got eyes on the ground, and that's not going to happen, because attacking Iran is going to bring in China and Russia since it's a SCO ally. The world's starting to strongly resemble Europe in 1913, and all you need is for some Austro-Hungarian dope to go picking on some small power with big power connections and it'll be Katie Bar The Door, because all hell's gonna break loose. In this particular game, the only way to win is to not play. "Implications leading to ramifications leading to shenanigans"-- Admiral Elmo Zumwalt, USN. "Within the Orthodox, govern the state. Within the unorthodox, employ the army." Lao Tsu. > On Sat, 05 Jul 2008 05:25:01 -0700, Singanas@Texasgulfcoast > [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > "Within the Orthodox, govern the state. Within the unorthodox, employ the > army." Lao Tsu. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ What is the SCO ? You infer that it is a mutual defense pact. ~~~~~~~~~ On Jul 6, 6:21 am, "Singanas@Texasgulfcoast" <davidholi...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > On Sat, 05 Jul 2008 05:25:01 -0700, Singanas@Texasgulfcoast > [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > What is the SCO ? You infer that it is a mutual defense pact. > ~~~~~~~~~ http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/int/sco.htm Oh yes, China and Russia will come together to mutually defend Iran. http://02varvara.wordpress.com/2008/07/02/the-growing-authority-of-the-sco/ Iran has observer status along with Mongolia, India and Pakistan. No friends for anybody in that group. > On Jul 6, 6:21 am, "Singanas@Texasgulfcoast" <davidholi...@yahoo.com> > wrote: > http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/int/sco.htm > > Oh yes, China and Russia will come together to mutually defend Iran. China and Russia always saw military actions in the world the threats to their security, especially when the U.S. followed the footsteps of the Nazis using false reasons to invade one nation after another nation. In the past they stepped in to arm the Vietcong with AK 47 automatic rifles and in 1965 after LBJ sent Marines to S. Vietnam. After the bogus Tonkin Gulf incident which the U.S. bombed N. Vietnam, China and Russia sent jet fighters, SAM missiles, and volunteer pilots to help DRV. Today with their growing dependence on in oil, Russia and China may end up helping Iran the same way they helped the rag tag army of Vietcongs to expel the U.S. out of Vietnam in the past. If the Russians and Chinese supplied Islamic groups with their weapons, Islam suicidal warriors would be even more dangerous than the Vietcong. The U.S. economy today is on the verse of collapse so the involvement of Russia or China to Islamic guerrillas will put the final execution bullet to the head of America. The Middle East people had been fighting among themselves for over 2000 years so the U.S. would not be able to stop their 3000 year war. Actually the U.S. cannot even survive another 10 years of war. If Iran bombed the oil fields, the U.S. would enter a great depression as early as 2010. Half of the population would be at soup kitchens or garbage dumps for foods. And American people may start a revolution like the French revolution. > http://02varvara.wordpress.com/2008/07/02/the-growing-authority-of-th... > > Iran has observer status along with Mongolia, India and Pakistan. No > friends for anybody in that group. > On Jul 6, 5:38 am, Jack Linthicum <jacklinthi...@earthlink.net> wrote:> On Jul 6, 6:21 am, "Singanas@Texasgulfcoast" <davidholi...@yahoo.com> > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > Iran has observer status along with Mongolia, India and Pakistan. No > > friends for anybody in that group. Tell your floor attendant to increase your meds. If he/she questions why show them the above. Americans' Unhappy Birthday: 'Too Much Wrong' Red, white and mostly blue: Americans mark unhappy birthday, with 'too much wrong right now' By PAULINE ARRILLAGA AP National Writer July 5, 2008 (AP) The Associated Press http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=5314608 > On Jul 6, 5:38 am, Jack Linthicum <jacklinthi...@earthlink.net> wrote:> On Jul 6, 6:21 am, "Singanas@Texasgulfcoast" <davidholi...@yahoo.com> > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > involvement of Russia or China to Islamic guerrillas will put the > fin <cut> But then talk turns to the state of the Union, and the Optimists become decidedly bleak. They use words such as "terrified," "disgusted" and "scary" to describe what one calls "this mess" we Americans find ourselves in. Then comes the list of problems constituting the mess: a protracted war, $4-a-gallon gas, soaring food prices, uncertainty about jobs, an erratic stock market, a tougher housing market, and so on and so forth. One member's son is serving his second tour in Iraq. Another speaks of a daughter who's lost her job in the mortgage industry and a son in construction whose salary was slashed. Still another mentions a friend who can barely afford gas. Joanne Kontak, 60, an elementary school lunch aide inducted just this day as an Optimist, sums things up like this: "There's just entirely too much wrong right now." Happy birthday, America? This year, we're not so sure. The nation's psyche is battered and bruised, the sense of pessimism palpable. Young or old, Republican or Democrat, economically stable or struggling, Americans are questioning where they are and where they are going. And they wonder who or what might ride to their rescue. These are more than mere gripes, but rather an expression of fears — concerns reflected not only in the many recent polls that show consumer confidence plummeting, personal happiness waning and more folks worrying that the country is headed in the wrong direction, but also in conversations happening all across the land. "There are so many things you have to do to survive now," says Larue Lawson of Forest Park, Ill. "It used to be just clothes on your back, food on the table and a roof over your head. Now, it's everything. <cut> al execution bullet to the head of America. > The Middle East people had been fighting among themselves for over > 2000 years so the U.S. would not be able to stop their 3000 year war. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Iran has observer status along with Mongolia, India and Pakistan. No > > friends for anybody in that group. >> What is the SCO ? You infer that it is a mutual defense pact. >> ~~~~~~~~~ > > http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/int/sco.htm > > Oh yes, China and Russia will come together to mutually defend Iran. Or at least do the Spanish thing and provide troops and equipment that operate under Iranian colors of convenience. The Chinese are giving them the same sort of favorite son status that they give Pakistan. > http://02varvara.wordpress.com/2008/07/02/the-growing-authority-of-the-sco/ > > Iran has observer status along with Mongolia, India and Pakistan. No > friends for anybody in that group. Maybe not. The current set up still makes it inadvisable to invade Iran. We know what the public agreements are, but there are probably secret agreements as well. From our perspective, I don't think that the risk is worth the gain for us. Signature"Implications leading to ramifications leading to shenanigans"-- Admiral Elmo Zumwalt, USN. "Within the Orthodox, govern the state. Within the unorthodox, employ the army." Lao Tsu. >>> What is the SCO ? You infer that it is a mutual defense pact. >>> ~~~~~~~~~ [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > that operate under Iranian colors of convenience. The Chinese are giving > them the same sort of favorite son status that they give Pakistan. That'll be the same Pakistan that can't control it's own Islamic nutters, you know, the ones they have trained and sponsored and are now busy blowing up their capital city... China has a delicacy of touch in its foreign policy that matches the USA, only without the ability to pay people off when it all goes terribly horribly wrong, as it always does... SignatureWilliam Black I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach Time for tea. > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > What is the SCO ? You infer that it is a mutual defense pact. Shanghai Cooperative Organization. It is a mutual defense pact, and also an economic cooperation organization. It was formed to provide a counter balance to the United States. "Implications leading to ramifications leading to shenanigans"-- Admiral Elmo Zumwalt, USN. "Within the Orthodox, govern the state. Within the unorthodox, employ the army." Lao Tsu. When will the U.K. be joining up? DSH >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> What is the SCO ? You infer that it is a mutual defense pact. > > Shanghai Cooperative Organization. It is a mutual defense pact, > and also an economic cooperation organization. It was formed to provide > a counter balance to the United States. > When will the U.K. be joining up? Depends on how long Gordie Brown stays in office. "Implications leading to ramifications leading to shenanigans"-- Admiral Elmo Zumwalt, USN. "Within the Orthodox, govern the state. Within the unorthodox, employ the army." Lao Tsu. > On Sat, 05 Jul 2008 05:25:01 -0700, Singanas@Texasgulfcoast > [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > "Within the Orthodox, govern the state. Within the unorthodox, employ the > army." Lao Tsu. if they aren't gonna test it, if they aren't gonna use it on you, why such a big fuss about nuclear Iran? We can still do business with Iran, they have oil they need to sell, the west has stuff they west wants to sell. So just sell it and buy from them, everybody is happy. Iran is crazy, Iran wants to do this, Iran wants to do that, blah blah blah, right, fact of matter is Iran hasn't been willingly a participant of a armed conflict ever since the revolution while the US, on the other hand, has been involved in 6 wars during the same period against 5 different countries. But somehow Iran became the threat to world peace? > > On Sat, 05 Jul 2008 05:25:01 -0700, Singanas@Texasgulfcoast > [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > period against 5 different countries. But somehow Iran became the > threat to world peace? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Fast Noodles, Doing "business with Iran" is dandy when they are dealing conventional arms to deserving Islamist militants. But don't you know that nuclear weapons create mass destruction and thus cannot be possessed by many smaller nations with unpredictable central authorities ? We don't want the bigger nations to be set up by the assassination of one or more Archduke Ferdinands of the 21C. David H ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > if they aren't gonna test it, if they aren't gonna use it on you, why > such a big fuss about nuclear Iran? We can still do business with [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > period against 5 different countries. But somehow Iran became the > threat to world peace? I think that there are other things in play. First off, Iran has been threatening Israel a lot. The Israelis can't take out Iran. They're too big, too bloody minded and too capable once you take size into account. So, the Israelis want us to do it. They're banking on two things. First off in some elections in certain states like New York, the Jewish vote represents a cohesive voting block and failure to genuflect to Tel Aviv can get you a loss in an election. Secondly, they know that emerging countries with nukes is the red flag in Washington. So Israel whispers nukes and our politicians react accordingly. Down here it's called "The tail wagging the dog." Furthermore, Bush II is an alleged Born Again Christian, and some of them have parsed this oddball idea out of the Bible that there is a religious obligation to carry Israel's water for it. Whether he actually believes that or whether it's election year posturing is anybody's guess. I'm a Christian and I'm pretty well versed in the Bible, and I don't recall seeing any passage saying that we're supposed to subordinate our national security to Tel Aviv. And I've looked hard and haven't found it and nobody I know who has made the claim, has been able to show me that passage either. So when some alleged Christian starts waving that particular flag, I put it squarely in the Bullshit column. IMHO, Israel is strictly God's problem and we're better off looking to our own interests. (Too many people, Christian, Jewish and Moslem, all figure that they can lead God around by the nose anyway. Look at all three and you'll find significant minorities in all of em who want to base national policy on a perception of religious eschatology. That's crazy, wanting to bring about the end of the world, but every group of people have people who want to bring about the end of everything and religious communities aren't any exception to that.) Now post Iraq, that nuclear claim is increasingly a dog that won't hunt. More to the point, Israel's manipulative behavior leaves a really sour taste and situations like the Pollard Affair, their industrial espionage and thefts, and their transfer of sensitive technology to China, is convincing some of us that they're really in SCO's corner and not ours. To put it bluntly, many of our enemies treat us better than this alleged friend does. So, from where I sit, Israel can go do whatever they want to to the Iranians and it's perfectly okay with me if the Iranians pound the Israelis to a pulp in another nice long war. And if my congressional delegation tries to vote them so much as one more jet fighter, I'll walk neighborhoods getting people to vote for their opponents and this is an election year. For my money, the best pick for an ally in the region if they're willing is Syria. Bashar Assad is a rational guy and as a general rule, he doesn't go looking for trouble. And I'd rather rent bases from him than rely on the Israelis. In the end, I regard the whole Israel/Iran thing as an internal matter within SCO and that's something in the Sino/Russian sphere of influence and not ours. When the Israelis started handing over our technology to the Chinese and suborning our holders of classified information, they lost whatever right to any consideration they might have had from us. Americans will eventually die in combat because of the tech that the Israelis transferred and of late that includes a variant of their Popeye submarine launched cruise missile, the HARPY, a bunch of electronic warfare stuff, advanced Sidewinder, AIM-120, I2R Mavericks, the electronic suite from the F-16 and the Lavi which eventually was developed into the J-10. I've got a pic somewhere of a J-10 on display with AIM-120s, Pythons and what looks suspiciously like a Shrike missile under it's wing and another that has a half dozen Mavericks mounted. We didn't give the Chinese any of that and the only place they'd have gotten it is from our former "Favorite son", Israel. I'm willing to be that I could service the RHAWs installation on the J-10 from the US Air Force Technical Order without having to contend with any design changes. So when it comes right down to it, given the current correlation of forces, I think that it's prudent to get out of Iraq, I think that it's prudent to cut off Israel from any more technology that might come back and hurt us, I think that we should also cut their economic support since I don't pay taxes to subsidise SCO. If we want to cut a deal with anybody, I'd rather deal with Dr. Assad. I also would be looking forward to seeing how China manages to settle problems between their newest defacto member in Tel Aviv and their major ally in the Persian Gulf, Iran. Either way it's fast ceasing to be any of our business and whatever else happens there, regardless of what Israel wants or does, we need to keep our nose out of it. I firmly believe that there's a war coming, but I don't think that Israel's is ours. They seem to think that rules apply to everybody but them, so since they got themselves into this mess, they're cordially invited to get themselves out of it-- without us. Our big threat on the horizion is China and given our weakness in several areas, I think that it's more prudent to carefully marshal our resources and play a defensive game rather than a forward policy. We can't beat China in a production race and we can't beat em in manpower or in logistics, so the prudent move is to see to our own defense and let the rest of the world take care of itself. If you were to put up the idea of us being the world's policeman to a national plebicite, my guess is that the proposition would lose massively. Signature"Implications leading to ramifications leading to shenanigans"-- Admiral Elmo Zumwalt, USN. "Within the Orthodox, govern the state. Within the unorthodox, employ the army." Lao Tsu. IMHO, Israel is > strictly God's problem and we're better off looking to our own interests. The problem here is international relations.. In the past representative democracies have never gone to war with each other. US foreign policy is based around that fact. The US knows that a representative democracy will not attack them, it also knows that it has, in the past, been attacked by just about every other form of government. So the US backs representative democracies wherever it finds them knowing that what they want is peace and prosperity. It attacks tyrannies because it knows that tyrannies attack the USA. In the Middle East there is a single representative democracy, so the USA is allied to it. It doesn't trust the assortment of degenerate sultans, military monsters and religious loony tunes who run the other countries in the Middle East because, pretty obviously to everyone with a mind, they're not to be trusted. SignatureWilliam Black I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach Time for tea. > IMHO, Israel is >> strictly God's problem and we're better off looking to our own [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > In the past representative democracies have never gone to war with > each other. War of 1812? SignatureJohn Briggs >> IMHO, Israel is >>> strictly God's problem and we're better off looking to our own [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >War of 1812? Canada wasn't, but at the beginning of both BM's one could certainly argue that Germany, France and Britian all were. . Peter Skelton >>> IMHO, Israel is >>>> strictly God's problem and we're better off looking to our own [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Canada wasn't, but at the beginning of both BM's one could > certainly argue that Germany, France and Britian all were. Germany certainly wasn't at the start of BM II Neither Russia nor the Austro-Hungarian Empire were in BM I, and they started it. Democracy in pre BM I Germany is a matter of some debate. The Social Democratic Party was the largest party in the German parliament, but had no part in government. SignatureWilliam Black I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach Time for tea. >>>> IMHO, Israel is >>>>> strictly God's problem and we're better off looking to our own [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >Germany certainly wasn't at the start of BM II That is complete nonsense. The government moved legally every step of the way from election to war, with clear majority support from the public. >Neither Russia nor the Austro-Hungarian Empire were in BM I, and they >started it. What has that got to do with the claim? >Democracy in pre BM I Germany is a matter of some debate. > >The Social Democratic Party was the largest party in the German parliament, >but had no part in government. So? Peter Skelton >>Germany certainly wasn't at the start of BM II >> > That is complete nonsense. The government moved legally every > step of the way from election to war, with clear majority support > from the public. You could say exactly the same about Pakistan and Iran. It doesn't change things. >>Democracy in pre BM I Germany is a matter of some debate. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > So? Having a representative assembly that takes no part in government isn't a representative democracy. SignatureWilliam Black I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach Time for tea. >>> Germany certainly wasn't at the start of BM II >>> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Having a representative assembly that takes no part in government > isn't a representative democracy. Like the US Congress, you mean? SignatureJohn Briggs >>>> Germany certainly wasn't at the start of BM II >>>> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Like the US Congress, you mean? But it does. It gets to approve the candidates for cabinet positions. SignatureWilliam Black I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach Time for tea. >>>Germany certainly wasn't at the start of BM II >>> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >It doesn't change things. Do you mean Pakistan and India? It is not true of Pakistan if you do. >>>Democracy in pre BM I Germany is a matter of some debate. >>> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >Having a representative assembly that takes no part in government isn't a >representative democracy. Having a party in an assembly that takes no part in government is not the same thing as having an assembly that takes no part in government. Peter Skelton > On Mon, 7 Jul 2008 18:38:20 +0100, "William Black" >>Having a representative assembly that takes no part in government isn't a >>representative democracy. > > Having a party in an assembly that takes no part in government is > not the same thing as having an assembly that takes no part in > government. True. But the cabinet was appointed without reference to the assembly. SignatureWilliam Black I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach Time for tea. >> On Mon, 7 Jul 2008 18:38:20 +0100, "William Black" > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >But the cabinet was appointed without reference to the assembly. So that is your test of a representative democracy? That would rule out Canada, the UK, Australia. . . Peter Skelton >>> On Mon, 7 Jul 2008 18:38:20 +0100, "William Black" >>>> Having a representative assembly that takes no part in government isn't a [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Peter Skelton The British Parliament can and does sack government ministers, normally for having a mistress. Since ministers have to be a member of the Commons or Lords the lazy and incompetent ones tend to get caught when they are still a lower rank. Andrew Swallow >>>> On Mon, 7 Jul 2008 18:38:20 +0100, "William Black" >>>>> Having a representative assembly that takes no part in government [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Andrew Swallow Parliament does no such thing.. (In NZ and probably UK and Oz). A conviction for a criminal act with X months/ years prison time possible is necessary before "parliament" can sack an MP The party can "sack" a cabinet minister (Strip them of their cabinet portfolio), but they can't chuck an elected MP out of parliament for any reason (No matter how much they might want to.. Best they can do is try to encourage them to resign their seat in the interests of the party). In NZ they seem to invite the MPs to resign.. If they refuse to resign, the government has a few problems... Very few MPs have been sacked. The best they can do is chuck them out of the party (Unless they have done something the courts convict them for that has a minimum jail sentence of???) If the MP won a seat, they go independent and stay in parliament as an MP (And collect points towards their pension) If they got in on the party vote.. Then they can in theory be chucked out of parliament. Parliament (Being the collection of all sitting members not just one party) doesn't have the power to sack anybody (They can make it so difficult for the person to continue that they resign, but that's not sacking. >>>>> On Mon, 7 Jul 2008 18:38:20 +0100, "William Black" >>>>>> Having a representative assembly that takes no part in government [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > difficult for the person to continue that they resign, but that's not > sacking. Strawman. We were talking about sacking government ministers. Andrew Swallow >>>>> On Mon, 7 Jul 2008 18:38:20 +0100, "William Black" >>>>>> Having a representative assembly that takes no part in government [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > difficult for the person to continue that they resign, but that's not > sacking. That is just not true. The Government (i.e. Prime Minister) has to resign if they lose a Confidence vote. The same applies to individual Ministers (usually a motion to reduce the Minister's salary). SignatureJohn Briggs >>>>>> On Mon, 7 Jul 2008 18:38:20 +0100, "William Black" >>>>>>> Having a representative assembly that takes no part in government [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > they lose a Confidence vote. The same applies to individual Ministers > (usually a motion to reduce the Minister's salary). Well, I can only write about NZ as that's the limit of my knowledge.. But that is not being sacked... Sacked is the same as being fired from the job, given your pink slip.. whatever. Losing a confidence vote doesn't toss a party out of power. It can cause problems, and can force them to go to the people (general election).. But I can't see them being sacked... (Gotr an example?) Not like the Whitlam government in Oz.. that one was sacked (by the governor general, not by parliament) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_constitutional_crisis_of_1975 As for individual cabinet ministers.. As I said above, they can be sacked/ dropped from cabinet (but not from parliament.. where they can continue to take their seats as MPs) >>>>>>> On Mon, 7 Jul 2008 18:38:20 +0100, "William Black" >>>>>>>> Having a representative assembly that takes no part in government [quoted text clipped - 62 lines] > sacked/ dropped from cabinet (but not from parliament.. where they can > continue to take their seats as MPs) Using your definition of sacked - fired, given pink slip. Within a few days of losing a "Motion of No Confidence" in 1979 British Prime Minister James Callaghan was no longer receiving his high pay. No pay = strong evidence of being sacked. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Prime_Ministers_defeated_by_votes_of_no_con fidence> Andrew Swallow > >>>>>> On Mon, 7 Jul 2008 18:38:20 +0100, "William Black" > >>>>>>> Having a representative assembly that takes no part in government [quoted text clipped - 61 lines] > sacked/ dropped from cabinet (but not from parliament.. where they can > continue to take their seats as MPs)- Hide quoted text - As far as I can see cabinet ministers are sacked by the PM Parliament (as in House of Commons etc) has nothing to do with it. John Kane Kingston ON Canada >>>>>>>> On Mon, 7 Jul 2008 18:38:20 +0100, "William Black" >>>>>>>>> Having a representative assembly that takes no part in [quoted text clipped - 71 lines] > > Parliament (as in House of Commons etc) has nothing to do with it. That is the normal procedure, but Parliament can pass a resolution to reduce the Minister's pay - effectively a vote of 'no confidence' in the Minister - which would have that effect. In practice, the Prime Minister would seek to convert that into a vote of confidence in the Government. SignatureJohn Briggs >>>>>>>>> On Mon, 7 Jul 2008 18:38:20 +0100, "William Black" >>>>>>>>>> Having a representative assembly that takes no part in [quoted text clipped - 76 lines] > which would have that effect. In practice, the Prime Minister would seek to > convert that into a vote of confidence in the Government. I suppose that is a difference between the forms observed in London and Ottawa. In Canada, the ministers' salaries are determined by statute and regulations. A motion passed in the House can alter neither. SignatureAndrew Chaplin SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO (If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.) >>>> On Mon, 7 Jul 2008 18:38:20 +0100, "William Black" >>>>> Having a representative assembly that takes no part in government isn't a [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >Commons or Lords the lazy and incompetent ones tend to get caught when >they are still a lower rank. I thought that, in the UK, a minister could resign out of embarassment, be required to resign by the pm, or voted out of the party caucus (could happen, never heard of it happening). Your suggestion demands a reference. Peter Skelton >>>>> On Mon, 7 Jul 2008 18:38:20 +0100, "William Black" >>>>>> Having a representative assembly that takes no part in government isn't [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >>> So that is your test of a representative democracy? That would >>> rule out Canada, the UK, Australia. . . The uprisings in the Canadas in the late 1830s had everything to do with "responsible government" which is another expression of the idea of representative democracy. Having seen the reforms brought forward with the Great Reform Act and fed up with the Chateau Clique and Family Compact, the populace rebelled. When the dust settled (it took until 1848 and involved significant but peaceful obstruction of the Colonial Office's appointees) they had universal manhood suffrage (they would fsck this up with the cynical Wartime Elections Act, 1917, with which they enfranchised the female kin of serving soldiers and disenfranchised pacifists such as the Menonites) and minsterial responsibility to the legislature, i.e. the ministry had to have the confidence of the House before it could go forward with its legislative programme. >>The British Parliament can and does sack government ministers, normally >>for having a mistress. Since ministers have to be a member of the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Your suggestion demands a reference. In the Westminster system, a minister holds a portfolio at the pleasure of the sovereign. In practice, this means for as long as the prime minister can stomach him/her. Expulsion from the caucus would not require a resignation from cabinet. Not even resigning one's seat means that one can no longer remain a minister. However, not being a member of the government's caucus or not sitting in the House makes the job much harder. SignatureAndrew Chaplin SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO (If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.) >>>>> On Mon, 7 Jul 2008 18:38:20 +0100, "William Black" >>>>>> Having a representative assembly that takes no part in government isn't a [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Peter Skelton In Britain 'Votes of No Confidence' are normally directed against the Prime Minister himself. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_of_no_confidence> The threat of one of those is normally sufficient to get a minister fired. There is no rule that says firing somebody has to be simple. The difference between parliament forcing a minister to resign and firing him is a mater of semantics rather than reality. Particularly since if he does not go the pressure will then change to make the prime minister and sovereign fire him. <http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikibooks/en/1/19/UK_Constitution_and_Government.pdf> Andrew Swallow >> On Mon, 7 Jul 2008 18:38:20 +0100, "William Black" > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > But the cabinet was appointed without reference to the assembly. you confude the tame republicans supporting their parties leader with not having any say. congress didn't use its powers against but it had them. and should mccain win he will find things are much different for him than for bush. the democratic party will have veto proof majorities after the next election. right now the dem majority has been to thin to stop bush. >> IMHO, Israel is >>> strictly God's problem and we're better off looking to our own [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > War of 1812? That's the one that always comes up. It is usually argued that in 1812 Great Britain (Is that the 'correct form' for that date?) was not a representative democracy. SignatureWilliam Black I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach Time for tea. >>> IMHO, Israel is >>>> strictly God's problem and we're better off looking to our own [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > It is usually argued that in 1812 Great Britain (Is that the 'correct form' > for that date?) was not a representative democracy. I think that GB as "not a representative democracy" would obtain up to the Great Reform Act of 1832, and that was only a start. SignatureAndrew Chaplin SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO (If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.) Correct... SignatureDSH Lux et Veritas et Libertas Vires et Honor > I think that GB as "not a representative democracy" would obtain up to the > Great Reform Act of 1832, and that was only a start. "D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in message news:%1qck.47 on-parliamentary record: declaration that John Stewart, earl of Carrick, is heir to the throne of Scotland In the name of the holy and indivisible Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Ghost, amen. In the year after the Lord's incarnation 1371, according to the custom and calculation of the Scottish Church, on 27 of the month of March, the most serene prince the lord Robert, by the grace of God illustrious king of Scots, being at Scone at the time of his coronation, the prelates, earls, barons and others from the clergy and people of his realm attending him, after his sacred unction and coronation was solemnly performed, and having made a declaration of the right by which the same most serene prince succeeded and ought to succeed to the lord David [II] king of Scotland, his uncle and predecessor, both by nearness of blood and by a certain declaration by a certain instrument, displayed and also read in the same place, made in the time of the lord Robert [I] king of Scotland of renowned memory, grandfather and predecessor of our lord king himself; also having received the customary homage and fealty from these prelates, earls, barons and others from the clergy and people being in the same place which had long since been customary and appropriate to be performed at the coronation of the king of Scotland; wishing, by the custom and example of the same good King Robert of celebrated memory, his grandfather, to declare his successor and true heir in the same place in the presence of the clergy and people, although it was and is clearly agreed concerning this; from the abundant and unanimous consent and assent of the said prelates, earls, nobles and magnates, he indicated, asserted and recognised, declared and expressed his wish, that when he happens by divine dispensation to depart this life, the lord John [Stewart], his firstborn son, earl of Carrick and steward of Scotland, will be and ought to be his true and legitimate heir, and after his death he shall and ought to succeed him, if God wills it, to the kingdom of Scotland, and he shall sit and ought to sit upon the throne of his kingdom after him. Moreover, this declaration having been made, as above, by the lord our king himself in this way, concerning his aforementioned firstborn and heir, each one of the prelates, earls, nobles, magnates and others being in the same place, by their own voice individually, for himself, his heirs and successors, asserted, affirmed, declared, recognised and wished that the same lord John, surviving and living after the death of his aforementioned father, should, by the grace of divine favour, be in the future the king of Scotland as the legitimate heir of his same father, each promising in good faith, and having raised a hand in sign of the giving of the fealty, that he will regard him as king and the legitimate heir of the same father, and aid and defend him against any mortals, [and] also cause his seal to be appended to a writing or instrument upon this matter in sign of his aforesaid consent and permission, when they shall be asked upon this matter.? Which recognition, promise and giving of fealty having been gone through and enacted in the council of our lord king, our same lord king, through the venerable man Mr John de Peebles, doctor of decreets, canon of Glasgow, his clerk, caused to be pronounced in public how from abundant [consent] he had indicated and declared the aforementioned lord John, his firstborn son, his true heir, just as he is and ought to be by law the future king, God willing, of the kingdom of Scotland, after his death; and how the aforementioned earls, nobles and others of the council affirmed, recognised, consented and promised, by means of the aforementioned fealty; and how all the people had been caused to be assembled with the clergy, so that in their presence and with their unanimous consent it should be done and made public, so nobody might pretend to be ignorant in any way concerning this matter in future. For all the multitude of prelates, earls and barons, and the others, both the clergy and the people, by a unanimous desire and harmonious utterance, no one at all claiming otherwise, affirmed, recognised and wished the same lord John, as the firstborn and true heir of our lord king his father, to be their future king, and having raised a hand in sign of the giving of fealty, they promised that they would hold him as their future king, God willing, after the death of his father and aid and defend him with all their strength against any mortals. Which things being thus completed, the aforesaid prelates, earls and barons being in the same place appended their seals to this writing for perpetual and future memory, in testimony of all the foregoing things, along with the sign and subscription of the below written notary public. These things were enacted at the abbey of Scone in the month, day and year written above. And I, John Rollo, clerk of Moray diocese, notary public by apostolic authority, was present in person at the aforesaid announcement, declaration, affirmation, also the act of promising [and] the raising of hands, and at the public proclamation of the aforesaid Mr John de Peebles, along with the venerable fathers in Christ lords William [de Landels], bishop of St Andrews, Walter [de Wardlaw], bishop of Glasgow, and Patrick [de Leuchers], bishop of Brechin, and the distinguished men Sir John de Carrick, canon of Glasgow, the chancellor of Scotland, Sir Walter de Biggar, parson of the church of Erroll, the chamberlain of Scotland, the noble and powerful men Sir Thomas earl of Mar, Sir William earl of Douglas and Robert the Steward, earl [of Carrick], Sir Thomas de Hay, constable of Scotland, Sir William de Keith, marischal of Scotland, Sir Archibald de Douglas, Sir James de Douglas, Sir Robert Erskine and Sir Duncan Wallace, barons and knights, Mr John de Peebles abovesaid, and many other witnesses specially summoned and invited to the foregoing, approving this first in the private chamber of the aforesaid lord king in his private council and afterwards in his parliament chamber in public, as aforesaid, in presence of a multitude of people, done in the year, day, month and at the place stated above, ninth year of the pontifical indiction, in the first year of the [pontificate of] the most holy father in Christ and our Lord the lord by divine providence Pope Gregory XI, and I understood, saw and heard all and singular those things expressed above while they were being conducted in this way. I have signed the present instrument ([written] by the hand of another) by my customary sign at the instance of the aforesaid lord John,? firstborn of the same lord king, earl of Carrick, steward of Scotland, subscribing this in my own hand, having been specially summoned and invited, in testimony of all the foregoing things, the interlineation in the last line of my subscription [of the word] 'John' being approved. [Tags and sealing] a.. [Row one] b.. [William de Landels] bishop of St Andrews. c.. [Walter de Wardlaw] bishop of Glasgow. d.. [Michael de Monymusk] bishop of Dunkeld. e.. [Alexander de Kininmont] bishop of Aberdeen. f.. [Alexander Bur] bishop of Moray. g.. Bishop of Ross.? h.. Bishop of Dunblane.? i.. [Malcolm de Drumbreck] bishop of Caithness. j.. [Patrick de Leuchers, bishop of] Brechin. k.. [Bishop of] Argyll.? l.. [Duncan Petit, bishop of] Galloway. m.. [John de Carrick], chancellor. n.. [Walter de Biggar], chamberlain. o.. [John de Strathmiglo, abbot of] Dunfermline. p.. [John, abbot of] Arbroath. q.. [William de St Andrews, abbot of] Melrose. r.. [Abbot of] Scone.? s.. [Stephen Pay] prior of St Andrews. a.. [Row two] b.. [Thomas] earl of Mar. c.. [Empty slit.] d.. [George Dunbar] earl of March. e.. [David Stewart, earl of] Strathearn. f.. [Robert Stewart, earl of] Menteith. g.. [Walter de Faslane, earl of] Lennox.? h.. [Blank tag.] i.. Sir James de Lindsay. j.. [Sir Thomas de Hay] constable. k.. [Sir William de Keith] marischal. l.. Sir James de Douglas. m.. Sir Walter de Leslie. n.. Sir Robert de Erskine. o.. Sir Alexander de Lindsay. p.. Sir Walter de Haliburton. q.. Sir W. de Cunningham.? r.. Sir John de Danielston. s.. [Last seal tag, row 2, unreadable in facsimile.] a.. [Row three] b.. [John, abbot of] Holyrood. c.. [William de Bolden, abbot of] Kelso. d.. [Robert, abbot of] Jedburgh. e.. [Abbot of] Kilwinning.? f.. [Abbot of] Coupar Angus.? g.. [Roger, abbot of] Lindores. h.. Sir Alexander Stewart. i.. David Watson. j.. Patrick de Hepburn. k.. Sir William de Dishington. > "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote in message news:%1qck.47 > [quoted text clipped - 146 lines] > j.. Patrick de Hepburn. > k.. Sir William de Dishington. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ This OT post by Hines reminds me of a dog that barks each time two humans try to converse. David H ~~~~~~~~~ >>>> IMHO, Israel is >>>>> strictly God's problem and we're better off looking to our own [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > I think that GB as "not a representative democracy" would obtain up to the > Great Reform Act of 1832, and that was only a start. That's the usual date given. SignatureWilliam Black I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach Time for tea. >>> IMHO, Israel is >>>> strictly God's problem and we're better off looking to our own [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > It is usually argued that in 1812 Great Britain (Is that the 'correct > form' for that date?) was not a representative democracy. United Kingdom. Surely it was as much a "representative democracy" as the USA? SignatureJohn Briggs >>>> IMHO, Israel is >>>>> strictly God's problem and we're better off looking to our own [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > United Kingdom. Surely it was as much a "representative democracy" as the > USA? I don't think so, but I'll leave it to the usual suspects to prove how free the USA was in 1812... SignatureWilliam Black I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach Time for tea. >> IMHO, Israel is >>> strictly God's problem and we're better off looking to our own [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > War of 1812? In 1812 there was a shortage of black and women voters in the USA. Andrew Swallow >>> IMHO, Israel is >>>> strictly God's problem and we're better off looking to our own [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Andrew Swallow I'm quite sure they had plenty of both Andrew, perhaps they just forgot to register. cheers....Jeff >>>> IMHO, Israel is >>>>> strictly God's problem and we're better off looking to our own [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > cheers....Jeff I do not know anything about this, as I am sure that it is a history thing, but, in 1812, did blacks and women have the right to vote in the UK? Or India? Or Canada? Or France? Or Russia? Or Germany? Or Venezuela? Or Switzerland? Why I do not bother with any history. It's all selective history. >>>>> IMHO, Israel is >>>>>> strictly God's problem and we're better off looking to our own [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Why I do not bother with any history. It's all selective history. I was of course being terminally *tongue in cheek*. Canadian women had no voting rights at all, until during WW1 some limited voting was enacted. Voting was considered a privaledge not a right. Voters were men of substance, that is they owned land or had a sufficient income to qualify. I have no idea when the first *black man* voted in Canada. Suffice to say though, he was a person of substance. cheers....Jeff >>>>> IMHO, Israel is >>>>>> strictly God's problem and we're better off looking to our own [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Why I do not bother with any history. It's all selective history. In 1812 black men had the same rights as white men. Women had to wait for the 20 century to get the vote. Andrew Swallow >>> IMHO, Israel is >>>> strictly God's problem and we're better off looking to our own [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Andrew Swallow how many women and blacks were voting anywhere. in 1812 more people percentage wise could vote than anywhere else. how many women and blacks were voting in canada. how many anybody were voting in canada? >>>> IMHO, Israel is >>>>> strictly God's problem and we're better off looking to our own [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > how many women and blacks were voting in canada. how many anybody were > voting in canada? I would not know, I am English. In Britain people were working to change who was allowed to vote. Andrew Swallow :>> IMHO, Israel is :>>> strictly God's problem and we're better off looking to our own [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] : :In 1812 there was a shortage of black and women voters in the USA. Also in the UK. There is a large shortage of adolescent voters pretty much world wide. So what? Signature"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar territory." --G. Behn > IMHO, Israel is >> strictly God's problem and we're better off looking to our own interests. > > The problem here is international relations.. > In the past representative democracies have never gone to war with each > other. Historically, representative democracies haven't been prevalent enough in number or time span, to give a data field to base an opinion on how representative democracies behave, regarding war. However, the American Civil War was between two basic representative democracies whose populaces hung in for a long bloody fight - not encouraging to your statement. Lincoln thought he would lose the 1864 election to an "end the war" candidate. The Greeks were always warring with each other, and at least some of those city states were probably "democracies". Native American tribes were largely "democratic", and they often warred with each other. Theoretically, a representative democracy, in which the people were angry over some real or imagined issues, might very well get a leadership happy to take them to war agaisnt some other representative democracy. Your statement is based on an assumption that wars have to be created by amoral scheming elites. They can just as well originate from the bottom up, on real or imagined issues. > US foreign policy is based around that fact. > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > because, pretty obviously to everyone with a mind, they're not to be > trusted. > However, the American Civil War was between two basic representative > democracies whose populaces hung in for a long bloody fight - Did the Confederacy ever have a general election? SignatureWilliam Black I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach Time for tea. >> However, the American Civil War was between two basic representative >> democracies whose populaces hung in for a long bloody fight - > > Did the Confederacy ever have a general election? The states making up the Confederacy were led by people elected to office. The Confederacy had a constitution similar to the US Constitution. Do you think the Confederacy was not democratic? >>> However, the American Civil War was between two basic representative >>> democracies whose populaces hung in for a long bloody fight - [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Do you think the Confederacy was not democratic? As an institution, obviously not. SignatureJohn Briggs >>>> However, the American Civil War was between two basic representative >>>> democracies whose populaces hung in for a long bloody fight - [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > As an institution, obviously not. It was made up of states with democratic governments, had a constituion and a central government similar to the US, and had all the political culture and institutions that it had had for the previous 70 or 80 years, but you don;t think it was a democracy. >>>>> However, the American Civil War was between two basic >>>>> representative democracies whose populaces hung in for a long [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > the political culture and institutions that it had had for the > previous 70 or 80 years, but you don;t think it was a democracy. How was the Constitution adopted? How were the government elected? SignatureJohn Briggs >>>>>> However, the American Civil War was between two basic >>>>>> representative democracies whose populaces hung in for a long [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > How was the Constitution adopted? How were the government elected? By a gathering of political representives from the constituent states. And if you're going to concentrate on technical issues, then why should we consider some of the anceient Greek city states to have been early democracies? Ency. Britannica: A provisional government, established in February 1861 at Montgomery, Alabama, was replaced by a permanent government at Richmond, Va., a year later. The Confederacy, operating under a structure similar to that of the United States, was headed by President Jefferson Davis and Vice President Alexander H. Stephens. The new nation soon acquired other symbols of sovereignty, such as its own stamps and a flag known as the Stars and Bars. > How was the Constitution adopted? How were the government elected? the original CSA states held a constitutional convention in montgomery alabama. davis was appointed provisional president at first but then was elected by a general popular election to a 6 year term later. >>>>> However, the American Civil War was between two basic representative >>>>> democracies whose populaces hung in for a long bloody fight - [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > culture and institutions that it had had for the previous 70 or 80 years, > but you don;t think it was a democracy. in theory it was, but the corrupt vote fixing that went into the ordinances od secession argue against it. >>>>>> However, the American Civil War was between two basic representative >>>>>> democracies whose populaces hung in for a long bloody fight - [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > in theory it was, but the corrupt vote fixing that went into the > ordinances od secession argue against it. If some corruption and vote fixing would eliminate governments from being "democracies", then most countries, incuding the US, would be eliminated, past and present. "Democracy" is a mehtod and structure that always has some level of abuse in its practice. Secession was a popular issue in the South, largely becasue they feared what would happen to their economy and society if slaves were freed, as they believed would eventually happen with the growing loss of slave state voting power in the Congress. I doubt much vote fixing was really neccesary. As for democracy in the Confederacy, the basic structure was there, the basic habits and views were there, the state government democracies continued, and the people were basically for the Confederate government, fought like hell for it, and saw it as an extension of, and serving, their views and beliefs. It might be convenient to pretend the Confederacy wasn't a democracy, considering that it stood for a continuance of slavery, but it's not realistic. > IMHO, Israel is >> strictly God's problem and we're better off looking to our own [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > because, pretty obviously to everyone with a mind, they're not to be > trusted. I don't trust any of em. And while you've got an excellent analysis there, I doubt very much if any of that has ever crossed the minds of anybody outside of the State Department. |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message