Can someone explain US democracy to me?

[English assassin]

A very interesting question. Time was in the UK, misleading parliament was an instant resigning matter, by convention.

Times change it seems. In the US too maybe.

[Al Khalifah]

Time was in the UK, misleading parliament was an instant resigning matter, by convention.

Time was in the UK when there was a credible opposition party, forever on the heels of the governing party ready to capitalise on their mistakes rather than agree with their actions, even taking into account that the evidence for the taking of such actions was invalid and possibly illega.

[InsaneApache]

OMG!!!!! ....

It's probably a sign of the times that the elected leaders show such utter contempt to the electorate. Honour, it seems is a limited commodity when it comes to ramming your point through.

Going to war is about as serious as it gets, and if you get it wrong then you go. Nope...sorry not these guys. They lied to us, to go to war for a yet unknown agenda. At first I was sceptical about claims made by 'lefties' etc about the war for oil thingy...now I'm not so sure.

Time will tell......

[bmolsson]

US is not a democracy. It's a republic, so help them God......

[Gawain of Orkeny]

So again, what are the unwritten laws in the US?

Ther are none that apply to the statements you made.

1. He told the people and the parliament that the nation had to attack Iraq. Main reason was presence of WMD. The parliament and the public accept. Iraq is conquered. Then the president tells that there are no WMD. He was wrong but the war was a good thing anyway. - Well he would have had to go immediatelly. Regardless if this war was won or not.

Didnt Blair do the samething? Wait didnt he and Bush both get re elected? I guess the people of these countries werent upset by what happened. We dont throw out a president just because they were wrong on something. We have a written law and its called impeachment to handle such matters.

2. Torturing of prisoners by military persons: If this was just a single case the minister of defense would have been under pressure but he would have survived. If there was evidence that there was not enough control by the officers the minister had to go. If he would not do this in time, the president had to fire him or go himself.

You dont know that as you havent been in a war since you were a democracy and havent had a prisoner since 1945. There is prisoner abuse in every war in history incuding by the US in WW2 but we didnt ask FDR to step down.

3. If there was evidence that the government wants to violate or ignore human rights the president had to go as well.

There is no such eveidence against the US. Only accusations.

[Franconicus]

Gawain,
Thank you for the reply.

We dont throw out a president just because they were wrong on something.

Even if he is wrong in a case about war or peace? That is different here in Germany. Kanzler and Minister have to go pretty fast.

You dont know that as you havent been in a war since you were a democracy and havent had a prisoner since 1945. There is prisoner abuse in every war in history incuding by the US in WW2 but we didnt ask FDR to step down.

The abuse itself would not be a reason, I agree. But didn't they find out that there was not enough control there? That would be enough. German view is that the Minister is responsible for his organisation. If s.th. goes wrong he has to go even if he did not know. However, he could be reelected.

There is no such eveidence against the US. Only accusations.

But they put them at strange places and refused to give them a status of either criminals or POW. Isn't that enough to be suspicious?

[Husar]

German view is that the Minister is responsible for his organisation. If s.th. goes wrong he has to go even if he did not know.

So one should wonder why Mr. Fischer is still our foreign minister........

[Lazul]

So one should wonder why Mr. Fischer is still our foreign minister........

Dont know much about him but whats so bad about him?

[Franconicus]

So one should wonder why Mr. Fischer is still our foreign minister........

You know that he was at the edge. He and his organisation made mistakes. But in my opinion they were not so severe.

[Al Khalifah]

Didnt Blair do the samething? Wait didnt he and Bush both get re elected? I guess the people of these countries werent upset by what happened. We dont throw out a president just because they were wrong on something. We have a written law and its called impeachment to handle such matters.

Blair is not elected by the populace, he was chosen because he is the leader of the political party that won the most seats in the United Kingdom. His party recieved considerably less than half of the popular vote in the UK and were in fact the second party in terms of popular vote in England. They lost 47 parliamentary seats in the election following the war and as a result now only have a small majority. So the people in Britain were pretty angry with Blair, but because the alternative is so weak there was no chance of his party being defeated - it would've required the largest swing in history.

[ichi]

Now what is the ethical code for the government in the US.

Whatever you can get away with. If you can keep the media from digging at it, and keep the courts out of it, and the public lets it slide, then you got away wth it.

ichi

[BDC]

Blair 'won' just about because the opposition was absolutely rubbish. Kind of like Bush and Kerry. If Bush had been up against someone who was actually good then he would have been ripped to shreds. Same with Blair.

We need proportional representation here asap.

[Xiahou]

Whatever you can get away with. If you can keep the media from digging at it, and keep the courts out of it, and the public lets it slide, then you got away wth it.

ichi

Right, the media has shown no interest at all in publicizing alleged abuses at the US prison camps like Gitmo.

I'd say that if the media keeps digging at it, the courts stay out of it, and the public "lets it slide", maybe its not as bad as some would say.