Chefelf.com Night Life: Mushroom - Viewing Profile

No choice in that case is there?
My vote's with you.

If democracy is to reign, we have to work at creating a system of government. The triumvirate simply wants to appoint themselves leaders and tell everyone else what to do!

farming... honestly! *grumbles*

If the choice is simply between democracy and dictatorship then haven't we already regressed to the creation of a two party system (albeit in the lesser form of having two interest groups)?
You cannot codify a dictatorship. Even Soviet Russia under the most crippling tyranny of the Stalinist era had the Stalin Constitution, even if they did not adhere to it. To codify a dictatorship is to openly invite civil war and destabilise the country in the long run. Dictatorship is not an option in these circumstances because we all have our fair and equal say. Shame on you, HofMarN, for laying down in the face of unbridled power!
If anything, the job of the dictatorial triumvirate is to go along with the democratic methods within this constitution writing process and then usurp any flaws in it afterwards - if possible - to their own ends. That will test not only the ability of those individuals to disrupt the process of a rational constitution settlement but also test the methods that will doubtless be put in place by the constitution to prevent such an occurance.
My vote it firmly with the democratic way of thinking, and i will not, even for the last drop of blood in my body, lie down and accept dictatorship!

From an external perspective (as a Brit with a strange fascination for American politics) I might add that it seems slightly uneven that Clinton could have impeachment procedings brought him for lying about his personal relations yet Bush can get away scot free with lying to take the country to war.
Of course Bush can just claim that it was the intelligence services that were to blame (like Blair has), but whatever happened to President Truman's attitude of 'the buck stops here'? Not forgetting this is the man who said of Iraq "we will not accept anything less than complete honesty."
What seems to be the favourite excuse at the moment is that Saddam was an evil dictator and the world is a better place without him. While I agree that he was the brutal head of an equally brutal regime, I do not agree with the so-called Bush doctrine that this is an acceptable reason to invade another sovereign nation. If regime change was the idea in the first place, why didn't they aid Iraq's people in an uprising? You'd almost think they feared losing something by using that route...
Bush's doctrine of preemptive military action has set a precedent that is not a precedent at all, which basically says "you can invade who you like as long as they're a threat and/or a brutal regime." But does this mean that the Bush administration would gladly go on to remove brutal regimes in places like Zimbabwe, North Korea, Iran and Sudan to liberate their oppressed peoples? Of course they won't because liberation is apparently only an excuse for war, not a reason for it.
At the end of the day, any international multilateral action has to be taken with the consent of the USA - it is the world's only superpower. It just seems unfortunate that its incumbent (and freshly re-elected ) administration seems to throw the country's weight around in a fashion that not only derides the US reputation around the world but also undermines the international laws that it claims to be upholding.

Thanks!

Indeed, I find it frustrating that we're taught throughout Episodes IV, V and VI that the Jedi are careful bearers and protectors of a powerful phenomenon, yet in the later films they just appear to be a repetitive multitude of Laurel and Hardy acts - it's as if Lucas has projected into the characters his own apparent lack of faith in his audience's ability to work out what's coming from past experience, which has made the characters seem shallow and stupid throughout.

Nice to be here. Thanks for the avatar, it's great!
The best joining reward I've ever had anyway... probably because it's the only one, but it's still great

I was linked to this series of articles from another forum, and was rather astounded that one point that particularly bugged me with regards Attack of the Clones was missed out of the Episode II reasoning.
The point is this:

Shortly after Yoda catches up with Dooku, and lightning bolts have been thrown around in a powerful yet acrobatic fashion, Yoda 'amazingly' absorbs the final lightning bolt and utters the immortal phrase "powerful you have become Dooku, the dark side I sense in you." Now, considering that Dooku has just tried to execute three people he knows in gruesome and overly elaborate ways, overseen the deaths of many Jedi in the rescue effort and attacked and wounded two more Jedi a few minutes earlier, was this line really necessary? Despite Yoda's affirmations that his power is weakening, surely he doesn't need the force's intervention to put two and two together a little earlier?

To add insult to injury, Dooku replies with the phrase "I've become more powerful than any Jedi," a phrase presumably intended to remind the viewers of Obi-Wan's last words, just in case they'd somehow allowed themselves to forget momentarily.

Maybe a small point, but it annoys me immensely.