Another two cents from me...Personally, don't have too big of a problem with Bush himself...He's rather entertaining (personal opinion) but the people pulling the strings...seem rather nasty to me...

Now in terms of voting for (in teh case of the US) Democrats or Republicans...it's really pretty much the same (ok...the neo-cons currently running things are a bit different I guess...not in a positive way) the Democrats seem to be abit better domestically in terms of education, social security etc...

Also (again, my personal opinion) not voting for someone because the media (and the other side) portray him(think George Lakoff and framing) (yes, talking about Kerry here) as a flip-flopper is to me a little strange...because it seems to suggest to me that the person is being influenced by that too much, rather than making an inforemd decision...

We have these things here too...I mean so many people voted Conservative just to punish the Liberals for the "sponsorship scandal" rather than considering what the implications of such a vote may be (Harpy seems to have a bit of a dictatorial streak in him...never mind him being utterly incapable of running a country...He also didn't even bother to show his face at the AIDS conference hosted by Canada...that's just...rude, at the very least)...Even worse is people voting against the Liberals, for example, just for change...Don't get me wrong politicians have to be held accountable...and I'm certainly not saying the Liberals here are great....However...they're the only party ehre that's shown itself capable of runnign the country (mind you, still tons of room for improvement)...OK end of rant for now...

It's funny actually RD, in that I was just watching a little Chris Rock humour last night, and he mentioned in one of his shows that no decent person would vote for only one party, without hearing all the arguments first, for example: a little liberal here, conserative with crime, etc etc... basically, weighing up at each election who is running and what their policies are. Who will do the least damage I guess was his point, but ensure that any person who votes listens to all arguments first, without already having decided their preference. Its amazing how many people have a "party" in which they choose regardless what policy they have, they just vote that party, and not based on what the policies themselves are. Each to their own obviously, that was just something that Chris Rock happened to mention in the show I was watching last night. Funny bugger he is, but very effective at making his point with humour involved.

I personally like to listen to all sides first, and I make my decision based on past performance (if any), and what their going to do for Australia as a whole, not what their going to do for me as one person in the country. Even then, I guess you have to try and push past the shit that they dribble, and find what the real truth is behind the candidate.

Agreed. And also...when you have a system where it essentially boils down to having only two parties that can realistically win the elections one has to wonder about the level of choice in such democracies...of course, it also depends on the electoral system...We have first-past the post here...which, I think, is nto the best idea. I'm more for some kind of proportional representation...

One other thing that strikes me as a little strange in some democracies...you have to have a lot of money to run...so while in theory everyone can run for office, in practice, huge numbers of the population ar eunable to do so...which also contributes to voter apathy etc...which I gues sis in the interest of those who rule...etc...

IMO, I wish this thread would just close.

Why is that mac? It is a topical issue within the world, one in which every person is entitled their opinion, and others must respect one anothers opinions, not try and change one another to suit ourselves, but just respect one another.

I think that whatever George Bush does, Tony Blair does as well. Like I said before. Bring all our troops home, let the Iraq's sort the mess out. Afterall they are killing each other and getting our boys killed into the bargain. Enough is Enough.
Scott

Yep... and don't leave out John Howard, as he seems to be getting on the boat more and more, using less and less commonsense, which is what got him elected in the first place, and for so long at that... old age is getting too him now.

Just a question for the military guys out there...to what extent do they (whereever you happen to be from) familiarize soldiers with international law (I mean the jus in bello...Geneva Conventions but also the UN Charter's prohibition on the use of force) before deployment?

The UN Charter is a load of "Bull" to put it politely. The UN is a complete waste of space, its more of a talking shop for highly paid diplomats than anything else, like an Exclusive Gentlemans Club, if you like.
Scott

When you deploy RD, you deploy under what is called Rules Of Engagement (ROE), each military force will have certain ROE types, just as the UN also have one. Basically what an ROE card is, is the laws of what you can, and cannot do, in a specific operation depending on what they classify a zone to be. For example: aid missions may be no weapons, or if weapons are present, the lowest ROE meaning there is no direct enemy. It obviously steps up from there to warlike situations. The UN have standard laws in which are given to every soldier deployed within a UN mission, which outline the laws of conflict for that operation. Sometimes they are the same, sometimes they change, depending on each situation uniquely.

So, soldiers are briefed and made aware of the laws of conflict to an International level, and they carry them upon them in a brief form if under UN control.