ok so I am going to be lazy and paste in a post I made yesterday.
It is an area I would like to further discuss because both U.S. and U.K. voters let George Bush and Tony Blair back into office for a second term. Many people marched against the War on Terrorism, so
Why were they voted back in?
If you marched and are against this war, and voted for either of them, why you vote them back in?
If you did not vote for them, have you any suggestions/ideas?
I marched against the war in Iraq in Switzerland, marching might bring emotions of solidatory but on election day the majority of a population repeatedly vote for either of the two prevailing majority parties. And what have both these parties being doing miltary wise...
The occupying forces in Iraq have managed to set up a national assembly, government and presidency; yet they are making little headway against armed resistance fighter.
Why is that? Well here is a good reason -
Both the UK and the US have been bombing the no-fly zone since the Gulf war. It was a war and has effected the people of Iraq for 10 years. Small wonder some of them have become resistance fighters against terrorism waged upon their people and their country.
Did anybody really expect them to roll on their backs like a good doggy and wag its tail? No, just think in the last few days the emotions some of you have felt at the bombings. The thoughts, the prejudice, the fear. Lets try that in our own backyard for the next 10 years and then we might have some appreciation of how it might feel to live in a neighbourhood where half the houses are in rubble. Large populations of our men dead. Would all of us just feel outrage or would some of us fight back?
Think about how the political structure should represent the public? There is no diversification in a one rule party system.
Why does there have to be one person, one party at top? What is so frightening about colition governments and politics more directly representing all people?