����tv

These elections are local. The Dems will probably take over the House because many Republican congressman have their own issues that have nothing to do with Iraq. When you are the party in power you get sloppy and lazy. A democratic house will undoubtedly help Republicans in 2008. One thing I have learned, is that both parties can't help themselves when they get in power. The feel the need to gorge themselves at the trough of lobbyists. They lose focus of what got them elected and fall into the "we're in charge so we must be right" trap. Republicans used to stand for less government, lower taxes, reduced spending, military restraint. Now they spend money like drunken fools on pay day. They advocate a large intrusive government to "make us safe". They are now into nation building. One lousy tax cut does not erase all of those ills. That is why they are losing support. I am an independent that usually votes Republican because of what they used to stand for. I live in NJ, I am voting for Menendez (a little diversity will certainly help the senate). I am not voting for LoBiondo (my republican congressman) because he supported that huge spending bill last year. Yeah the one with the bridge to nowhere in Alaska. How does that help NJ or the USA?

I do think the Democrats will take over the House and will gain seats in the Senate, but not take it. It will be very tempting to go after Bush and investigate his cabinet's criminal corruption and inexcusable failures, but I don't think it's wise. The Democrats would be better off accomplishing things - like raising the minimum wage, implementing the 9/11 Commission and working on heathcare and education reform. People are tired of the bickering and extreme partisanship, which investigations will only exacerbate. The Democrats need to show they have a positive agenda.

Regardless of which party controls what the same damage will continue to be done because the two parties have become twin sisters locked in the same twisted outlook of the world. Abe Lincoln, who some say freed the slaves, was a member of the Republican party. However most blacks support the Democratic Party, which was the daddy of the KKK. So again, it doesn't matter. Mislead masses support mislead causes and that isnt going to change any time soon. To those that make the elections a big deal...you are just playing with the american psych.

I think Democrts will take both House and Senate., Bush's dream for Iraq and it's rich oil lost beyond recovery.

It's difficult for Americans to make heads or tails of Iraq right now, we are very concerned and increasingly convinced that invading Iraq was a big mistake done by our President Bush.

The American dream for Iraq and it's rich oil is lost, it was always an impossible dream. Only Bush and his acolytes seem not to realize that.!!!!

When I see British journalists reflecting on Saddam, Hitler or Stalin I wonder if they intentionally ignore the much worse record of the British Empire in dozens of countries around the world - or is the British Education system so bad that they are simply unaware that thier own countrys record is worse than any of these others?

The title: "Saddam, Hitler and George W Bush" SAYS IT ALL.

Restoring America is job 1, but failure to impeach Bush would set a shameful example for those who would like to believe in democracy.

Fact One: the United States has now been at war in Iraq longer than it was at war against Hitler during World War II.

This 'fact' is just silly from a historian's point of view. If you look what 'war' meant during WWII and what 'war' means today in Iraq, then there is a huge difference between them.

It's plain silly and quite irresponsible to play the Hitler card in arguments about Iraq--on both pro and anti war side. Just make the point you want to make, without the botched Hitler analogy.

Brenda, rather than insulting other people's education, you should maybe check your own history? Stalin and Hitler were mass murderers who caused tens of millions of deaths directly, deliberately and by command. Nobody throughout the British Empire's long and usually shameful history caused anything like the same amount of deaths. Though one might argue about the effect of various economic policies, the fact remains that the British Empire did not commit wholescale, genocidal mass murder like Hitler's Final Solution, nor the actions that Saddam Hussein is accused of.

Dear James Mackey. Brenda here. I lived in Nigeria when the British govenment organised a blockade of Biafras ports in the 1960's to support a military coup overthrow the democratic regime not supported by the colonial office resulting in the death of millions of people. Alone amongst the governments of the world the British Government entirely eliminated whole peoples from TAsmania to North America (at least 20 entite peoples). Ran military campaigns that that targeted civilians though food supplies resulting in the deaths of hundreds of thousands in countries as far apart as Sudan, India, Ireland. Divided nations when "withdrawing" between regimes that the Colonial office thought could be controlled eg Kurdistan, Ovambaland and Palistine. Forced disparate nations into boarders that could only be controlled by a minority with British support eg Iraq, Nigeria, South Africa, Saudi Arabia and many others. Putting minority groups into countres where they could only expect a genocidal response eg Burma and Malaysia. Organising and arming minorities against against National majorites along religious, racial or colour line in counrties too numerous to mention from NI to Sri Lanka.

The total death toll from the British Empire far exceeded the toll of Stalin and probably came close to the murderous regime of the Chinese communist regime.

A Democratic controlled House of Representatives and/or Senate would bring a balance back to the US government. Currently, the Executive branch has too much power over the Legislative branch and there needs to be a big change. There is a good chance that the War in Iraq will persuade unhappy voters typically loyal to the Republican party to switch and place Democratic votes.

James, you're right, it's just a matter of degrees. What a few deaths . And it's not as if the British ever set out to commit murder, ...

*rolls eyes*

I would like to echo the sentiment expressed above by Shawn. The Democrats would do well to move forward focused on the future, rather than to drudge up the past. Little benefit can accrue from what is already adequately clear: the entry into the war was spurred by sloppy research, faulty intelligence, naivete and misunderstanding of the situation. Investigations will do little to solve the morass that is Iraq, the spiraling deficit and the urgent need to get it right here in the U.S.A. Reports indicate a startling rise in violent crimes, health care costs that have risen by as much as 80% under the Bush administration and more restricted access to higher education due to rising costs and shrinking support. Let's address these issues for the sake of our children.

Can someone from the Bush-supporting Christian right tell me how they reconcile the pro-life stance while at the same time celebrating capitol punishment? I'm curious because I just saw a clip with Bush practically cheerleading the decision to hang Hussein. What gives? Thou Shalt Not Kill? I don't get it. Not that I'm personally against hanging Hussein...it just screams of inconsistency at best and total hypocrisy at worst.

No, the British empire, like the current U.S. empire murdered and plundered over a much longer time frame, so as to make their apparent barbarity less noticeable.

Look....people need to face facts. The british Empire, like the French before and the current U.S. Empire have caused, both directly and indirectly the deaths of millions of innocent people. Anyone who has studied history knows this to be true. Hussein, like many horrible dictators before him, had the full backing of the U.S during his atrocities. When he outgrew his usefullness to the U.S., they buried him and celebrate the impending hanging. It's the way of the world. As an American, I hope we can show more balance and kindness in the future, but it's not likely. But I'm not going to pretend we as a Nation are a product of many ill-gotten gains. Just look at our treatment of South and Central America. Horrible.

Mind you, lets not just dump on the brits. The current US empire wants us to respect its vassel state Guatemala to sit on the UN Human Rights body. This is a state that they funded (along with several others) to murder hundreds of thousands of thier indigenous peoples during the 1980's in a manner that made Saddam Hussains treatment of the Kurds look relatively kind - or the USSR's intervention in Afganistan look positively beneficial.

Has anyone ever added up the killings by right wing regimes in South America sponsored by the US over the last 30/40 years?

Lets welcome the execution of Saddam, but maybe the courts should be looking for other possible candidates closer to home? Yea, right.

Islamo-facism maybe insane, and the 21 arab regimes may be pretty bad - but who is writing the history on the rest of us?

Political compromise takes practice, motivation and high mindedness. Since Bush has none of these things, the article's speculation about a productive 2 years as a lame duck is just wishful thinking. The man's success has come from a combination of stubbornness, meanness and ruthlessness. The narrowness of his intellect is reflected in the narrowness of his circle of advisors. With all these limitations, there is, sadly, no chance of redemption.

[i]Fact Two: Saddam Hussein has been an American enemy for more than 16 years, far longer than Hitler.[/i]

The difference is that Saddam was the U.S.'s friend for very long before that (well...Hitler was a friend-by-proxy of Prescott Bush, W's grandpa). If Sadam is going to be sentenced to death for crimes committed in 1983, then Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and Cheany should all be tried along with him as enablers. The piles of hypocrisy in America are astounding. They don't know their own history because they don't want to know. Hopefully they will be willing to take the blinders off tomorrow and move toward a greater future.

Dear Kim and Brenda,

Even without disputing your points on the inequities of British colonial rule.
They mostly took part, along with most other European nations, a century and a half ago with the colonisation of Africa and Asia. And the equally disasterous disengagement that took place in the mid to late 20th century undoubtedly resulted in horrendous situations in Africa and Asia too. However, are we, who are citizens of those countries to remain silent to the stupidities of the new
world hegemony, the USA. Would you gag us, who were not born at that time, nor sanctioned such events? Are our sins to be the sins of our fathers fathers? We rile against these crimes in Iraq, not because be condone the actions in the past, or fail to recognise the failings of colonialism, but because the US has not learnt from these bitter mistakes our predecessors made, a luxury the European colonialists never had. While it will never excuse the actions of these countries, including my own,I in turn cannot excuse the Bush administration.As a humble, 'man in the street' if I can make the moral distinction, one would assume the Bush administration is equally if not better equipped to discern the moral legality of their actions. Will it take millions more innocent lives for the US to relive the experiences of European colonialism? I hope not.

Dear Tom, you said: "Can someone from the Bush-supporting Christian right tell me how they reconcile the pro-life stance while at the same time celebrating capitol punishment? I'm curious because I just saw a clip with Bush practically cheerleading the decision to hang Hussein. What gives? Thou Shalt Not Kill? I don't get it. Not that I'm personally against hanging Hussein...it just screams of inconsistency at best and total hypocrisy at worst."

I'm sorry you cannot see the contrast between guilty lives and innocent lives. Therein lies the difference.

If a person commits a heinous act and is sentanced to death for it; the death sentence may be appropriate (depending on the laws in that country).

If a child is conceived, has committed no crime and receives a 'death sentence' because the mother makes that choice; that sentence is never appropriate.

I would venture to say that those supporting capitol punishment would gladly make the exchange: Lock up for life Hussein and any other guilty parties in place of the death sentence AND eliminate abortion and adopt out all unwanted children.

Tom, do some reading about abortion with an open mind. It's never about what is right for the mom and child; it's about money. If you really want a sickening study, look into partial birth abortions. Abhorrent!

I'm sorry you cannot see the contrast between guilty lives and innocent lives. Therein lies the difference.

The examples given, comparing Saddam Hussein to an unborn baby, are the extremes. The crimes punishable by the death penalty vary widely between societies - from something as awful as (mass) murder to expressing a view contrary to that of the ruling power. My question is: who are any of us to decide where that line is drawn? What happened to "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone"?

war criminals, all 3
Peoples die because of them.
That's all folks.

What about Fact 3: Now, more people have died in the Iraq war than Saddam ever killed (estimates reach 4-600,000)? And who is putting Bush on trial?

My guess is, the Democrats will take control of the House, and will gain some seats in the Senate, but not enough to make a majority. The funny side of all this is, possible 2008 presidential candidates from either party would like (secretly though) the other party to win control of the House. This is because of the Iraq war. John Mccain for example, would love to see the Dems take control of the House and see what they do with the war. Whoever wins the war has to own it. Nobody in power, dares to question the legality of the war or cut the troops' funding, during a conflict. Similarly, Hillay Clinton on the Dems side, would love to see the Republicans keep control of the House (although that seems highly unlikely), so she can hammer them out during the run-up to the 2008 Presidential elections. Although, in Hillary's case, she's going to have a tough time explaining why she supported the war in 2002. Also, If the Democrats take control of the House, I bet the Reublicans (read President Bush) will blame them for any debacle in Iraq from today until he demits Office in 2008. Its ironic, the one issue (war in Iraq) that was supposed to unite the country, its people and politicians alike, has been the most divise issue in recent memory.

there is no US Empire

some would like to have one

the Brit empire was altogether diferent

the US could become an empire if some could manage
to control but the tide in the world is moving.
The US ma be left behind to re think

Assumpta

The Dems lose either way. Had they voted against the war in 2003, then it would be a different story.

Brenda:

What do you know about Stalin? Latest estimations go around 40 MILLION. I do not think you can compare this to anything else... Though we should remember genocide in Vietnam where 20% of population was slaughtered - the gruest achievement... Which country in the world had as many wars outside their borders as the US for the lasst 50 years?
Tactic to regain power used by any dictator is: name the enemy, start a war on smth. or against smth. and scare your own people. What's going on reminds me of Kafka works.
May be use our resources to actially to help people in pursuit of happiness?

I find your title of this piece to be more interesting than the content, although it is interesting to make note of how long all this has been going on.

The fear and intimidation that brought Hitler to power does have a parallel with this situation. I was greatly alarmed by the mood in the United States after that horrible day 9/11. The way that any opposition to war was shouted down and intimidated. Even John Kerry threw in his support for the war. Emotions can bring any community to a bad place.

Was evil running in most German veins in the 1930's or did a clever and power hungry group figure out how to manipulate the situation to its own best advantage?

Well we've been manipulated in the United States and make no mistake.

I agree with you jj. It is extremly worring the way in which the emotional tidal wave ( which of course was justified)after 9/11 got twisted into such a horiffic and terrifing tool in which to manipulate

"the fact remains that the British Empire did not commit wholescale, genocidal mass murder like Hitler's Final Solution, nor the actions that Saddam Hussein is accused of."

So what was the highland clearance? What did Cromwell do in Ireland. "Nits breed lice" meaning kill the children too is one of his jolly quotes.

I suppose the children of empire never really get an accurate self-history, look at the yanks. The one fact all yanks know is the US is number one, the best, regardless of the field. Well they have been honing their skills but they're probably only second or third in the world in torture. By the time George is kicked out they might make it to number 1, USA whoo.

Brenda: I agree with your initial point re: GB empire very bad but your later justification is a work of fiction in terms of numbers and some events. There has been no Genocide in Malaysia (there were race riots in 1969 where a few Chinese died, because they were economically dominant)caused by displaced groups. ?The chinese and the Indian communities were recruited but already migratory.

I have to say that it does lead me to doubt the rest of your examples. Every empire commits crimes and the UK was a superpower 100 years ago. Sstalin and Hitler both carried out campaigns with deliberate Genocidal intent. GB empire could be ruthless but it was not genocidal.

I think that a lot of the people targetting the British Empire here are only showing that America is as reviled around the world as the Brits were years ago.

The big difference is that other countries largely stopped persuing crazed dreams of world domination after the second world world. It seems that America has seen a 'gap in the market'....

As for the Hitler comparison, I think that is a dumb card to play. But no dumber than all of you trying to compare one terrible empire from the past against your own today.

you title your article: 'Saddam, Hitler and Bush'; It seems at first glance that you would compare the President of the United States to these very infamous and despotic dictators. I'd like you to see you back up that idea with some facts. And your feeble attempt at numerology isn't very entertaining or informative. Say something of substance and then I might be interested.

Reuben Goldenstein
San Diego, California USA

he is not responsible for the mess we are in now; the current leadership is to blame for that. kurds & shiites played well for their political power and if there anything happened thats the aftermath of those opposite groups tactics.
no one cant blame saddam on what he done for his country. i have to say, iraq situation was better under saddam than it is today. now those opposite/shiites got power n they started killing...of cource, iran having its part but who made dangerous situations, definitely BUSH n BLIER.

The time the US has been in Iraq pales when compared to the amount of time the UK spent in Northern Ireland.

Gavin's analysis is apt. I wish to add that President Bush did not bargain that he would at some point be held accountable for his decision to attack Iraq; in the same way Saddam did not foresee that he would be held accountable for his actions against the enemies of his regime. This should serve as a lesson to all of us!

I am happy that Democrats won, because I am concerned about the war in Iraq, but I have no illusion that things will change significantly, because great majority of Americans fail to see that this war is immoral. I am not a pacifist, but look at the facts. Iraqis did no harm to the US – yet we attacked their country, contributed directly or indirectly to the death of hundreds of thousands of people, wrecked havoc on the infrastructure and enabled civil war. There was no faulty intelligence or naiveté as somebody claimed here. Any sane person following the news knew that WMDs were not the issue. Most popular argument now, about bringing the fight to “them”, to avoid fighting them here, is the most immoral, but unfortunately readily bought by American public. The real reason – strategic positioning in the Middle East in an effort to bring “democracy” (read US friendly regimes and culture) is not much better.
Mentioning of Hitler is apt. How is it possible that German people allowed Hitler to do his deeds? One answer is propaganda and tribal morality.
The scale and even intentions are of course diametrically different here, but the same answer is valid: propaganda (despite free press) and tribal morality. It helps us justify our actions, no matter what.

The oligarchy of King Geroge Bush II and his cronies have come to a halt with the election of a Democrat controlled House of Representatives. The ineptitude of the president and his inner circle has been repudiated by the majority of the electorate that voted in the mid-term elections. America under the patronage of George Bush and the RepubliCons have diminished the potency of the United States and have really given the appearance of a soiled America to the rest of the world. I hope that the Democrats will complete the job in 2008.

To Brenda and the other US detractors of the British Empire, these attacks are pretty rich coming from the USA.

A country founded on the rankest hypocrisy (remember the Declaration of Independence declaring that all men are created equal, and the numerous slave owners who put their names to it!)

A country built upon the appalling genocide of the indigenous peoples in your land hungry drive westward (I seem to remember the bad ole British Empire had signed treaties with Native American tribes protecting their lands which the founding fathers then tore up.)

How many dead in Vietnam?

And how many dead in Iraq to date?

The number of countries post WWII that have suffered some form of military or covert interference from the US puts the British Empire in the shade.

The words pot, kettle and black spring to mind.

Didn’t you leave out Nero and Caligula? As in Bush fiddled while New Orleans drowned. Hail Ceasar.

It is not easy to comparing these three people. As a German I cannot too much commentate on Hitler, but Bush reminds me of him, in his way that he is so aggressiv and uses lots of properganda, but Hussain is more like Hitler in his killing many people without any reason at all.

The Democrats have won these elections becuase of Mr Bushes outward likening to a dictator, but only he knows in his heart whether he is good or bad.

Like i say in my other comment I think he should resign. Only then will we really know if he is a truly good man or whether all he say is false.

This feel like a "Have I Got News for You" odd one out competition:

They all made decisions that killed civilians, as did the British Empire.

Hitler is dead,
Sadam is about to die,
The sun set on the British Empire
and Bush is still after the oil.

Hitler wanted to commit mass murder, as did Sadam, as did the British Empire (well probably). Bush would claim it was an unfortunate outcome.

The odd one out:
Bush. He is alive, in power and incompetant, the rest are history....hopefully Bush will soon join them: as living history.

Clinton was impeached over his relationship with his secretary... whilst this did cause damage to "good ol' family values" and a nice dress, who was really hurt under the definition of high crimes and missdemeanors.

Contrast that with Mr Bush, who should have to answer for his links with Halliburton and the fact that his decision to go into Iraq was more then heavily influenced by Halliburton. Since the beginning of the Iraq war, Halliburton has made over 16 billion in revenue (www.halliburtonwatch.org). Cheney is the ex-CEO... people in the USA are proud of being patriots - but how can they be happy supporting people who are literally stealing from the people, let alone buggering up other countries in the process.

I think one point that needs to be raised is things that happened many decades/centuries ago occurred in a very different world than we live in today.

When we look back in history to 100 years ago, slavery was still in place in the U.S., and women were not allowed to vote.

One would hope we've come a long way socially and culturally since then.

So, here we are living in an enlightened time, and the bar should be at a much higher level now than in the past.

We are taught to learn from history so we can avoid repeating the atrocious mistakes and behavior of our forbearers.

It is imprudent to compare the historical horrors of the world to what is happening now.

Lee Holmes needs to remember who set up those plantations and who financed that slave trade and who initially benefitted from it all. These institutions were established under COLONIAL rule.....primarily BRITISH colonial rule.

While we are all grateful for the freedoms that enlightened British common law has brought us, (truly wonderful and thank you for THAT legacy), blaming America for slavery is like blaming Britain's former colonies in Asia for the opium trade.

This ia whole new topic. I read the title of this discussion and said to myself 'Oh my gosh! Bush being compared to Hitler. Bush being compared to Saddam was bad enough!'

But then I wanted to bring in another twist. Why not Tony Blair? He was hand in glove with Bush when the decision was taken to invade Iraq. That too, based on lies which I dont remember Tony Blair ever thouht 'proper' to explain to his countrymen. Or did he? Despite that, the British elected him three times to office? And the British never made Iraq a voting issue? And if it was, then I am sorry to say that the British people too need to be included in the twist. Why are the British questioning the Americans and pointing fingers at their leaders when they too contributed to the present Iraqi plight? How about some diplomatic arm twisting now to stop the American 'madman' ?

Stop taking the moral highground. The British and the Tony Blairs are equally in this as Bush and his goons.

What disturbs me is that the Bush propaganda is now so widely accepted as fact. After 9/11 people were angry, they wanted the U.S. to strike back. Rather than restraining the hysteria and focusing upon an appropriate target for the wrath of the county, the Taliban, Bush and his fellow criminals used the incident as an excuse to take control of the Mideast and its oil. Turn Iraq into an American miltary presence. What good is it being the world's only military superpower if you will never use that power? It won't last forever so get into play now! To that end, they lied and they lied again, and again and again. They convinced the American public and the Democratics that Iraq was the real villian - they had "weapons of mass destruction" and America was threatened.

The "vote for the war" was NOT a vote for the war. The vote was to free the hand of the President to "threaten" action against Iraq. Leverage - pure and simple. In defense, America is not used to having a sociopathic administration. The American public and the Democrats in office, thought that violence would be a last resort. In that environment, with the mood of the public whipped into a frenzy, those that voted against the ability of the President to act "if necessary" had their political existence threatened. Does anyone really believe that those not privy to the administration's master plan and the knowledge that it was all lies would have voted to have the U.S. go to war?

Now that we are there and we have virtually destroyed that country, can we responsibly leave tomorrow? But "stay the course" (which Bush's press secretary Snow says was used only 8 times by the President), does say we are looking for a way out. The Democrats now have the responsibility to fix it. The Democrats will have to find a way to recoup the half a trillon dollars spent in this insanity and the four trillion dollars of national debt racked up in Bush's six years. And the whole while, the pathological liars in the Republican party will he harping at them at every move. The hounds will have been set free. Maybe it would have been better for the Democrats to have lost yesterday. But not for America...or the world.

If Hussein gets hanged for killing 141 of his own citizens over a decade ago, does that mean we can expect GW Bush to be executed for the murder of thousands of his own citizens since the Iraq invasion? I hope the Democrats in Congress hold Bush accountable for the Iraq debacle and expose the real reason we destroyed a sovereign nation - Bush chose this war for the sole reason of making his corporate cronies rich beyond their wildest dreams... pure fascism. Add to the mix the relationship between the Bush family and the Hitler war machine and you see a striking similarity between George and Adolf. They're equally as dispicable.

If I were being generous, I'd say President Bush was undone by the machiavellian machinations of Rumsfeld and no less his VP Cheney, who pushed for war insisting that Iraq had a direct involvement in 9/11 - and for all I know is still saying that. Whenever I see Bush talk (sort of), it looks like he's being worked (busy hands up his back?). Rumsfeld has paid the price - when is Cheney going to be taken to account?

@ #55: "The Democrats now have the responsibility to fix it. The Democrats will have to find a way to recoup the half a trillon dollars spent in this insanity and the four trillion dollars of national debt"

For starters, the Dems should stuff cotton in their ears against all the GOP BS and:

1, 2, and 3:REPEAL THE BUSH TAX CUTS FOR BILLIONAIRE WAR PROFITEERS.

4, 5, and 6:REPEAL BUSH'S GIVEAWAYS TO OIL COMPANIES AND MAKE THEM PAY ROYALTIES.

7, 8 and 9:REHIRE the IRS STAFF INVESTIGATING TAX FRAUD BY THE TOP 1%

10. MAKE ALL THE WAR PROFITEERS PAYBACK ALL THEIR OVERCHARGES.

Whilst all civilisations have committed wrongs from a modern perspective, those wrongs are compounded by self-proclaimed high ideals.

A nation that founds itself upon the declaration that 'all men are created equal' yet practices slavery deserves harsh judgement.

With such ingrained hypocrisy we shouldn't be surprised when they attack other nations, whose record in such areas is actually better than their own.

The 'bad ole' British Empire outlawed the slave trade in 1807 and slave ownership in 1834. The 'good ole' US of A got round to it in 1865.

As to the British presence in Northern Ireland raised by another US poster, you will find that Brits have been in Ireland for over 800 years, and settled in NI for approx 400 years.

Much longer in fact than most white Americans have been in North America. (If you rely on Mel Gibson for your history its no wonder such facts get overlooked!)

And for this the UK suffered 30 years of IRA terrorism largely funded by foolish Irish Americans.

Where was the 'War on Terror' then?

how easily mr. holmes dismisses the 600,000 americans who died in their civil war while "getting around to" straightening the slavery situation out! let us not forget the determination and suffering of the civil rights workers, of many races, during the twentieth century either. democracy is a dynamic, messy process that one hopes will correct it's wrongs over time.

perhaps the lesson here is that impatience and snap judgement breed and extend anger and violence. it was easier for the British to outlaw slavery amidst abundant labour and capital. human nature did not suffer some moral degeneration while crossing the atlantic.

the world is filled with tribalism in its various forms. it is simpler to assume that those who disagree across such barriers are locked in a battle over right or wrong than it is to set aside the finger pointing and listen to and learn from one another. to be sure, there is evil in the world and it does not give up easily. it can show up anywhere, even in the vatican, even in civilized governments, even in defending your tribe.