Are Americans morally responsible...

By now, it should be quite plain to see who holds the real power in parliamentary democracies: even elected presidents are powerless in the face of the plutocratic elite and their lobbies. Just look at Barack Obama:

He wanted to curb the power of banks and speculators, and introduce a measure of responsibility into the global casino by introducing checks and controls into the system.
He failed.

He wanted to give the United States a proper health care system, so that millions of citizens aren't left out of the loop, being unable to afford a private health insurance company.
He's still trying.

He wanted to give the United States a leading role in combating global warming, assuming responsibility for the way in which resources are wasted in the US.
The verdict is still out on that one, but it seems as if there's nothing left of those plans.

He wanted to close down Guantanamo Bay, and hold the people involved in that operation legally responsible for violating human rights.
Nothing much is left of that.

And none of that is Obama's fault, really. It's not for lack of trying that nothing changes as it ought to. He's just learning that lobbies and private businesses are infinitely more powerful than the president of the United States. They control the press, the media. They determine state policy behind the screens. They provide the money that makes presidential campaign possible to begin with.


And if you think this is only happening in the US, think again. The same is happening in Germany, for example. Our chancellor, Angela Merkel, wanted to take a leading role in the battle against global warming. Then, the German automobile industry made its will known - and they weren't interested in building more fuel-efficient cars or creating a fleet with a lower CO2-output. Accordingly, Merkel had no choice but to backpaddle.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Accidently? no. There is not justice for being held accountable for an honest accident.

However for everything else yes we are responsible... however there is also a responsibility in regards to people where we can help but don't, in what happens to them.

Now is there going to be enough to justify considering it a sin? probably not.
But one should do what is in their power to see what they believe is right is done in the government. Whether it's voting for a person who holds your view, or whether it is the use of your authority and or power in a just manner towards that end (supposing you're in a position with such power and authority), or whether it's making the public aware of whatever.
-Once you've done what you've can to affect whatever change you are off the hook.

__________________
Possible cause of no response:

A) You are or may be, baiting, want argument, trolling, flaming, already been answered, lack respect, lacking decent reason, using strawmen, or have a reputation that precedes you.

or

B) I may have missed your post, don't have enough info, busy elsewhere, am absent, not interested, and/or looking at sources.

What about manslaughter? What about neglect (e.g., a mother forgetting to crack open a window to her car)?

__________________
"I am a scientist... when I find evidence that my theories are wrong, it is as exciting as if the evidence proved them right."

what about it?Like I've said if you've done what you can to prevent or avoid it then youi're off the hook. Also in both cases you've given are not just accidents.

__________________
Possible cause of no response:

A) You are or may be, baiting, want argument, trolling, flaming, already been answered, lack respect, lacking decent reason, using strawmen, or have a reputation that precedes you.

or

B) I may have missed your post, don't have enough info, busy elsewhere, am absent, not interested, and/or looking at sources.

Republican in office: Well, you see he can't remove the troops because it would lead to this and that and...

Democrat in office: He could just pull the troops on the first day.

Had the democrat pulled the troops, you think the republicans would be happy about it or would they be saying "Well now you led to this and that happening, and it was a bad choice from a bad leader,"?

__________________

Allow me to restate my point, just in case that really is directed at me:

[sarcasm]Yes. Because it's that simple.[/sarcasm]

__________________
"God-deniers are not delightful souls! Go where you will throughout the world, when you find them you will not want to abide with them, and it would be difficult for God Himself to brook them." - Dr. William Bell Riley, Atheism is the Enemy of Civilization - 1917

"Yes, you are outsiders. Go start your own damn country. This one was started by Christians, you puerile dimwits." - Mary Kochan, You Whiny Sniveling Little Atheists Are Pathetic! - 2011

Such eloquence.

He said he would pull out the troops during his campaign. If he actually did pull them out his approval rating would go through the roof because America elected him based on what he said he would do. If Republicans complained all Obama would have to do is say, "President Bush started those crazy expensive wars based on bad intel about Saddam and the odd idea that Afghanistan should pay for the actions of a dozen or so Saudi Arabian hijackers. Its time we dedicate our resources to helping Americans here at home!" He would get a standing ovation from America.

__________________
To know all is to forgive all.