Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

Well if you believe that 3000 Jewish senior citizens decided to vote for someone who admires Hitler then no I couldn't make that assertion. Besides I was talking about mandates and states rights.

Also if you believe in the spirit of Democracy then intention should matter.

BTW - you did call people "whiners" and used terms like "fair and square" for questioning the election that implies some superiority. Unless you don't want me to take what you write seriously.

[ April 17, 2003, 00:05: Message edited by: rextorres ]

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

WEEEEEEEEeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee..........

Well... that was fun. Much funner than trying to argue political view points that I would be willing to bet aren't going to be changed either way. I mean really... haven't we all heard all of these arguments at least a dozen times already?

I somehow doubt that after 3 years someone is amazingly going to come up with either a Gore or Bush argument that changes everyones minds. And what if someone did? Would it change the fact that Bush is president?

I don't much like Bush. I would have liked Gore to win. I think Gore could have handled this 9/11 and Iraq situation. I think something was fishy with the state of Florida voting. I have no more evidence than all that which has already been presented, which is at best circumstantial.

Wasn't this all supposed to be about Iraq and the politics around that? Excepting a purely hypothetical view of what things MIGHT have been like what point does the Bush/Gore election arguments serve?

How many Posts does that make for me?

[ April 17, 2003, 00:11: Message edited by: Cyrien ]

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

To bring it somewhat back on topic can anyone explain this quote taken from the BBC

"diplomats at the UN predict a tough round of negotiations in the Security Council if the US pushes for the lifting of sanctions."

Why the heck would anyone at the UN want to continue the sanctions now??. The only reason I can think off of the top of my head is that since the US wants it, it must be evil.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">More useless BS propaganda. Bush does not admire Hitler. Please stop making up lies (or repeating lies that your idols have said).

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">It does not imply moral superiority, which is what you said I was claiming to have. It implies "superiority" only in the sense of speaking the truth and not lies.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

That does sound kinda wacky. Maybe the BBC just isn't on top of it this time?

[ April 17, 2003, 00:23: Message edited by: Cyrien ]

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

The reference to 3000 jewish seniors voting for an admirer of Hitler was not a refernce to Bush but another 3rd party candidate.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Ohh... well again, the ballots were not confusing. They were all clearly marked, and had very clear instructions on them. It would require not reading what they said to vote for the wrong candidate. Anyone that took the time to understand what they were doing would not have voted for a candidate that they did not mean to vote for.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">No way! Is only to sanction the US!! Right now, Iraq is the state number 51! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif
Just kidding, just kidding!!

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

[quote]Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:

Quote:

It does not imply moral superiority, which is what you said I was claiming to have. It implies "superiority" only in the sense of speaking the truth and not lies.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Just some poetic license. Everything I said seems to me to be factual where was I lying?

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

[quote]Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:

Quote:

More useless BS propaganda. Bush does not admire Hitler. Please stop making up lies (or repeating lies that your idols have said).

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Rex wasn't saying Bush admired Hitler, he was talking about Buchanon. Argue that point if you want. It's probably a bit of an exageration, but Buchanon does have some radical positions on things. Listening to him sometimes makes me feel like a liberal, so you know he's out there. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Fyron, I think you might need to chill out a bit.

Geoschmo

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

Since this is degenerating into a Bush vs. Gore event, you guys should do your home work first.
It was not BillyBob that was on the Republican hit list. Go back and check the congressional
staff list from the Watergate hearings. Power players in DC have long memories, and are seldom know to set aside a grudge. And DC playbacks can develop into a hell all of their own. Mr. Gore was in a catch 22. He needed to distance himself from a president who got caught lying to his people, but in so doing would have left a large part of his inherited base behind also.

As to the election, the electoral college has been part of American Presidential elections for a
very long time. For a looser to challenge it after an election would indicate that the candidate was particularly unsuited to hold the office. As for the challenging of the count, many candidates have been advised to challenge results in the past, but with one exception, all of them felt that the good of the country was more important. All but one choose unity over litagation.

[ April 17, 2003, 02:42: Message edited by: Thermodyne ]

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Well sorry if I have little respect for people when they just spit out the same old tired propaganda...

I think you people need to realize that I am not a Republican nor much of a Bush supporter...

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yes, and you'd better believe I'm not the only one. I'm not some radical islamic fundamentalist, either- I'm a pretty normal, liberal-minded European guy with a home and a job and a regular life.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">There was an excellent article posted about a month ago which summarised the similarities. It was frightening. I'll try to dig it out but it won't be easy.
EDIT: Finallly, I found it. Click here for Bush/ Hitler comparison.

The main similarities are in Bush's (and Blair's) use of a specific terrorist incident to create a non-specific perceived threat, and generate an atmosphere of fear and distrust among the public, which in turn allows them to go on bombing sprees abroad, violate human rights (illegal arrest/ detention) and introduce anti-freedom / anti-privacy legislation in the name of "national security".

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I think motivation is absolutely the key issue. You are being led by a man who is prepared to start a war and cause thousands of deaths in order to increase his own personal profits, and that doesn't bother you? It should be your interests he is serving, not his own.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yes, the ACTIONS of the US. The actions of the USA (and UK) since Bush came to power have been catastrophic.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">HA! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Again, HA! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">It's more subtle than simply going in and stealing Iraq's wealth. It has long been understood by most powermongers that invading, conquering and annexing other countries is politically incorrect, and risky business indeed.

Iraqi oil will be used by Iraqi people to rebuild Iraq, yes. That was always the plan. What is now coming to light is that nearly all that rebuilding (an estimatedd 100billion dollars' worth) will be contracted out to US companies with very close links to Bush and his cronies. Oh, and apparently they've been planning for all this since before 9/11. Now can you see why I'm so cynical?

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Culturally, I think the Brits are closer to Europe than the US, so we ought to be heading that way. Unfortunately, because of the language thing, most people here don't realise that and lean toward the US. Blair has always tried to show himself as pro-european, but now he has his head up Bush's arse. Of course the two shouldn't be mutually exclusive, but really I think they are.

I have no idea where Blair will go or what he'll do next. I used to think I had an idea about what he wants and what's going on in his head, but his motivations are a mystery to me now. He's constantly contradicting himself, saying one thing while doing another... add to that the cocoon of spin and bull**** he has woven about himself and he is utterly opaque. He won't ever be getting my vote again. (And I'll never vote tory- too corrupt.)

Personally I think the best thing for this country would be to extend the boundaries of London a couple hundred miles north and west so that Ken Livingstone (Mayor of London) is in charge of the entire country. He has his flaws but I believe he is at least uncorrupted and working for the good of the people he represents. That's the best you can ask from a politician, and the one thing you never seem to get...

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I would disagree with that, unless the US franch-bashing was very mild.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Impossible. As soon as you do anything like that for the wrong reasons, the process becomes irrevocably tainted. Motivation is everything.

[ April 17, 2003, 11:31: Message edited by: dogscoff ]

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

From Daily Kos

Syria countermoves, scores against US
The US continues its bizarre on-again, off-again war of words against Syria. Seriously, do a Google News search for "Syria" and "US", and get headlines like:

No Plans for war on Syria: US
US renews its attack on Syria
US 'would enter Syria for Saddam'
US will not cross Syrian border to hunt Saddam
So who the hell knows who will come out ahead what is obviously a power-struggle at the top of the Bush Administration.

But Syria is more self-assured than Saddam's sanction-weakend Iraq -- not driven by ethnic divisions, not in violation of UN resolutions, possessing a strong and relatively modern military, effective control of various battle-tested milita/terrorist Groups, strong support from Russia and Iran, a reluctant and suddenly gun-shy UK, and the sudden de facto leadership of the Arab world (a position Syria obviously relishes).

And while Iraq wielded the propaganda tool clumsily, Syria is proving a far better foe. It's latest move, tactically brilliant, is to introduce a Security Council resolution calling for the elimination of all WMDs in the Middle East.

The move comes as some in the US side scream about Syria's alleged WMDs. Thus Syria's move is nothing short of genius. If the US is truly serious about ridding the Middle East of WMDs, it should have no problem endorsing a resolution that would compell Syria to disarm. Right?

Wrong. The resolution would have the (intentional) effect of forcing Israel to surrender its nuclear arsenal -- a course of action Israel would never accept. And the US, Israel's most loyal ally, will thus be forced to veto the resolution.

So picture this -- the US vetoing a resolution calling for the banning of all WMDs from the Middle East. In one fell swoop, Syria has negated the charges of WMDs against it, exposed the US's hypocrisy on WMDs (our allies can have them, everyone else can't), solidified its leadership of the Arab world, and forced the US to veto a seemingly common sense resolution, after bLasting France and Russia for threatening vetoes on Iraq.

It's clear that this administration has zero ability to wage a competent foreign policy. We may be able to wage war, but even that has its limits.

Don't think the links made it... Oh well....

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

interesting article

http://argument.independent.co.uk/co...p?story=397925

Read it with a grain of salt.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

Hey Dogscoff perhaps (PNAC) website will read like My Struggle 80 years from now..... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

Tesco,
First post: LOL great one.
The ability of the GWB administration to paint themselves into a corner is remarkable.

Second post: Even with a large spoonfull of salt, that article has some valuable lessons in it.
Even if everything goes as planned (assuming there is a plan) and an new "democratic" Iraqi goverment is put in place, there will be millions of Iraqi who have good reasons to hate the US. There are many reasons, like loved ones killed, businesses and homes destroyed or loss of power and status for those who benefited from the old regime. It will be easy picking for those who are recruiting terrorists in Iraq for decades to come. I fear this war will not be remembered as a war against terrorism, but as a great boost to it.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

Just out of interest I did a google search for PNAC+"mein kampf".

Got some interesting results, although everything on the first page seems to be quoted from the same source.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&i...2mein+kampf%22

---
Edit: fixed link

[ April 17, 2003, 15:56: Message edited by: Suicide Junkie ]

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Then I suppose that everything that humans has ever done is tainted, which would go a long way to explaining the world and its conditions.

Do you believe that anyone in a position of power does anything without some personal gain?
The argument could even be made that all people perform all actions with something to gain.

Saints and the like? Theres is the ultimate selfish motivation. Do good and get the ultimate reward, or do bad and get the ultimate punishment. Heaven vs Hell. What choice do you make?

Also there are social pressures at work. If you do good, people admire that if you do bad they don't and may even start to hate you.

I cannot accept the position that motivation is everything. If that is true then some truly horrific acts that were done for "good purposes" are acceptable. Motivation being everything holds forth the motto that the Ends always justify the means. That leads to a taint and corruption of the goal.

In my world action always speaks louder than words, or thought.

To sum it all up to do the good thing for the wrong reason is far better than to do the wrong thing for the right reason.

As for Bush and Hitler... don't make me laugh.
You want to talk terrorist attacks... ok. Show that Bush was the mastermind of 9/11 and then I might accept a parrallel there. I could go on and on like this but it just isn't worth it.

I most assuredly do not support Bush. But demonizing him (as comparisons of him and Hitler most assuredly do) is neither accurate nor usefull. If I wanted to I could draw up a list of accurate similarities between Hitler and just about every world leader currently out there and almost all of the past U.S. presidents. Violations of human rights? Using a major event as an excuse for something? Please. Don't be so naive. There are literally thousands if not millions of examples of world leaders of every walk of life doing just that on one scale or another.

I think this will most likely be my Last post to this topic. Not much point in arguing over something that so many people already have their mind made up about. Same reasons I don't generally argue religion.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

Get the Iraqi 'Most-Wanted' Deck of Playing Cards.

http://www.greatusaflags.com/

[ April 17, 2003, 17:32: Message edited by: Wardad ]

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

Yes, Hitler is everyone's favorite demon these days. There is some validity in comparing the program set forth in Mein Kampf with the PNAC papers, but the additional baggage of Hitler's outright depravity makes people not already convinced that Bush is evil unwilling to consider the comparison. It would be better to compare him to saner, if equally ruthless and efficient, conquerors and manipulators. Bismark, who built up 19th century Germany from the base of Prussia example -- or Frederick II ('the Great') who built up Prussia as a military power a century earlier -- if we are sticking to Germans. But of course the Germans have no monopoly on this sort of personality. They were just conveniently close enemies over the Last few centuries and so are remembered more readily. The two French examples that come immediately to mind were more opportunists than 'methodical plotters' -- Napoleon and his relative Napoleon III. But then there is the 'Sun King' Louis IV who wanted all the royal houses of Europe united under his throne. Going back a bit further in history provides lots of European rulers of the same stripe as the corporate Robber Barons that currently form the ruling US oligarchy.

We've had more than a few US Presidents of the same sort as GWB, you know. The people who reach that office are almost always the servants of the Robber Barons if not members of that class themselves, as GWB is. We have been regularly invading various nations in Central American all through the previous century, usually to protect business interests. McKinley found a convenient excuse for the Spanish War in 1898 through the 'fortunate accident' of the Maine. Remember the Maine? Spain was a decrepit remnant of an empire and easily defeated, of course. We got our first over-seas colonies out of that war, Cuba and the Phillipines. Somehow or other Cuba slipped away. I don't recall how that occured. And Hawaii was annexed around the same time though I forget the exact date. The native government had been over-thrown by corporate invaders who wanted their fruit plantations to be under US jurisdiction. A few years later Teddy Roosevelt conveniently had a fleet standing by to support Panama's declaration of independence from Colombia so he could build that canal. A somewhat 'grander' motive than protecting fruit plantations or rubber plantations or strip mines, I guess, but still no more legitimate than Britain would have been in supporting the South during the Civil War to ensure cotton supplies for their industries.

So Bush wielding US military power to extend corporate power is actually not at all unusual as US Presidents go. We've just grown used to the Cold War posture of 'defending the free world' and forgotten what the US government has historially been most concerned with -- siezing territory and resources to insure profits.

[ April 17, 2003, 20:23: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ]

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

Baron, you left out the part about the US being nothing but occupied territory stolen from the Native Americans. If we want to be technical I suppose the only territory the US has that they didn't take from someone else is the lunar surface. We have a legitimate claim to that I suppose since we were the first to land actual people there (Not just robotic probes) and noone else has been there since. I guess there is room there for all 400 million of us. TIme to relocate...

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

I second that motion! Let's all of us U.S. People leave this planet and take the Moon. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif After that we can do some legit expansions to the rest of the planets. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I'm not so sure about that. I'm confident the United States would find some way of passing such a resolution but exempting Israel.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

Am I the only one that is getting a bit tired of hearing people say "what about Israel's WMD's"
Correct me if I'm wrong but I think there are many differences between Israel and Iraq or even Syria. Like a) they are a stable democaracy, b) the have a proven track record of 'using' WMD's as a deterent only, c) they do not openly sponser Jewish terrorists in their neighbouring states, d) they have never launched a war against their neighbours for the sole purpose of destroying that nation. e) they are surrounded by states that would like to see them annialated (and have tried that several times).
I'm sure the list could go on and on.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">a) They have a democracy... but democracies are not "stable" http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif , dictatorships are stable...
Thats why i do not really believe GWB wants a democracy there.

b) i have no knowledge about if they used WMD.

c) This is your opinion. To palistine (& a lot of other) people the gouverment itself is terrorist (wrong).

d) true, but the making of the state israel was a bit different then "normal"... I don't know what would happen if Native Americans would take a part of the USA (like....texas) and that US would do nothing against it (Same as everywhere on the world for that matter)... Difficult to judge.

e) That is not the general goal anymore. Only those extremists want Israel dead... just like those extremist jews (who do nothing but read the bible all day) want all those palistine dead.
I "think" that if you ask the normal people in the region they just want peace... (Not those extremists that only get airtime, because they are more interesting to film)

R

[ April 18, 2003, 08:18: Message edited by: Some1 ]

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Let's see... US has oldest democracy in the world. US is one of the most stable nations in the world. Hmm... what conclusion can be drawn... certainly not democracy is inherently unstable...

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Is that so? I see RADICAL policy changes in just 3-4 years... (and not only becuz of 9-11), since GWB came to office.

That's not stable... IMHO

R.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Like what?

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Is that so? I see RADICAL policy changes in just 3-4 years... (and not only becuz of 9-11), since GWB came to office.

That's not stable... IMHO

R.[/QB]</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">It was 8 of the Last 10 years that were the anomaly. The so called “Return to Camelot” put us
right in the cross hairs, just like the first one did. Only difference was that the opposition was
not a super power this time. The rest of the world sees a kinder more gentle America as weak.
And they make their policy accordingly.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

Interesting side bit...

6 nations is the 2nd oldest democracy on the planet.

First would be Iceland.

And I believe England would be up there as well with the Habeas Corpus Act ( 1679)

There is a place in or near india ummm Mal something that has a very old democracy as well.

Oldest European Democracy... Poland

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

The Iroquis are hardly a surviving nation.

I don't know about Iceland, but if it has been a democracy for a long time, it would be another example of the stability of democracy...

England doesn't really count as a democracy for most of its history because its parliament was made up of the nobility, with no general elections.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif Some hours ago, I sent a mail to Fyron talking about this matter! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

Ok... if it is not technically the oldest, the US government is old in comparison to other current governments around the world. It has been around for centuries, and has never once collapsed (after the articles of federation were done with, of course). The US Civil War doesn't count for this, cause the Federal government kept going strong when the southern states seceeded from the union. And, there was a presidential election during the middle of the US Civil War, which goes to show that the democratic ideals where not squelched in time of danger. That would be another sign of stability.

[ April 18, 2003, 19:20: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I think your point about democracy and stability is valid, and USA is a good example.
For this reason I sent a mail!

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Huh Poland?? Does that 'brief' period during the cold war were they didn't have elections for 6o years not count?

BTW who knew my 'stable democracy' comment would send this OT thread on another tangent. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

bah that post was not to put down America's Democracy or its long standing tradition. I agree with Fyrons Post 100 %

It was a tid bit of information I though you guys and gals would like.

Read it for what it is not what you want to make it.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Huh Poland?? Does that 'brief' period during the cold war were they didn't have elections for 6o years not count?

BTW who knew my 'stable democracy' comment would send this OT thread on another tangent. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Better than the continuous stream of BS propaganda that it was before...

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

Wow, people agreeing in THIS thread?? Amazing.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Huh Poland?? Does that 'brief' period during the cold war were they didn't have elections for 6o years not count?

BTW who knew my 'stable democracy' comment would send this OT thread on another tangent. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Better than the continuous stream of BS propaganda that it was before...</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">When someone doesn't agree with me I think it's propaganda too.

Anyway reading all this talk of Democracy in America makes me think of an 8th grade civics class. It's arguable for instance that the Civil War was really a failure of Democracy.

America is really a Plutocracy - if you were to look at the bank accounts of Bush's cabinet or most of the members of congress it would be self-evident. Also Their are plenty of examples of successful long lived states that were not Democracies. One thing they all do have in common is a strong legal system. I can give numerous examples.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

Lol, all the comments http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Ok, there ARE 'stable' democracies, BUT a democracy is technically NOT STABLE.

Countries like Iceland have not different ethnic Groups like Iraq... You cannot compare it.

And 'most' old democracies were only democratic for a certain sort of people.... Gipsies, black people, woman... and like were often excluded.

But to make my point (and make it less OT).... If iraq would be a democracy
Inhabitants:
55% arabic shi'it
25% arabic soennit
15% kurds
5% Christian, others

Ok, Irak 'always' was ruled by soennit leaders.
When there is a democracy this changes suddenly. I think a lot of people that are from the soennit side would not agree to that, cause this changes the attitude of Irak more to Iran.
This Base is not a good foundation for a 'stable' Democracy in my humble honest opinion....

What do you think?

R.

[ April 18, 2003, 23:53: Message edited by: Some1 ]

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yea there are stable democracies like Israel's which was my point in the first place.

As far as comparing the stability of dictatorships to democracies well forget Iceland. What about Canada? We have a very large French speaking province and we seem to manage. Got any examples of a stable dictatorship?? Do they ever Last longer than the life of the dictator?

You also seem to have a strange definition of the word 'Radical' The US is hardly radically different now from when Clinton was president. Do you know what happens when a new leader takes over in a dictatorship? I suspect that would be radical and involve a lot of killing and instability.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">'technically not stable'?? What exatly do you mean by this. Seems to be pretty stable where I live. When we get a new Prime Minister all the civil servents keep their jobs, the provincial goverments remain in place, the local governments don't change, none of our military leaders get terminated and replaced with the prime minsters half brother, etc etc. Seems pretty stable to me.

Edit: Gees looks like this thread has claimed another 5 star rating. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif Who knew calling a democracy stable would piss people off. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif

[ April 19, 2003, 01:44: Message edited by: DavidG ]

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

Rex:
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I was referencing nearly every post made in this thread, actually. Maybe 10 or so (that aren't vacuous Posts) aren't rife with propaganda for one side or another (well, except for the few tangent discussions like this current one about democracies...). Those are the few that just contain real facts, and nothing more. It has nothing to do with "not agreeing with me." Please don't insert words into my statements that I didn't say any more. It is tiring.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That isn't disagreeing with any Posts made in this thread so far, as all we were talking about was whether democratic forms of government were stable or not. No one has claimed that all non-democratic governments are unstable or anything like that.

Some1:
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yes it is. Democracies are inherently stable forms of government because they are designed to promote (and force) "regime" changes at regular intervals. So, there are no sudden upheavals, no coups, no seizures of power. Those only happen in countries where the democracy was just formed after long periods of tyrannical governments, where the old powers were not sufficiently neutered, so they still have the strength to reclaim power. Otherwise, the democracy endures. Saying that this sort of thing is an example of the instability of democracy is wrong, becuase there never really was much of a democracy to begin with in those countries.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The US has so many various ethnic Groups in it from all over the world that it makes that example sort of meaningless. The government of the US changes as "drastically" as in your example all the time. Noone flees the country because of it. There was no mass emmigration of Democrats from the country when Bush won in 2000. There was no mass emmigration of Republicans from the US when Clinton won in 1992 or 1996. The UK has a number of vastly distinct ethnic Groups in it. It doesn't have any such problems either. Neither does nearly any other democratic country in the world.

Ed:
[quote] Edit: Gees looks like this thread has claimed another 5 star rating. Who knew calling a democracy stable would piss people off./QUOTE] This is why the Ratings system should be removed... I suggest you (and everyone else) disable your rating.

[ April 19, 2003, 02:46: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

Rather than arguing whether or not democracy is "technically stable", wouldn't it be more useful to argue whether or not the United States is really a democracy?

In a democracy, "supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections" (Webster.com).

Again, according to Webster, an oligarchy is a government in which a small group exercises control especially for corrupt and selfish purposes.

Given the number of folks in this thread arguing that we primarily went to war just to line the pocket books of GWB's cronies, I'm surprised those same folks aren't arguing that we really don't have a democracy at all. Rather, we have an oligarchy.

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

I think you need to agree on a proper definition of "stable" first before you can continue this thread.

Seems there are differing views about stability. Even a country where the head of state is assassinated and replaced by his murderer every year, maybe even accompanied by a short civil war of 3-4 months, can technically considered to be "stable" if this happens on a regular, stable basis http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

@raynor: certain standards applied, there is NO real democracy in the whole world, except maybe in Switzerland http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[ April 19, 2003, 03:01: Message edited by: Roanon ]

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

America is not an oligarchy. I won't pretend there aren't problems, but they aren't systemic. The people have the the right to representation and even personal involvment in the governmental systems to a degree not thinkable in any other country. We have class differences, but they are for the most part self imposed and enforced. And movement between classes is possible here like nowhere else in the world, or in all of history. The problem is though that the majority of the people choose not to exersize their rights. They don't get involved in their government, or at least get educated about the issues. And they don't hold their representatives responsible when they take actions contrary to their wishes and interests.

EDIT: So in effect our system may currently operate as an oligarchy, because of the semi-permanent beurocratic class we have developed that is suffering from a co-dependant relationship with the money provided by the rich, we could as a nation at any point wake up and start operating as a living, participatory democracy. We wouldn't need a revolution, or a "regime change" or anything radical like that. Simply for the people to start exercising the rights already provided to them by the systems in place.

Geoschmo

[ April 19, 2003, 04:54: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

Sure. I agree that we as a nation could wake up and start participating in government. It would just take a bottle of smelling salts the size of, oh, say, Jupiter. But, sure, it could happen. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

hmmmm,
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Example of Stable dictatorship?? Cuba, Castro? You have a lot of years the "same" policies, leader etc...

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Every x years a regime change = technically not stable. Often other leaders, other policies etc..

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I never rated people... But what do you complain you have twice as many stars as i have anyway. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Every 4 years a Upheaval (but following the rules) New politicy, new judges, new president...

But what i tried was including the Iraq model. Countries like that ARE instable AND ('Those only happen in countries where the democracy was just formed after long periods of tyrannical governments').... So, my question again, is a democracy the option GWB wants? And option for Iraq?

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">USA is a 'democracy' for some time now... And in its beginning years it was far from democratic (for a lot of ethnic Groups)... This sort of thing takes a Lot of time, and during that it is not very (i shall use the dreaded word again) 'stable'... So, my question again (2), is a democracy the option GWB wants?

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">lol http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Im one of them... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

pfew, i have pain in my eyes from my monitor http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif
See your replies later http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

R.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

[quote]Originally posted by DavidG:

Quote:

Of course getting a democracy well established and stable is going to be pretty tough in Iraq.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Oh yes, but also MUST be a Democracy friendly to Occident, specially friendly to USA.
During a good time (can't guess how many time), they will have a "tutorial" government, that also will rebuild his country.
After this, only time will say, but I'm not optimistic that Iraq will be an independent country with a true Democracy... at least in my lifetime.