welsh
Junkmaster
Bad news- American deaths are closing on 1000, which is almost insignificant as compared to Vietnam. Even so, something worth considering.
Iraq - coming to 1000
- Thread starter welsh
- Start date
Well, at least they're actually calling it a war this time instead of a "conflict".
It's a hopeless effort though. The people in the middle east have proven that they aren't ready for democracy and peace, and no amount of firepower is going to force them to make a cultural leap. I think the US would be better off withdrawing all the troops and spending all that money on schools in the region instead, since the main reason the people are they way they are is ignorance due to lack of education combined with too much religious authority. Maybe that's too long term and "iffy" of a solution, but in any case soldiers are for fighting wars, not forcing cultural change.
It seems like we are a lot worse at this kind of thing than Great Britain was back in their heyday.
It's a hopeless effort though. The people in the middle east have proven that they aren't ready for democracy and peace, and no amount of firepower is going to force them to make a cultural leap. I think the US would be better off withdrawing all the troops and spending all that money on schools in the region instead, since the main reason the people are they way they are is ignorance due to lack of education combined with too much religious authority. Maybe that's too long term and "iffy" of a solution, but in any case soldiers are for fighting wars, not forcing cultural change.
It seems like we are a lot worse at this kind of thing than Great Britain was back in their heyday.
Montez said:
WHAT? come again?
i hope you really dont mean that...
SuAside said:
Granted I'm not too up on the situation, but yeah, it seems to me that if they as a whole were ready for more advanced forms of government they would be approaching it on their own. I'm not trying to infer that they're savages or anything like that, just that they're undereducated and easily dominated by religion as interpreted by power-mongers.
And I meant that it's a hopeless effort to change the region through the use of the military, not that it's hopeless for them in general.
John Uskglass
Venerable Relic of the Wastes
The Brirtish Empire, "in it's hayday", is primarily remembered in Iraq for using Chemical wepons against civilian targets.
I have to take a shower now because I stink, but expect a full post when I get back.
ConstipatedCraprunner said:
I don't know if we're talking about the same era - I'm thinking about Hong Kong, India, and various other peoples of that time period that the Britains imposed their culture on. I don't think chemical weapons even existed at that point in time. Unless you count opium as a chemical weapon, I guess.
Bradylama
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
The people of Qattar (Al Jazeera HQ) would beg to differ. As would a very vocal majority of Iran.
The Democratic movement in Saudi Arabia has a lot of weight behind it as well, and Prince Abdullah is under great pressure to reform, at the risk of not only his power but his family's existence.
They're ready for Advanced forms of government because they detest the existing establishment. Its implementing these systems that's the problem. It did, after all, take America a decade to form a proper nation, and years to design a constitution that created a good government.
Just because people are new to Democracy doesn't necessarily mean that they don't want it.
The problem with Iraq is that the Democratization is being overseen by a foreign power. Though it is better than the alternative, they now have enough freedom to practice armed dissent, which a disenfranchised minority are doing.
Though, whether that is a good thing or a bad thing, depends on whether you prefer dying free or living in fear.
Keep in mind that Iran still has those elder mulllahs trying to block extreme leftists from getting into parliaments. I wouldn't call that very democratic.
Bradylama
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
No really? Could that be why they (the people) want democracy? Could that have been my entire point? 
The real reason democracy in Iran hasn't gained any progress is because the Democrats lack the backbone to resist the Council.
The real reason democracy in Iran hasn't gained any progress is because the Democrats lack the backbone to resist the Council.
Ancient Oldie
Still Mildly Glowing
Beatdowns, public humiliation, and constant surveillance will do that to morale. Unfortunately, in situations where the state has near control over every aspect of its citizens life, change can only come from the top down, or from an outside source.
Hmmm
I think where the real problem arises in establishing a democracy in the middle east is that it will take a while for the a majority of the people to understand the significance and value found in the separation of church and state.
Politically wise, I see the middle east being in the sames state that the US was in the 1600 to early 1700's when the puritan values still held firm in the running of our government. Remember most of the states that we see today, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, etc... have only been free from colinization for the past century or two.
I believe that as their political structures mature and as nations move toward a more democratic state, we will see societies better equipt to handle the demands that the full bredth democracy brings. We simply need to be patient and understand where they are coming from because we were once there ourselves. Remember, the founding colonies once burned people at the stake for alleged witchcraft and also take a look at how long it took to achieve civil rights for all of our citizens.
I am a true beleiver that time heals all wounds and hopefully with guidance, the middle east will soon join Europe , America, Canada in understanding the importance of a democratic society.
Sorry about being so preachy... Just thought I'd try to sound intelligent for a change. Going to get a beer to fix that.
Please ignore the bad spelling -- It's late and me brain ain't funtionin' right.
Talk to ya later
Greg
I think where the real problem arises in establishing a democracy in the middle east is that it will take a while for the a majority of the people to understand the significance and value found in the separation of church and state.
Politically wise, I see the middle east being in the sames state that the US was in the 1600 to early 1700's when the puritan values still held firm in the running of our government. Remember most of the states that we see today, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, etc... have only been free from colinization for the past century or two.
I believe that as their political structures mature and as nations move toward a more democratic state, we will see societies better equipt to handle the demands that the full bredth democracy brings. We simply need to be patient and understand where they are coming from because we were once there ourselves. Remember, the founding colonies once burned people at the stake for alleged witchcraft and also take a look at how long it took to achieve civil rights for all of our citizens.
I am a true beleiver that time heals all wounds and hopefully with guidance, the middle east will soon join Europe , America, Canada in understanding the importance of a democratic society.
Sorry about being so preachy... Just thought I'd try to sound intelligent for a change. Going to get a beer to fix that.
Please ignore the bad spelling -- It's late and me brain ain't funtionin' right.
Talk to ya later
Greg
SkynetV4
Mildly Dipped
I know I'm going to get flamed for asking this, but I am going to anyway: Who said that a democratic society was a desirable thing? Unless of course you operate under the definition of democracy as my philosophy teacher explained it (kind of a joke): demo-demons + cratos-government = democracy!!
A winner is...Bush?
A winner is...Bush?
I'm not sure...
I don't know if a Democratic society is always the best society to live in. I just think its a better form than a Theocracy. I think that other forms have shown merit as well such as a socialist leaning society and I'm sure some of there are several of our Europian friends can attest to this.
I can only suggest what has worked so far. Who knows, as the planet evolves and societies try to cope with rising costs and populations, another type of goverment may take place that will make the goverments we choose today look as barbaric as the middle ages. As far as what that society may be, I let the futurists take a guess at it while I try to make up my mind whether to eat at Burger King or Mcdonalds.
Thats my two cents... I would give more but... I need money for the value menu.
Greg
I don't know if a Democratic society is always the best society to live in. I just think its a better form than a Theocracy. I think that other forms have shown merit as well such as a socialist leaning society and I'm sure some of there are several of our Europian friends can attest to this.
I can only suggest what has worked so far. Who knows, as the planet evolves and societies try to cope with rising costs and populations, another type of goverment may take place that will make the goverments we choose today look as barbaric as the middle ages. As far as what that society may be, I let the futurists take a guess at it while I try to make up my mind whether to eat at Burger King or Mcdonalds.
Thats my two cents... I would give more but... I need money for the value menu.
Greg
Bradylama
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
Democracies don't necessarily require a seperation of church and state. If, say, they used a multi-party system, and wrote up a good Constitution, then there could be religious parties in the political scheme. As long as the Constitution is well-written, there's no chance of Religious parties turning the nation into a theocracy other than by force.
EDIT:
Scratch that. Its the seperation of Church and State that would make the constitution well written in the first place. I forget that religious parties in multi-party systems support religious issues and causes but don't necessarily make laws concerning religion.
Pretty much everybody. A nation that serves the will of the people is more desirable than a nation that is served by the people.
Now, there is such a thing as the "Benevolent Dictator" but its a rare breed, and even then they're not necessarily competent. The people may not necessarily know best, but at least they can get rid of incompetence in government without violence.
Its the best system we have so far.
SkynetV4
Mildly Dipped
I disagree, the masses are easily manipulated by the economical elite's media. Presidents tend to respond more to the people that gave money to support their campaign than to the people who elected them. Perhaps you think I'm exaggerating but I think that you perhaps believe that ALL democracies work as well as the one from the US. They don't, specially in places with large poverty like Latin America.
If they all worked "as well" as the "democracy" in the USA, the world would be in a lot bigger trouble.
Ancient Oldie
Still Mildly Glowing
You're coming off as a hater. Please explain.
Right, here I go again. I just had a really big discussion with Bradylama about this. I'll give you a few points:
1) it isn't a democracy, but a federative republic. The voting system is therefore defective, since the representatives don't represent the people, but the states. Meaning that people with the most votes nationwide could very well be beaten by people with less votes but more states. (See George W. Bush)
2) The two-party system sucks. It allows for no variation, it does not allow you to choose for a party you really agree with and eliminates any possibility for any non-centrist party to gain any influence whatsoever. The parties also don't reflect the opinions of the people voting for them, CCR, for instance, is unhappy with the right-wing fundamentalist way in which the Republican party is being run.
3) Corporatism rules the USA democracy.
If you want to discuss this further, so as to bring it back to a thread where the discussion was going on and you can see the full length and reasoning behind my position, go reply here:
http://www.nma-fallout.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=8659&start=100
1) it isn't a democracy, but a federative republic. The voting system is therefore defective, since the representatives don't represent the people, but the states. Meaning that people with the most votes nationwide could very well be beaten by people with less votes but more states. (See George W. Bush)
2) The two-party system sucks. It allows for no variation, it does not allow you to choose for a party you really agree with and eliminates any possibility for any non-centrist party to gain any influence whatsoever. The parties also don't reflect the opinions of the people voting for them, CCR, for instance, is unhappy with the right-wing fundamentalist way in which the Republican party is being run.
3) Corporatism rules the USA democracy.
If you want to discuss this further, so as to bring it back to a thread where the discussion was going on and you can see the full length and reasoning behind my position, go reply here:
http://www.nma-fallout.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=8659&start=100