+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3
Results 31 to 36 of 36

Thread: Wacko Left: US ''a leading purveyor and practitioner'' of torture; Arrest Bush

  1. #31
    Staff Emeritus
    Join Date
    06 Aug 03
    Posts
    21,965
    Country: Canada
    Quote Originally Posted by BenRoethig
    The German legislature had little real power. On the other hand, parliament had (or should I say has) far too much power.
    It does bring a lie to the term that democrazies don't fight each other. More than that, it was a headlong rush by the entire civilian population of Europe (and the British Empire and the US) into that bloodletting. The US Civil War is a perfect example of even a demoracy fighting within itself.
    Chimo

  2. #32
    Staff Emeritus
    Join Date
    03 Aug 03
    Location
    Toronto, Canada
    Posts
    2,042
    Country: Canada
    The German Empire was about as democratic as Iran. The parliament was elected, sure, but those with authority were unelected. The British Empire was not perfect, but at least within British Isles, it was representative democracy.

  3. #33
    Staff Emeritus
    Join Date
    06 Aug 03
    Posts
    21,965
    Country: Canada
    Both Germany were and Iran are classified as democrazies, at least on paper. On paper, the Queen of Canada has the power to deny any law passed by Parliment. We can argue about the degrees of democratic power within either (and as M21Sniper already stated, extremely few countries even today measure up to the true definition). However, simply being democratic did not and has not prevented the populace of two "democratic" countries from rushing blindly into war.
    Chimo

  4. #34
    Staff Emeritus
    Military Professional
    Shek's Avatar
    Join Date
    23 Feb 05
    Location
    Krblachistan
    Posts
    11,473
    Country: United States
    Quote Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers
    Both Germany were and Iran are classified as democrazies, at least on paper. On paper, the Queen of Canada has the power to deny any law passed by Parliment. We can argue about the degrees of democratic power within either (and as M21Sniper already stated, extremely few countries even today measure up to the true definition). However, simply being democratic did not and has not prevented the populace of two "democratic" countries from rushing blindly into war.
    You are both right. It is very easy to discard German and Britain from the category of democracies because foreign affairs decisions were outside the scope of their parliaments, at least definitely for Germany. However, statistical analysis that has been done on the democratic peace argument shows that you can't show a statistical signifance to prove the argument (i.e. non-democratic governments are more likely to go to war than democratic governments). Also, some anecdotal case studies have shown that the fact that two countries are democracies are not the deciding factor for preventing war, but rather practical factors such as power (e.g. Trent affair). Also, the Civil War as OOE mentioned is another blow to the democratic peace argument as one of the arguments of the democratic peace is that the values inherent in a democracy will cause both sides to understand that they can work through issues peacefully.

    BTW, I've never heard Iran classified as a democracy - I've only seen it referred to as a theocracy.

  5. #35
    Senior Contributor Samudra's Avatar
    Join Date
    01 Sep 04
    Location
    Nilgiris
    Posts
    859
    Country: India
    America has been, and remains, the glorious beacon of freedom in the world. Imperfect, yes; but also enduringly great. Our collective conscience in these matters is clear.
    I am afraid you might be stretching it a bit over there.
    There have been instances, atleast one that i can recollect, where America has constrained or 'looked the other way' when systematic atrocities/genocide have occured , atleast in the cold war era.

    There never has or never will be a country having the will to look at things the way you think United States Of America sees today.

    Such statements are good for election campaigns , but they hold little value in the international arena.

  6. #36
    Staff Emeritus Confed999's Avatar
    Join Date
    10 Sep 03
    Location
    Illinois
    Posts
    10,026
    Country: United States
    Quote Originally Posted by Sombra
    Or how about women rights
    They are making progress in that area. Would they be, if it weren't for pressure from the west? Would you support liberation in Saudi, since you do not support it in Iraq where ethnic cleansing and opression had been repeatedly verified?
    Quote Originally Posted by Sombra
    the Us launched an attack on Iraq knowing the the intelligence was bogus
    Please prove it. Then you will have a valid argument against that single position, but the other positions would still stand.
    Quote Originally Posted by Sombra
    violated international rights declaring war against an independent nation.
    An independant tyranny maybe, but even that isn't true. Iraq was under terms of a cease-fire that they failed to live up to. They gave up sovereignty by agreeing to the terms, and then opposing them. I, for one, am glad they did, and that one less tyrant holds power in this world.
    Quote Originally Posted by Sombra
    they really thought they were under threat
    I think it's sad people require an immediate personal threat to do anything. Selfishness at it's worst.
    Quote Originally Posted by Sombra
    He ahd int coming somehow....
    Somehow? You can't be serious. Do you believe Saddam's Iraq was really a nice place, and that Saddam should be left in power?
    Quote Originally Posted by Sombra
    Still if this whole war was about regime change and bringin freedom then the US president should have said though from the beginning and not tried to tell stories about WMDs.
    Then please explain the Iraqi Liberation Act of 1998. The part you don't seem to get is that this argument started over a decade ago, but you seem to have only heard the last couple of months of it.
    Quote Originally Posted by Sombra
    If your intelligence agencies really have no clue what was going on then you should fire the whole useless bunch
    Let me help you with something, intelligence, in this form, basically means educated guess. Without unfettered boots on the ground, the reality cannot be found.
    Quote Originally Posted by SamudraGupta
    I am afraid you might be stretching it a bit over there.
    Not really, a beacon is a guiding light, and the ideals that the USA is based upon are that light. The "international arena" runs on a different set of rules, something that should truly be obvious.
    No man is free until all men are free - John Hossack
    I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq-John Kerry
    even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act-John Kerry
    He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It’s the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat-John Kerry

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

     

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts