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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.