Recommended Posts
Feels great!! RAH RAH SIS BOOMBAH GOOOOOO DEATH!!QuoteHow does it feel to be a cheerleader for war, death and killing?
Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------
dorbie 0
Quote
Okay, I asked for an example, you provided one. Thanks.
It was too much of an easy one
Quote
I do have to question whether or not we can compare those two cultures. After all, the hostlities were over when we installed democracyu in Japan. Also, honor played a tremendous part in their culture. When they gave an unconditional surrender, it meant exactly that, so we really didn't force democracy on them, but rather they willingly and peacefully accepted it, something unlikely to happen in Iraq.
Let me put it this way. When the U.S. did it with Japan it didn't go searching for Historical analogies to see if it would work, comparing everything down to the last cultural nuance, it just did it. It made a plan it set it in motion, it stayed flexible and it stuck the course.
One other important point, Iraq already professed to be a democracy with elections even before Saddam. OK it was a sham by our standards but there's more to work with there than some would suggest.
Implying Democracy is incompatible with Iraq makes no sense to me. Other countries in the region are more dubious but Iraq I'd say are ripe for it.
A few terrorist malcontents killing people doesn't mean you don't have a country that could be free and democratic.
jcd11235 0
I just don't think it is possible to hold "free" elections in such a climate of violence. If the violence is quelled, then democracy has a chance to take root. The fact is that the violence has not been quelled, and it is unlikely to be before the national elections.
As far as our standard of free election, the Carter Foundation (I think that's the name) has gone on record, prior to the 2004 election, as saying that conditions necessary for fair elections do not exist in florida. One of the primary reasons given was the lack of non-partisan election oversight.
Stalin was correct. Voters decide nothing. Those that count the votes decide everything.
As far as our standard of free election, the Carter Foundation (I think that's the name) has gone on record, prior to the 2004 election, as saying that conditions necessary for fair elections do not exist in florida. One of the primary reasons given was the lack of non-partisan election oversight.
Stalin was correct. Voters decide nothing. Those that count the votes decide everything.
Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!
dorbie 0
QuoteI just don't think it is possible to hold "free" elections in such a climate of violence. If the violence is quelled, then democracy has a chance to take root. The fact is that the violence has not been quelled, and it is unlikely to be before the national elections.
As far as our standard of free election, the Carter Foundation (I think that's the name) has gone on record, prior to the 2004 election, as saying that conditions necessary for fair elections do not exist in florida. One of the primary reasons given was the lack of non-partisan election oversight.
Stalin was correct. Voters decide nothing. Those that count the votes decide everything.
You're setting up a catch-22 condition that leads to victory for the terrorists, and I reject that. If you view it as a process and the election as part of that process then the outlook is different.
By disparraging the credibility of elections you're playing into the hands of the enemy. Their only chance of success now is to attack the credibility of Iraqi democracy, that is why they view the elections themselves as a target.
If the Iraqis have it as good as Floridians they'll be in fine shape. Fortunately the election in Florida wasn't close enough to make Carter's proclamations meaningfull to those who would use it as political ammunition. The result isn't in question the point is moot.
The Florida non sequitur shows the extent of your issues here. You'd actually advocate some intangible, ill defined unattainable criteria for elections to be held and while Iraqis wait on it (their freedom jeopardized by the wait) they'd have no representative government at all, just some interim system set in place with no credibility. Which is the better option? Hold the darned elections, make them as fair as possible in as many areas as possible and get the ball rolling. Support the outcome and fight the inevitable claims of illegitimacy from the terrorists and their cheering section here.
jcd11235 0
QuoteIf the Iraqis have it as good as Floridians they'll be in fine shape. Fortunately the election in Florida wasn't close enough to make Carters proclamations meaningfull to those who would use it as political ammunition. The result isn't in question the point is moot.
If this county hadn't had MAJOR voting discrepancies for two consecutive presidential elections, you would have a point. We know in hindsight that Shrub did not win FL in 2000, so any re-election as an incumbent is inherently fraudulent.
Election fraud is wrong, whether it changes the outcome of the election or not. It would be hypocritical to disagree with that premise, while simultaneously supporting democracy as a superior form of government.
Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!
dorbie 0
QuoteQuoteIf the Iraqis have it as good as Floridians they'll be in fine shape. Fortunately the election in Florida wasn't close enough to make Carters proclamations meaningfull to those who would use it as political ammunition. The result isn't in question the point is moot.
If this county hadn't had MAJOR voting discrepancies for two consecutive presidential elections, you would have a point. We know in hindsight that Shrub did not win FL in 2000, so any re-election as an incumbent is inherently fraudulent.
Election fraud is wrong, whether it changes the outcome of the election or not. It would be hypocritical to disagree with that premise, while simultaneously supporting democracy as a superior form of government.
Even when you're off topic you can't stay off topic. Carter's issues with the election in 2004 had nothing to do with Bush being the incumbent.
Please stay on topic, I don't care about your radical views on the 2004 election result. It only serves to illustrate that no democracy is good enough for you and you'll find any pretext to tear even a highly legitimate one down, quoting a mass murdering sociopath dictator like Stalin in the process, who ironically was Saddam's principal role model.
QuoteLet me put it this way. When the U.S. did it with Japan it didn't go searching for Historical analogies to see if it would work, comparing everything down to the last cultural nuance, it just did it. It made a plan it set it in motion, it stayed flexible and it stuck the course.
Couldn't you also say that Japan after the civil war, if you can call it that, of 1868 was on its way to democratic process. The Emperor was supreme but the Meji restoration ushered in extreme changes that one could say planted the seeds of democracy. You're also not taking into account the huge western influence in the late 19th century. Also remember that even though Japan was utterly demolished in WW2 the underlying structure for democracy was still there. It would be intersting if we could talk to Gen MacArthur about this.
You're on the side against humanity? I feel fine about being on the side of not killing people when possible.
How does it feel to be a cheerleader for war, death and killing?
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites