Login

04-28-2009, 03:24 AM

[COLOR="Purple"]for whatever its worth...

over here one of the arguments against the invasion was that Iraq needed an iron fisted leader to keep control over the various factions within...[/COLOR]

08-21-2009, 05:09 PM

Churchill once said something to the effect of, 'Democracy is the worst form of Government, apart from all the others'.[/quote]

A wise man indeed.

08-21-2009, 09:30 PM

Jerome Nathanson: The price of the democratic way of life is a growing appreciation of people's differences, not merely as tolerable, but as the essence of a rich and rewarding human experience.

That is what the western world means to me

08-22-2009, 03:24 AM

Wow, amazing how emotional people get. Having been to Iraq and Afghanistan, and having observed the effects of our (when I say our I mean the western nations) actions, I would have to say that the people in Iraq are getting close to where they need to be to change they're own government. The people in Afghanistan are not there yet, they are still stuck in the tribal way of life.

fredv3b · 08-22-2009, 02:16 PM

Regan's National Security Advisor was fond of quoting the fact that the transformation from Autocratic Monarchy to a fully Democratic Parliamentary Government took over 600 years.

Genersis · 08-23-2009, 09:56 AM

fredv3b Wrote:Regan's National Security Advisor was fond of quoting the fact that the transformation from Autocratic Monarchy to a fully Democratic Parliamentary Government took over 600 years.

Even then, luck probably played a large part in that change.:frown:
Like lightning striking just the right place at the right time......and you know what they say about lightning, right?

Why can't the world be a happy place where we can all be friends and never have wars? The human psyche. As long as there are separate people with diffrent veiws and beliefs running countrys, theres always going to be conflicts between those people, and in turn, countrys. Whether its for conflicting religous, political or resourse "issues" there will ALWAYS be war.

A country should not be run with religous or personal veiws, but with freedom to the people, to have there own veiws and live there lives how ever they please but without infriging the rights of others.
Also a country Should share its esential resourses with the rest of the world to stop conflicts of deprivery/greed.

Have I gone and waffled again? Am I being a bit too idealic in my thinking? Does my veiws seem a bit naive? Has what i have writen seem a bit off topic? Only you can decide! :biggrin:

(After typing this all out, i feel a bit silly posting it, but then it would make all the time i spent writting this pointless, so im afraid you will have to put up with it!:redface Smile

fredv3b · 08-25-2009, 10:58 AM

Genersis Wrote:A country should not be run with religous or personal veiws, but with freedom to the people, to have there own veiws and live there lives how ever they please but without infriging the rights of others.
Also a country Should share its esential resourses with the rest of the world to stop conflicts of deprivery/greed.

The trouble with rights is that unless they are very narrowly defined different peoples rights inevitably conflict with each other. For example, if people have a right to life (rather than a right merely not to be murdered) then they, by corollary, must have the right to food. The right to food conflicts with the farmer's right to property and to sell the fruits of his labour and land to whoever he chooses. Its not too difficult for a country to share an essential resource with another if it isn't owned by any particular individuals, however if it is owned by individuals then that sharing violates their property rights.

Genersis · 08-30-2009, 03:18 AM

fredv3b Wrote:The trouble with rights is that unless they are very narrowly defined different peoples rights inevitably conflict with each other. For example, if people have a right to life (rather than a right merely not to be murdered) then they, by corollary, must have the right to food. The right to food conflicts with the farmer's right to property and to sell the fruits of his labour and land to whoever he chooses. Its not too difficult for a country to share an essential resource with another if it isn't owned by any particular individuals, however if it is owned by individuals then that sharing violates their property rights.

I wasn't thinking about that at the time, Although I did know that already, I guess I just wanted to say my perfect world speech:redface:.

*Sigh*

Humanity's doomed! Ah well, I think il enjoy my time while I'm here.:tongue: