BF2S Forums Do you think the middle east wants democracy?

The_Shipbuilder wrote:

Nice... +20 points for giving me a taste of my own point method medicine! 28 now if I remember right? Just 22 more until ICE CREAM.
You do remember right sir! I can almost taste it!

It wasn't a well-written sentence. "like they did 5 years ago" is meant to apply to the fragment that follows the comma. I didn't mean to say that 5 years ago there was no fear.

Understood.

But the current crisis comes amid higher demand for fuel to power generators and air-condition homes and offices, with summer temperatures topping 115 degrees." Certainly sounds like power remains a scarce commodity.
Yes, it is.
But you are correct, I have never been to Iraq. I assume you have? My understanding is that since the US invasion, electricity and water have been unreliable. Is this incorrect in your experience? With which points of mine are you disagreeing?

Yes they have been in very short supply, much less than when I was there according to what I hear about it now. However, it was not a place that was well-off with modern conveniences as portrayed in the final paragraph of the post I originally responded to. They were certianly not all drinking fresh water comfortably and living in well-lit apartments enjoying themselves. I simply won't argue that they're in worse shape as far as utilities (Gas, water, electricty) go, because clearly they are. You're right about that. However to make the statement that overall they're not better off now is a bit premature. Yes, we've failed horribly to provide these basic things, but prolonged attacks on civilian contractors and US troops there have a large role in the implementation taking much longer than it should. The effort we've given is clearly not enough, but we've provided an opportunity for the freedom of the people. It's something that will take years to blossom, and right now a person could argue that life there isn't as "Stable" as it was under Saddam, but it's definitely showing a much brighter window of opportunity. All in my opinion.

Last edited by Not (2006-08-25 14:32:08)

Fancy_Pollux wrote:

I will prove you wrong when you present an argument to prove wrong. Here's where you can start:

oug wrote:

Democracy like the joke we have in the west??

1.Why is democracy a joke? Cite some examples that have occured through history. You might also want to compare democracy during the last 100 years to other forms of government.

oug wrote:

Why would they want that?

2.Because dictatorships have historically oppressed their own people. And by oppressed, I mean raped, murdered, and driven into poverty. In a dictatorship, a very few people control the VAST majority of the wealth, and the majority of the country's citizens are in poverty. Can you name an established democracy that shares the same characteristics? Additionally, citizens lack basic freedoms, such as freedom of speech, that we have. They have no say in their government and can be killed just for expressing disagreement with the government.

oug wrote:

What is so cool about a system that allows you to elect your governors only every 4 years (most countries), thus minimizing the peoples' control?

How does that minimize the peoples' control? You just referred to a system that GIVES people control, yet claim it minimizes it? Please tell me how a dictatorship or any other form of government gives their people MORE control. This is why I thought your entire argument was using sarcasm and actually in favor of a democratic government. Are you really that foolish to unknowingly provide the counterpoints to your argument as PART of your argument!?


This also leads me to my next point. If you're going to participate in a debate, do so properly. That means when you make an assertion, follow it up with some sort of proof. Don't just make a bunch of blind, uneducated claims with nothing else to show for it. Additionally, the people who jump on such a person's bandwagon are even more at fault. Read what you write before you post it, and actually read the post you are agreeing or disagreeing with. Most of you are sheep and will jump on any bandwagon if the poster makes an emotional argument, regardless of its actual content.

1. The sort of democracy you and all of the western world has come to know is nothing like the authentic  system for which the word democracy was first used by the ancient Greeks.

What they meant by the word democracy is what is contemporarily known as "Direct Democracy". The differences:

a. Direct Democracy can function only within small groups. In 500 B.C. Athens for example, the population of the city was so limited, that they could all gather up in some large space and listen to one speaker. That way, the people actively participated in every major decision the state had to take. Everyone had to agree before a decision was taken.

b. Also, in those gatherings, every citizen had the right to publicly express his opinion in front of everyone, not only the leading political figures of the time.

c. The political and military leaders were chosen directly by the people, and there was also a system of turns, so that everyone would get a post sometime. Also, nobody remained in a post for too long, I think not more than a year, depending on the post's nature.


So, I think you misunderstood. I never said that dictatorship or any other form of government was better than a democratic one. You planted that all by yourself.


All I'm saying is that lately, what we have come to call democracy, looks a lot more like an oligarchy or even a dictatorship, and thus it is not much better than what Iran or Iraq have/ had going down there. It certainly is not worth fighting and losing your life for. After all, instead of Saddam, you now get some consortium over your head, and nothing changes for the simple folk.

2. a.The USA claim to be a democracy, and they share the same characteristics. If you look at how the wealth is being distributed, you will see that there is a handful of people in the US that make more money than all the rest put together. Hell, some assholes' income surpasses what some countries make in a year!!

And don't get me wrong, it's not just the US, it's the same in all western societies. The USA is only the most powerful one, and that's where the richest and more powerful people live.

b. I doubt that you have freedom of speech. Especially in the USA after 9/11, this is becoming increasingly visible. Freedom is constantly exchanged for false safety with the peoples' consent. And again, the US is only the loudest of examples. This is coming to Europe as well.

Hope I covered everything for you.

oug wrote:

1. All I'm saying is that lately, what we have come to call democracy, looks a lot more like an oligarchy or even a dictatorship, and thus it is not much better than what Iran or Iraq have/ had going down there. It certainly is not worth fighting and losing your life for. After all, instead of Saddam, you now get some consortium over your head, and nothing changes for the simple folk.

2. a.The USA claim to be a democracy, and they share the same characteristics. If you look at how the wealth is being distributed, you will see that there is a handful of people in the US that make more money than all the rest put together. Hell, some assholes' income surpasses what some countries make in a year!!

And don't get me wrong, it's not just the US, it's the same in all western societies. The USA is only the most powerful one, and that's where the richest and more powerful people live.

b. I doubt that you have freedom of speech. Especially in the USA after 9/11, this is becoming increasingly visible. Freedom is constantly exchanged for false safety with the peoples' consent. And again, the US is only the loudest of examples. This is coming to Europe as well.

Hope I covered everything for you.

1.  Pure democracy is unobtainable because its too much like anarchy.  Although the Greek system was a great ideal - the Greeks fought themselves as much as foreigners.  Fancy's point is that democratic-like systems have worked and are working.  This addresses your statement that Democracy is a joke.

2. Dictatorships run based on the establishment of oppression.  There is a big difference between suppressing unpopular opinions via force and what you are proposing - that our government is similar to a dictatorshp by actively oppressing the poor.  The government actually is providing social support for the less fortunate - a socialistic tendency - which is not consistent if it is indeed a dictatorship.  Fancy's point is that dictators actively suppress the population in unsavory ways.

Freedom of speech is still present.  This forum is an example.  Open criticism of the government is prevailing everywhere.  Yes it is monitored and action is taken if its no longer "free speech" but becomes "action".

So I have to disagree with you at the basic level, although I do see your points: 1) Is not a pure democracy, 2) there is a class system in place, 3) people are worried about free speech.

Ok, thanks for clarifying.

I think we both understand each other well enough.