Pages: 1 2 3

 

2006-08-25 07:24:35
aardfrith
Δ > x > ¥
+145|7036

sergeriver wrote:

aardfrith wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

Well what do you reckon? Western nations patronisingly drone on about regime change in the middle east but:
a) Do the peoples of the middle east actually want democracy?
b) What would the effect of democracy be? The democratic election of Hamas was interesting.
c) Are they ready for democracy? Have their societies and cultures 'progressed' to the point where they might be deemed 'ready'?
d) Should they fight for democracy themselves or have it shoved down their throats?

etc., etc., etc.
I wouldn't wish the UK's "democracy" on anyone.  The 2005 general (i.e Parliament) election results were shocking - the government was voted for by less than 1 in 4 UK adults:

Labour: 35.3% of the vote, 356 seats in Parliament.
Conservatives: 32.3%, 198 seats
Liberal Democracts: 22.1%, 62 seats
Others: 10.3%, 31 seats

Turnout was 61.3% of the listed voters.

Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/ … efault.stm


So, CameronPoe, what do you mean by democracy?  Do you have an example to use as a basis?
That is democracy dude.  If the government is fuckin up things, then vote against it in parliament election.  There's two clair positions in this: first, the government needs the majority in parliament to get the laws approved, the other is the government needs to be controlled by parliament.  Don't forget that in any decent democracy you need three independent powers, Administration, Congress or Parliament and Justice.  Without that you have no democracy at all.  Electing the president is just one thing in democracy.
I disagree.  The system we have where the polls are so biased towards the major cities is tantamount to a meritocracy - the only people whose votes matter are those who live in certain parts of the country.

For democracy to exist, i.e. the country being ruled by the people or a ruling party elected by the people, I think you need 50% +1 vote to be in favour of the winning party (or coalition).  What we have in the UK is close to 2/3 voting AGAINST the winning party.
2006-08-25 07:36:13
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|7001|Argentina

aardfrith wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

aardfrith wrote:


I wouldn't wish the UK's "democracy" on anyone.  The 2005 general (i.e Parliament) election results were shocking - the government was voted for by less than 1 in 4 UK adults:

Labour: 35.3% of the vote, 356 seats in Parliament.
Conservatives: 32.3%, 198 seats
Liberal Democracts: 22.1%, 62 seats
Others: 10.3%, 31 seats

Turnout was 61.3% of the listed voters.

Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/ … efault.stm


So, CameronPoe, what do you mean by democracy?  Do you have an example to use as a basis?
That is democracy dude.  If the government is fuckin up things, then vote against it in parliament election.  There's two clair positions in this: first, the government needs the majority in parliament to get the laws approved, the other is the government needs to be controlled by parliament.  Don't forget that in any decent democracy you need three independent powers, Administration, Congress or Parliament and Justice.  Without that you have no democracy at all.  Electing the president is just one thing in democracy.
I disagree.  The system we have where the polls are so biased towards the major cities is tantamount to a meritocracy - the only people whose votes matter are those who live in certain parts of the country.

For democracy to exist, i.e. the country being ruled by the people or a ruling party elected by the people, I think you need 50% +1 vote to be in favour of the winning party (or coalition).  What we have in the UK is close to 2/3 voting AGAINST the winning party.
But, if I understand what you say, you are talking about parlamentary elections.  What is the problem, if 2/3 of the people don't vote the government?
2006-08-25 07:41:20
Not
Great success!
+216|6821|Chandler, AZ

The_Shipbuilder wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

Well what do you reckon? Western nations patronisingly drone on about regime change in the middle east but:
a) Do the peoples of the middle east actually want democracy?
Being able to vote doesn't mean shit to Iraqis who

- see their family, friends, and neighbors die in daily firefights that didn't exist prior to Operation Iraqi Freedom
I agree. Instead they were used to watching citizens killed by the Saddam regime.

- haven't have reliable electricity and drinking water since Operation Iraqi Freedom
I agree in full.

- can't go to work anymore because their workplace has been bombed out or has had to cease operations due to Operation Iraqi Freedom
Also completely agree here

I'm sure the idea of democracy sounds nice to them. But until John and Jane Baghdad can walk the streets without fear, and can sip refreshing tap water in their air-conditioned flats with the lights on at 9pm like they were doing 5 years ago, I don't think they're going to be super jazzed about the democracy that our administration has brought to them.

I don't think you had been in Iraq before Operation Iraqi Freedom. Walking the streets without fear? Yeah unless you did something Saddam didn't like, then you died. air-conditioned flats with the lights on sipping refreshing tap water? I'm really hoping that entire last paragraph was taking the piss.

+2 for the good points you made. -10 for the last paragraph. Your total is -8! Hey in 58 points all the Iraqis go back to wearing Armani suits and debating which type of oppression is more stylish and fits their daily needs better! Keep going!
2006-08-25 07:44:11
aqempty
Member
+6|6750|international waters
the poor ones dont want a democracy, because think that a teocracy(i dont know if is that but it means god decides, or the powerful imans) where some factions attack the others because have the power or not

the richer or a bit more inteligent wants democracy or dictatorship but lay(god in one side politics in the other and they dont touch themselves) because are more balanced between the different factions, and a dictatorship may be a lack of liberty but everyone is on his point and they dont kill others.

and there are others that dont want anything just attack without thinking like hezbolah and others in palestine that dont  even think what could happen to their families or other civilians if they attack israel.
2006-08-25 08:32:14
The_Shipbuilder
Stay the corpse
+261|6744|Los Angeles

Not wrote:

The_Shipbuilder wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

Well what do you reckon? Western nations patronisingly drone on about regime change in the middle east but:
a) Do the peoples of the middle east actually want democracy?
Being able to vote doesn't mean shit to Iraqis who

- see their family, friends, and neighbors die in daily firefights that didn't exist prior to Operation Iraqi Freedom
I agree. Instead they were used to watching citizens killed by the Saddam regime.

- haven't have reliable electricity and drinking water since Operation Iraqi Freedom
I agree in full.

- can't go to work anymore because their workplace has been bombed out or has had to cease operations due to Operation Iraqi Freedom
Also completely agree here

I'm sure the idea of democracy sounds nice to them. But until John and Jane Baghdad can walk the streets without fear, and can sip refreshing tap water in their air-conditioned flats with the lights on at 9pm like they were doing 5 years ago, I don't think they're going to be super jazzed about the democracy that our administration has brought to them.

I don't think you had been in Iraq before Operation Iraqi Freedom. Walking the streets without fear? Yeah unless you did something Saddam didn't like, then you died. air-conditioned flats with the lights on sipping refreshing tap water? I'm really hoping that entire last paragraph was taking the piss.

+2 for the good points you made. -10 for the last paragraph. Your total is -8! Hey in 58 points all the Iraqis go back to wearing Armani suits and debating which type of oppression is more stylish and fits their daily needs better! Keep going!
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.

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.

And now that I do a bit more research, I find an incredible irony: Iraq , the country claiming the 3rd largest petroleum reserves in the world, is now in the middle of a fuel shortage. Gas selling for quadruple prices on the black market. "Iraq has been plagued by periodic fuel shortages since the 2003 U.S.-led invasion. 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.

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?
2006-08-25 10:02:26
Fancy_Pollux
Connoisseur of Fine Wine
+1,306|6890

oug wrote:

Democracy like the joke we have in the west?? Why would they want that? 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?

Btw have you noticed lately that all political parties are much less the same? (in the USA that's been going on for a long time actually).

Of course it will be shoved up their asses. Who in the right mind would fight for this crap?
Are you being sarcastic, or are you really just that ignorant?
2006-08-25 10:02:47
rawls2
Mr. Bigglesworth
+89|6804

PRiMACORD wrote:

B.Schuss wrote:

First, you flatten the whole country, destroy the whole infrasctructure, kill a lot of civilians. Then, you give them a couple of ballot boxes, tell them "congrats, you are now officially free and a democracy. go vote and live happily ever after", and you think that's going to work ?

I don't think so.
Gold
Your right. Let them live in poverty, have 2% of the population control 99% of the wealth. Why should we care what goes on outside our own borders.

Last edited by rawls2 (2006-08-25 10:03:21)

2006-08-25 10:06:55
oug
Calmer than you are.
+380|6763|Πάϊ

Fancy_Pollux wrote:

oug wrote:

Democracy like the joke we have in the west?? Why would they want that? 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?

Btw have you noticed lately that all political parties are much less the same? (in the USA that's been going on for a long time actually).

Of course it will be shoved up their asses. Who in the right mind would fight for this crap?
Are you being sarcastic, or are you really just that ignorant?
Try to prove me wrong and we'll see who's ignorant.
ƒ³
2006-08-25 10:08:03
jonsimon
Member
+224|6739

rawls2 wrote:

PRiMACORD wrote:

B.Schuss wrote:

First, you flatten the whole country, destroy the whole infrasctructure, kill a lot of civilians. Then, you give them a couple of ballot boxes, tell them "congrats, you are now officially free and a democracy. go vote and live happily ever after", and you think that's going to work ?

I don't think so.
Gold
Your right. Let them live in poverty, have 2% of the population control 99% of the wealth. Why should we care what goes on outside our own borders.
Relative poverty is better than total poverty.

Besides, Iraq ain't in poverty, Africa is in poverty.
2006-08-25 10:08:53
oug
Calmer than you are.
+380|6763|Πάϊ

rawls2 wrote:

PRiMACORD wrote:

B.Schuss wrote:

First, you flatten the whole country, destroy the whole infrasctructure, kill a lot of civilians. Then, you give them a couple of ballot boxes, tell them "congrats, you are now officially free and a democracy. go vote and live happily ever after", and you think that's going to work ?

I don't think so.
Gold
Your right. Let them live in poverty, have 2% of the population control 99% of the wealth. Why should we care what goes on outside our own borders.
"2% of the population control 99% of the wealth": The USA scores about the same so whats the difference?
ƒ³
2006-08-25 10:21:05
mafia996630
© 2009 Jeff Minard
+319|7007|d
the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
i think the middle-east wants democracy, but needs to earn it for them selves. i guess they don't want the "west" to give it to them.

Kind of like that respect thing:
"Respect has to be earned not given"
2006-08-25 10:25:20
Fancy_Pollux
Connoisseur of Fine Wine
+1,306|6890

oug wrote:

Fancy_Pollux wrote:

oug wrote:

Democracy like the joke we have in the west?? Why would they want that? 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?

Btw have you noticed lately that all political parties are much less the same? (in the USA that's been going on for a long time actually).

Of course it will be shoved up their asses. Who in the right mind would fight for this crap?
Are you being sarcastic, or are you really just that ignorant?
Try to prove me wrong and we'll see who's ignorant.
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??
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?
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.

Last edited by Fancy_Pollux (2006-08-25 11:03:42)

2006-08-25 10:30:52
rawls2
Mr. Bigglesworth
+89|6804

oug wrote:

rawls2 wrote:

PRiMACORD wrote:


Gold
Your right. Let them live in poverty, have 2% of the population control 99% of the wealth. Why should we care what goes on outside our own borders.
"2% of the population control 99% of the wealth": The USA scores about the same so whats the difference?
I wonder what the minimum wage is in Iran or Iraq or Syria or Lebonan. Compare that to ours or Israels. I dont have the answer. I am just curious.
2006-08-25 10:39:29
AlbertWesker[RE]
Not Human Anymore
+144|6888|Seattle, WA

rawls2 wrote:

I wonder what the minimum wage is in Iran or Iraq or Syria or Lebonan. Compare that to ours or Israels. I dont have the answer. I am just curious.
Ok i'm going to start being neutral on some of these topics because I am constantly being badgered because of my opinions, which is always wonderful so, without further ado.  Some facts:

1. - Iran is ranked 58th with the number of people below the poverty line in their country which is 40% below.
    - Syria ranked 104th with 20% below
    - U.S. 116th 12% below
    - Taiwan is the best ranked 129th with 1% below
    - and topping the list are some African countries and some in the caribbean

Edit: These are facts from the CIA World Factbook (a very reputable source) from 2005.

Last edited by AlbertWesker[RE] (2006-08-25 10:40:21)

2006-08-25 10:44:28
norge
J-10 and a coke please
+18|6714
its not that the people dont want democracy, its that the leaders in power dont want to give said power up.  therefore reducing the chances of them actually getting a true democracy.
2006-08-25 10:51:57
13rin
Member
+977|6723

cl4u53w1t2 wrote:

The_Shipbuilder wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

Well what do you reckon? Western nations patronisingly drone on about regime change in the middle east but:
a) Do the peoples of the middle east actually want democracy?
Being able to vote doesn't mean shit to Iraqis who

- see their family, friends, and neighbors die in daily firefights that didn't exist prior to Operation Iraqi Freedom
- haven't have reliable electricity and drinking water since Operation Iraqi Freedom
- can't go to work anymore because their workplace has been bombed out or has had to cease operations due to Operation Iraqi Freedom

I'm sure the idea of democracy sounds nice to them. But until John and Jane Baghdad can walk the streets without fear, and can sip refreshing tap water in their air-conditioned flats with the lights on at 9pm like they were doing 5 years ago, I don't think they're going to be super jazzed about the democracy that our administration has brought to them.
true. and let us not forget (as has been said many times before): iraq had nothing to do with weapons of mass destruction or even terrorism. i can not hate "insurgents" that want to free their country from aggressors that invaded their country. by the way, +1 for u mate
The majority of the insurgents are not freeing their country.  They are foriegn (Iranian, Egyptian, and Syrian).
  Sorry war is not like the tele sitcoms you are use to where every problem is solved in a half and hour.  Things take time and Iraq will be better off in the long run.
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something.  - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
2006-08-25 10:53:44
AlbertWesker[RE]
Not Human Anymore
+144|6888|Seattle, WA

DBBrinson1 wrote:

The majority of the insurgents are not freeing their country.  They are foriegn (Iranian, Egyptian, and Syrian).
  Sorry war is not like the tele sitcoms you are use to where every problem is solved in a half and hour.  Things take time and Iraq will be better off in the long run.
+1
2006-08-25 11:44:20
Phrozenbot
Member
+632|6860|do not disturb

oug wrote:

rawls2 wrote:

PRiMACORD wrote:

Gold
Your right. Let them live in poverty, have 2% of the population control 99% of the wealth. Why should we care what goes on outside our own borders.
"2% of the population control 99% of the wealth": The USA scores about the same so whats the difference?
No, 1% controls 38% of the wealth in the united states (as of 2001). This isn't the 1890s.

Last edited by Hellogoodsir (2006-08-25 11:45:13)

2006-08-25 11:47:35
Paco_the_Insane
Phorum Phantom
+244|6889|Ohio

Hellogoodsir wrote:

oug wrote:

rawls2 wrote:


Your right. Let them live in poverty, have 2% of the population control 99% of the wealth. Why should we care what goes on outside our own borders.
"2% of the population control 99% of the wealth": The USA scores about the same so whats the difference?
No, 1% controls 38% of the wealth in the united states (as of 2001). This isn't the 1890s.
QFT BBQ FTW

i dont know what im talking about, but my post features quotes!
2006-08-25 11:50:08
AAFCptKabbom
Member
+127|6902|WPB, FL. USA
I believe all the facts point to the people wanting a better quality of life.  If you look at "what was" and "what is" going-on in each country then that might be the best way to debate this topic rather than use the term "Middle East".

Iraq is a pawn in a world class chess match.  If the Government fails then it's well predicted to be a blood bath of historic per-portion.  More than likely it will go Shiite and align with Iran.  If the Government gets the support it deserves from the world then the Government {people} will control their future - a type of Government they choose.  If we continue to be divided and debate what was and continue to asses blame then they will be what we make of them rather than what they choose to be. 

There are a small number of people, relative to the population, that are trying to prevent the Government {people} from being successful.  Besides just mindlessly slaughtering their own they use "break the will of the people" tactics like fuel shortages - fuel is a target and a pawn used by terrorist and insurgents to deprive the people of basic needs and to destroy the credibility of the Government - terrorist and insurgents know how to play chess as well.  That probably tosses out the theory that we went their for the oil - hmmmm.

Is not EVERYONE well served by putting forth a positive attitude and doing everything we can to help these poor bastards from what god awful things are happening there right now.  Or, do we continue to live in the past and asses blame or point fingers.  It seems too many people are tied to how we got there rather than the fact that we are there - probably the same group of people that haven't gotten over an election from many years ago - is your bitterness and selfishness being served by seeing these poor people in Irag suffer because your horse didn't win a race!  At least you'll live to vote another day.

Kaboom.
2006-08-25 11:51:03
Spearhead
Gulf coast redneck hippy
+731|6934|Tampa Bay Florida
a) In some ways, ya.  But what they want the most is to be safe and lead stable lives
b) Who knows
c) No
d) They should fight for it.  No one else can show them the right path but themselves
2006-08-25 11:52:52
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|6960
wow taiwan is mentioned we have crap mininium wage here... US min wage seems to be tons better...
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
2006-08-25 11:54:22
Paco_the_Insane
Phorum Phantom
+244|6889|Ohio

Fancy_Pollux wrote:

oug wrote:

Fancy_Pollux wrote:


Are you being sarcastic, or are you really just that ignorant?
Try to prove me wrong and we'll see who's ignorant.
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??
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?
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.
QFT
2006-08-25 12:10:44
13rin
Member
+977|6723

AAFCptKabbom wrote:

It seems too many people are tied to how we got there rather than the fact that we are there - probably the same group of people that haven't gotten over an election from many years ago - is your bitterness and selfishness being served by seeing these poor people in Irag suffer because your horse didn't win a race!  At least you'll live to vote another day.

Kaboom.
DING! DING! DING!!!  We have a winner!  Peoples hatred blinds them of the greater good being accomplished.  Like that post Bush good/evil.   I wonder if there was a good/evil poll here on Saddam? anyways, I go off on tangents some times..........
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something.  - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
2006-08-25 13:54:51
DesertFox-
The very model of a modern major general
+796|6929|United States of America
I recall a statement relevant to this in Black Hawk Down. It was something along the lines of asking a person on the street if they had wanted peace, they would say "Of course." If you further asked them if they were willing to share power with other clans to get it, they would vehemently object to the very notion. Sure they want it as little children want candy, but they haven't earned it judging from past behavior.

 

Pages: 1 2 3

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard