<!--QuoteBegin-CommunistWithAGun+Feb 15 2005, 01:33 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CommunistWithAGun @ Feb 15 2005, 01:33 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> No. You are not liberating them. You are merely changing who they are opressed by. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> That remains to be seen. Something tells me that in 20 years from now, if everything goes to plan and there is no significant American presence in Iraq, and it is a working democracy, that you will still claim they are being oppressed by the forces of capitalism. Given that you consider democratic America an oppressive nation, I'm not suprised you preferred Saddam to a shot at democracy.
The flavor of democracy everyone around here loves to throw around is nothing of what democracy truly is. Democracy represents peace, not bloodshed, Democracy represents representation, not an occupation force, and Above all democracy represents the freedom to choose, not be chosen for.
From Dictionary.com <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Main Entry: de·moc·ra·cy Pronunciation: di-'mä-kr&-sE Function: noun Inflected Form: plural -cies 1 a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections 2 : a political unit that has a democratic government —dem·o·crat·ic /"de-m&-'kra-tik/ adjective —dem·o·crat·i·cal·ly adverb<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hmm peace, eh? Yes we just peacefully asked the British to leave the country and they listed. Oh, and in Greece, where democracy originated. only white males had the right to vote. They also were not all that peacfull, attacking another nation after it wanted to withdraw from a league that greece ran. Rome then picked up the reigns of democracy, and we know how peacefull they are.
We live in a representative democracy. We vote for who we believe best represents our views, and they vote for us on the national scale. It is almost impossible to have a direct democracy, as many of us would not vote that much. Nor does everyone have the time to work, raise a family, and keep up to date on all the issues.
So you dont think we should have occupied Japan and Germany after WW2, we should have just bombed them to hell and left them is chaos?
Democracy was not founded on peace and not oppressing others. It was founded on performing the will of the people it represents, through majority rule voting. If its people want war, there will be war. If its people want to peace, we will have peace. If anything our democracy is an improvement over those of old, as we no longer limit voters to white males.
<!--QuoteBegin-CommunistWithAGun+Feb 14 2005, 08:43 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CommunistWithAGun @ Feb 14 2005, 08:43 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The flavor of democracy everyone around here loves to throw around is nothing of what democracy truly is. Democracy represents peace, not bloodshed, Democracy represents representation, not an occupation force, and Above all democracy represents the freedom to choose, not be chosen for. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Let's hope that in a decade, Iraquis will have the peace, representation and choice that democracy brings in full.
These things take time. Here's hoping that the Iraq democracy doesn't do a Weimar. It looks good, though, since the Iraquis don't seem to feel resentful about its new government (as far as I can tell, anyway).
<!--QuoteBegin-Handman+Feb 15 2005, 10:02 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Handman @ Feb 15 2005, 10:02 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> So you dont think we should have occupied Japan and Germany after WW2, we should have just bombed them to hell and left them is chaos? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Because occupying Germany TOTALLY kept the peace and the Berlin Wall NEVER ACTUALLY HAPPENED.
I'm not sure whether the occupation of Germany was strictly necessary. The population was worn out and tired of war, and wanted nothing else than to rebuild their country and turn the fruits of their labour to other uses than warfare. But I'm not aware of any substantial harm being done by the occupation, either. EXCEPT for the east/west split, which was due to Germany being occupied by OPPOSING FACTIONS, namely France, the U.K. and the U.S.A. on one side and the U.S.S.R. on the other.
Heh I think the funny thing is that the goal of the terrorists in Iraq is make the US leave when all their actions do is cause us to stay longer.
If they were really pure in their intentions about freeing Iraq from "American oppression" they would sit back, let us rebuild their country to something that can be a happy productive place in the modern world and then let us peaceably go on our way.
We never planned to stay in Iraq even this long, they caused us to stay longer, in effect shooting themselves in the foot.
Of course we all know the last thing they want is a happy peaceful Iraq because that would be counterproductive to their own idiotic negative goals.
thats a good point. they should let us get done democracizing iraq (I think thats a word... democrazing... its the verb of making a democracy in case its not a word which I'm starting to think that it is not...) we can move on to another third world country, and once were done with that, we'll move to another country... untill the whole world is like America, and then the world will be a better place.. thank goodness for westernization
<!--QuoteBegin-AvengerX+Feb 16 2005, 05:45 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (AvengerX @ Feb 16 2005, 05:45 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> thats a good point. they should let us get done democracizing iraq (I think thats a word... democrazing... its the verb of making a democracy in case its not a word which I'm starting to think that it is not...) we can move on to another third world country, and once were done with that, we'll move to another country... untill the whole world is like America, and then the world will be a better place.. thank goodness for westernization <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I don't think it could get to that point, because it would drive a spike into the already gaping division in our country.
<!--QuoteBegin-AvengerX+Feb 16 2005, 05:45 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (AvengerX @ Feb 16 2005, 05:45 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> thats a good point. they should let us get done democracizing iraq (I think thats a word... democrazing... its the verb of making a democracy in case its not a word which I'm starting to think that it is not...) we can move on to another third world country, and once were done with that, we'll move to another country... untill the whole world is like America, and then the world will be a better place.. thank goodness for westernization <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> If that was a joke then you're pretty funny. If that wasn't a joke then you totally suck.
I am of the belief that if one good person conquered the whole world. then we could unite the whole world. and then there would be no more war... ya gotta fight fire with fire sometimes things need to get worse before they get better. it'd take one super huge war to end all the other wars. (unless you end up with civil wars afterwards, which could be surpressed) then everyone on the planet could live under one just rule and everyone could be happy.
<!--QuoteBegin-AvengerX+Feb 16 2005, 09:42 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (AvengerX @ Feb 16 2005, 09:42 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I am of the belief that if one good person conquered the whole world. then we could unite the whole world. and then there would be no more war... ya gotta fight fire with fire sometimes things need to get worse before they get better. it'd take one super huge war to end all the other wars. (unless you end up with civil wars afterwards, which could be surpressed) then everyone on the planet could live under one just rule and everyone could be happy. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Oh, then you totally suck. Mostly because that would *never actually work*. One, who would you pick the conquer the entire world? And a civil war couldn't "be supressed" if it was half the planet rebelling against the other half. This plan is less watertight than a sieve.
why couldn't it happen? people use to conquer enormous empires all the time. like the Romans or the english.. heck the sun never set on the English empire for a while.
look at econmies at size ... for example (finicially not Ethically/morally) wall-mart.. the reason they can give stuff so cheap is cuz they so dang huge that they can stay afloat, that and they eliminate the middle man a lot of the times. by working a 100% internally. this could happen with goverments as well. with more connections and less barriers the world could be a lot more effiencent
<!--QuoteBegin-AvengerX+Feb 16 2005, 09:52 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (AvengerX @ Feb 16 2005, 09:52 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> why couldn't it happen? people use to conquer enormous empires all the time. like the Romans or the english.. heck the sun never set on the English empire for a while.
look at econmies at size ... for example (finicially not Ethically/morally) wall-mart.. the reason they can give stuff so cheap is cuz they so dang huge that they can stay afloat, that and they eliminate the middle man a lot of the times. by working a 100% internally. this could happen with goverments as well. with more connections and less barriers the world could be a lot more effiencent <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Believe it or not, not everyone in the world wants to be united under the same flag. Also, us and the Romans conquered about a quarter of the world each time, then every country <b>wanted their independence</b>, and fought for it. The British Empire now is... Gibralta and the Falklands. The economical side of things wouldn't help either. Britain was the richest country in the world when it took over a quarter of the globe, and Italy was one of the only countries WITH an economy when it took over a large amount (not sure how much) of the globe, but each time it slipped away.
thats because they didn't hold on. I think that a country could take over the entire world. and eventually people would be assimlated into it. I mean the first couple of generations might not like it too much but after a couple 100 years people would totally be cool with it all
<!--QuoteBegin-AvengerX+Feb 16 2005, 10:00 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (AvengerX @ Feb 16 2005, 10:00 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> thats because they didn't hold on. I think that a country could take over the entire world. and eventually people would be assimlated into it. I mean the first couple of generations might not like it too much but after a couple 100 years people would totally be cool with it all <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Ehh.. no. Circumstances brought about by owning a huge peice of the world against its will made them let go. Rome fell because troops were being recalled from provinces like Gaul or Briton (no idea if it was called Briton at the time) to deal with uprisings and pressure nearer to home, thus the understaffed Roman legions in these provinces were much weaker, allowing the Gauls and Britons to overthrow them. Admittedly this is the one situation where the Romans COULD have held on (they ended up just leaving Briton), but it's unlikely. The British empire HAD to let go of countries under its control, or face turning a quarter of the world against it. Sure they could've just marched in and crushed every resistance member, but that would only increase the tension, thus provide more rebels for the cause to overthrow Britain.
the reason those old school empires fell apart is just as you said, because troops had to move elsewhere... but now a days with advances in technology, it's a lot easier to transport lots of things. and with inventions like long range balistic missles and what have you, we could control the whole world
<!--QuoteBegin-AvengerX+Feb 16 2005, 10:09 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (AvengerX @ Feb 16 2005, 10:09 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> the reason those old school empires fell apart is just as you said, because troops had to move elsewhere... but now a days with advances in technology, it's a lot easier to transport lots of things. and with inventions like long range balistic missles and what have you, we could control the whole world <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> You're suggesting that it's ok to stop riots with fly-by-wire missiles and carpet bombing? See, THAT could work. Just kill everyone in the entire world and there's noone left to riot! Hooray! Could easily solve homelessness, homosexuality, black people, terrorism and world hunger, too!
thats not what I'm suggesting... if you started a riot today right now and just started burning down buildings what would happen? a local police force would stop you. such police law enformence would be stationed around the world.
Of course, people don't like being ruled like that. Instead, a more realistic option would be a stronger version of the United Nations. Though, if there's one country that would fight this to the end, it would definitely be the United States.
It would be rather interesting if all other western nations joined together under one flag, called themselves the Western Alliance, combined their military forces, created their own currency, and told the United States "...you have to deal with us now..."
You do realize taking over the world includes countries like China and Russia, right? We can't exactly roll over these countries like we did Iraq, especially in a conventional war.
Here's a couple of facts for all those still debating this:
- North Korea <i>IS</i> a threat to the US (well, atleast to the west coast). Why? They have ICBM's capable of reaching the west coast (California, Oregon, and parts of Washington [Ft. Lewis]).
- Seoul is within range of NK's artillery batteries. If they wanted to, NK could shell Seoul into submission within hours.
- NK has the Million Man Army. Coupled with the fact that there's only about 38,000 American troops stationed in SK (Most of them guarding the DMZ), and that NK has been digging tunnels under the DMZ for decades = bad news if NK commits to a ground war.
- NK has incited numerous "incidents" against US troops over the years (too many to list). They hate us, pure and simple.
That's all for now. I'll post more later but right now I needs my sleep.
<!--QuoteBegin-AvengerX+Feb 16 2005, 11:59 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (AvengerX @ Feb 16 2005, 11:59 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> if you got rid of all the nukes in the world the US could take over it... easily
we took iraq with what? 1.5k casualties..... we could do it... easily <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> You don't have the manpower. Simple as. I think you don't understand just how big the world is.
Besides which, why would you want to make an empire by force? In the end, they always crumble.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Sunday February 1, 2004<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Old news befitting an old thread.
<!--QuoteBegin-theclam+Mar 1 2005, 09:01 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (theclam @ Mar 1 2005, 09:01 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Sunday February 1, 2004<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Old news befitting an old thread. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> If you don't have anything worthwhile to contribute why even post at all?
Crisqo did the smart thing and instead of starting a whole new topic posted in the one already created, and seeing as how this has not been discussed and Feb. 1st is only a month ago, I fail to see how this is "old".
This doesn’t really surprise me all that much although that doesn’t make it any less disturbing. If you read up on what the Japanese did to the Chinese during WWII this sounds like an evil mix between that and Hitler’s gas chambers.
I wonder how many have been killed…?
On a scarier note this would add a bit of...justification to an invasion should we ever be stupid enough to try and invade NK.
Just wanted to throw this out there without having to start a new thread. Bad North Korea, bad. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Oppressive leader? Check. WMDs? Check. Oil? Negative.
Comments
That remains to be seen. Something tells me that in 20 years from now, if everything goes to plan and there is no significant American presence in Iraq, and it is a working democracy, that you will still claim they are being oppressed by the forces of capitalism. Given that you consider democratic America an oppressive nation, I'm not suprised you preferred Saddam to a shot at democracy.
The flavor of democracy everyone around here loves to throw around is nothing of what democracy truly is. Democracy represents peace, not bloodshed, Democracy represents representation, not an occupation force, and Above all democracy represents the freedom to choose, not be chosen for.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Main Entry: de·moc·ra·cy
Pronunciation: di-'mä-kr&-sE
Function: noun
Inflected Form: plural -cies
1 a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections
2 : a political unit that has a democratic government —dem·o·crat·ic /"de-m&-'kra-tik/ adjective —dem·o·crat·i·cal·ly adverb<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hmm peace, eh? Yes we just peacefully asked the British to leave the country and they listed. Oh, and in Greece, where democracy originated. only white males had the right to vote. They also were not all that peacfull, attacking another nation after it wanted to withdraw from a league that greece ran. Rome then picked up the reigns of democracy, and we know how peacefull they are.
We live in a representative democracy. We vote for who we believe best represents our views, and they vote for us on the national scale. It is almost impossible to have a direct democracy, as many of us would not vote that much. Nor does everyone have the time to work, raise a family, and keep up to date on all the issues.
So you dont think we should have occupied Japan and Germany after WW2, we should have just bombed them to hell and left them is chaos?
Democracy was not founded on peace and not oppressing others. It was founded on performing the will of the people it represents, through majority rule voting. If its people want war, there will be war. If its people want to peace, we will have peace. If anything our democracy is an improvement over those of old, as we no longer limit voters to white males.
**edit**
added a clearify sentence or two
Let's hope that in a decade, Iraquis will have the peace, representation and choice that democracy brings in full.
These things take time. Here's hoping that the Iraq democracy doesn't do a Weimar. It looks good, though, since the Iraquis don't seem to feel resentful about its new government (as far as I can tell, anyway).
Because occupying Germany TOTALLY kept the peace and the Berlin Wall NEVER ACTUALLY HAPPENED.
EXCEPT for the east/west split, which was due to Germany being occupied by OPPOSING FACTIONS, namely France, the U.K. and the U.S.A. on one side and the U.S.S.R. on the other.
If they were really pure in their intentions about freeing Iraq from "American oppression" they would sit back, let us rebuild their country to something that can be a happy productive place in the modern world and then let us peaceably go on our way.
We never planned to stay in Iraq even this long, they caused us to stay longer, in effect shooting themselves in the foot.
Of course we all know the last thing they want is a happy peaceful Iraq because that would be counterproductive to their own idiotic negative goals.
I don't think it could get to that point, because it would drive a spike into the already gaping division in our country.
If that was a joke then you're pretty funny.
If that wasn't a joke then you totally suck.
Oh, then you totally suck. Mostly because that would *never actually work*. One, who would you pick the conquer the entire world? And a civil war couldn't "be supressed" if it was half the planet rebelling against the other half. This plan is less watertight than a sieve.
look at econmies at size ... for example (finicially not Ethically/morally) wall-mart.. the reason they can give stuff so cheap is cuz they so dang huge that they can stay afloat, that and they eliminate the middle man a lot of the times. by working a 100% internally. this could happen with goverments as well. with more connections and less barriers the world could be a lot more effiencent
look at econmies at size ... for example (finicially not Ethically/morally) wall-mart.. the reason they can give stuff so cheap is cuz they so dang huge that they can stay afloat, that and they eliminate the middle man a lot of the times. by working a 100% internally. this could happen with goverments as well. with more connections and less barriers the world could be a lot more effiencent <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Believe it or not, not everyone in the world wants to be united under the same flag.
Also, us and the Romans conquered about a quarter of the world each time, then every country <b>wanted their independence</b>, and fought for it. The British Empire now is... Gibralta and the Falklands. The economical side of things wouldn't help either. Britain was the richest country in the world when it took over a quarter of the globe, and Italy was one of the only countries WITH an economy when it took over a large amount (not sure how much) of the globe, but each time it slipped away.
Ehh.. no. Circumstances brought about by owning a huge peice of the world against its will made them let go. Rome fell because troops were being recalled from provinces like Gaul or Briton (no idea if it was called Briton at the time) to deal with uprisings and pressure nearer to home, thus the understaffed Roman legions in these provinces were much weaker, allowing the Gauls and Britons to overthrow them. Admittedly this is the one situation where the Romans COULD have held on (they ended up just leaving Briton), but it's unlikely.
The British empire HAD to let go of countries under its control, or face turning a quarter of the world against it. Sure they could've just marched in and crushed every resistance member, but that would only increase the tension, thus provide more rebels for the cause to overthrow Britain.
You're suggesting that it's ok to stop riots with fly-by-wire missiles and carpet bombing?
See, THAT could work. Just kill everyone in the entire world and there's noone left to riot! Hooray! Could easily solve homelessness, homosexuality, black people, terrorism and world hunger, too!
It would be rather interesting if all other western nations joined together under one flag, called themselves the Western Alliance, combined their military forces, created their own currency, and told the United States "...you have to deal with us now..."
we took iraq with what? 1.5k casualties..... we could do it... easily
- North Korea <i>IS</i> a threat to the US (well, atleast to the west coast). Why? They have ICBM's capable of reaching the west coast (California, Oregon, and parts of Washington [Ft. Lewis]).
- Seoul is within range of NK's artillery batteries. If they wanted to, NK could shell Seoul into submission within hours.
- NK has the Million Man Army. Coupled with the fact that there's only about 38,000 American troops stationed in SK (Most of them guarding the DMZ), and that NK has been digging tunnels under the DMZ for decades = bad news if NK commits to a ground war.
- NK has incited numerous "incidents" against US troops over the years (too many to list). They hate us, pure and simple.
That's all for now. I'll post more later but right now I needs my sleep.
we took iraq with what? 1.5k casualties..... we could do it... easily <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
You don't have the manpower. Simple as. I think you don't understand just how big the world is.
Besides which, why would you want to make an empire by force? In the end, they always crumble.
Just wanted to throw this out there without having to start a new thread. Bad North Korea, bad.
Old news befitting an old thread.
Old news befitting an old thread. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you don't have anything worthwhile to contribute why even post at all?
Crisqo did the smart thing and instead of starting a whole new topic posted in the one already created, and seeing as how this has not been discussed and Feb. 1st is only a month ago, I fail to see how this is "old".
This doesn’t really surprise me all that much although that doesn’t make it any less disturbing. If you read up on what the Japanese did to the Chinese during WWII this sounds like an evil mix between that and Hitler’s gas chambers.
I wonder how many have been killed…?
On a scarier note this would add a bit of...justification to an invasion should we ever be stupid enough to try and invade NK.
Just wanted to throw this out there without having to start a new thread. Bad North Korea, bad. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Oppressive leader? Check. WMDs? Check. Oil? Negative.