How can we expect the Iraqis to embrace peace if we set an example of war?

[Sergo]

Discuss. :twisted:

[Feyshtey]

Well certainly allowing those people to continue to live under tyranical dictators and nutcase extremist terrorists would teach them to live in peace far sooner...

[Orlun]

Success will promote peace more then any example.

http://www.reason.com/rb/rb121605.shtml

Iraq will end up with less corruption, more security and a free market. These will drive up the 'wealth' of all Iraqi's and when they are happy, they will know peace.

[Eclipse]

Most likely it will drive up the "wealth" of 5% of the population of Iraq, and the rest of the 'less fortunate' people will be just as miserable regardless of what ideology and political structure their government adheres by.

Kinda like America.

Did you know Cuban people are happy? Like, I mean happy...they like the way they live, and noone ever goes hungry. That's soemthing to think about. Maybe ignorance is a better solution than righteousness.

-Eclipse

[Feyshtey]

Most likely it will drive up the "wealth" of 5% of the population of Iraq, and the rest of the 'less fortunate' people will be just as miserable regardless of what ideology and political structure their government adheres by.

Kinda like America.


That is, of course, a possibility. But they won't be lined up and shot. Or be far less likely tto be bombed while making their weekly grocery run.

I'm willing to bet that people living in poverty and peace, are happier than people living in poverty and constant fear of death.

[Orlun]

Numbers of happy cubans attempting to defect to the US is on the rise (http://www.amhersttimes.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=473&Itemid=27). /boggle

[Sergo]

Interesting link, Orlun, especially, "The World Bank has devised a rule-of-law index that measures the extent to which people have confidence in and abide by the rules of their society. An economy with a very efficient judicial system, clear property rights, and an effective government will produce higher total wealth."

The thing that's struck me is how many Iraqis (and likely imported terrorists as well) have no faith in this kind of self-determination. I think a lot of them believe that the only two options are 1) be in power, or 2) get screwed. These desperate elements then cause trouble for the emerging democracy, get shot at, then blame us for it and reinforce their own victim mentality. How do we get around that?

The pivotal question in Iraq may be whether democracy can get enough "traction." Do more people start to believe and slowly crowd out the extremists, or do more people become fearful and reactionary, "every man for himself?"

This is typical of my failures. I try to start a flamefest and it erupts into a thoughtful discussion. :rolleyes:

[Fadetree]

Eclipse, you couldn't be more wrong about the Cubans. Here's a hint : don't believe their press, radio or television.

Sergo - that point is the central question about the future of human societies. It's still being answered. We won't have a final answer for centuries. I think it's more likely than not that we will fail.

[Razorwire]

Personally I think it is okay for them not to want a government that will protect the corporations from the evil consumers and not to want a consumer economy. Democracy is not the only way forward and it is time that the US stops messing with foreign governments and trying to set up puppet states.

If the people want a theocracy then that is what they should have, if they want a monarchy then that is what they should have. Democracy isn't the end all be all of human governmental systems.

[Sergo]

Ah, but who are "the people" who want this theocracy? The root problem in Iraq, in my opinion, is that it is a state stuck with borders arbitrarily drawn for the convenience of western imperialists over a hundred years ago.

I haven't read reports of lots of Afghani women hankering for the good old days of theocracy, either.

[Razorwire]

Personally I agree, however my point is that democracy seeding is just as bad as the russian communist seeding that we deemed to be so evil during the cold war.

[Feyshtey]

Personally I agree, however my point is that democracy seeding is just as bad as the russian communist seeding that we deemed to be so evil during the cold war.

That's only true if you believe that people are better off if they are not allowed to speak for themselves. Or be allowed to have a say in the course of their own lives.

[Razorwire]

That's only true if you believe that people are better off if they are not allowed to speak for themselves. Or be allowed to have a say in the course of their own lives.

What I am saying is that we do not have the right to tell people how to run their lives, especially not at gun point. Other governmental styles do not dictate that people won't have a voice that will be listened to. Socialism and Communism (in the true forms not the crap that Stalin had) are both more directly involved with the will of the people than democracy ever will.

Democracy in itself is only a way for 51% of the population to oppress the other 49%.

[Feyshtey]

Democracy in itself is only a way for 51% of the population to oppress the other 49%. You mean... the majority?

Are you suggesting that in 'real' communist or socialist societies, everyone agrees on the course set? Or perhaps I should say, that you believe they would. Since such a 'real' communist or socialist society is as Utopian as a society where even 80 or 90% of the population agrees on what should be done.

At least in a Democracy, you won't be jailed or shot for voicing dissent. You can speak up if you don't agree, even if you're the only one. You can let it be known you feel a change should occur. But if you're one of the 40%+ of the population that likes to bitch a lot, but never gets out there to even vote, then you're part of the problem and not a part of the solution.

We have a huge voice in America that likes to bitch constantly about how things are run. But somehow they never get off their asses to affect change. They manage to catch their favorite sitcoms every night, and Sunday football. But they can't be bothered to go to a protest, or a rally, or a fundraiser for some cause. This is not evidence that democracy is a failed concept. It's evidence that the people don't understand wtf democracy actually is.

[Razorwire]

You mean... the majority?

At least in a Democracy, you won't be jailed or shot for voicing dissent. You can speak up if you don't agree, even if you're the only one. You can let it be known you feel a change should occur. But if you're one of the 40%+ of the population that likes to bitch a lot, but never gets out there to even vote, then you're part of the problem and not a part of the solution.
.

No what I mean is that the wants of the many are not always more important than the needs of the few.

And for the second part, ever seen a badly run democracy? President for Life? Vote for one of these two parties or get shot? Ever looked at Latin America? None of the social ills that you are talking about are inherently involved in any governmental system and they can be involved in them all.

By the way Martin Luther King Jr. was shot for voicing dissent views, trying to make a better tomorrow. Penn State hippy hunting? Tear gassing and let loose the riot squads on protesters? The civil rights protestors were regularly hosed down with fire hoses. All of this happens in the United States of America, so don't tell me that democracy is the end all be all of governments and that it means that no corruption, greed or hate will rule the country. How long will it take to remove the racism inherent in our country? As long as 51% of the folks that vote are white and hate non-whites the non-whites are screwed (see the south).

Bush sent the military into Orleans with shoot to kill orders. He used the US military to KILL US citizens. That is not the only time the US forces have been used to shoot and kill US citizens.

[Feyshtey]

No what I mean is that the wants of the many are not always more important than the needs of the few.


Interesting choice of words.

Are the needs of the many more important that the wants of a few?

Meaning, is the desire of Hussein to rule all without defiance more important than the lack of food, let alone security, for the millions of Iraqi citizens? Is it best, morally, for he and his Guard to live in a palace with all the trappings of royalty while his people starve? And while is troops murder them if they complain?

Or perhaps, just perhaps, is it morally more right for those people to be able to speak up?

[edit]
And for the second part, ever seen a badly run democracy? President for Life? Vote for one of these two parties or get shot?
If the democracy is run so poorly, would it not be apparent to the majority? If the majority is not able to affect change, then it's not a democracy.

[Razorwire]

Interesting choice of words.

Are the needs of the many more important that the wants of a few?

Meaning, is the desire of Hussein to rule all without defiance more important than the lack of food, let alone security, for the millions of Iraqi citizens? Is it best, morally, for he and his Guard to live in a palace with all the trappings of royalty while his people starve? And while is troops murder them if they complain?

Or perhaps, just perhaps, is it morally more right for those people to be able to speak up?

[edit]

If the democracy is run so poorly, would it not be apparent to the majority? If the majority is not able to affect change, then it's not a democracy.

Before this goes any farhter I think I have to set a couple of things clear, I think Saddam needs a bullet to the brainpan, he is a f*cker and deserves to suffer. What he did to his people is unforgivable. We are both talking about governments mostly free of corruption at the end of the process and my asertation is that any governmental type that is free of corruption is pretty much as good as any other. Who needs to vote if you king has your best interests at heart. Why imprint our values on another culture that does not share our world view? Let them choose what they want.

[Feyshtey]

Before this goes any farhter I think I have to set a couple of things clear, I think Saddam needs a bullet to the brainpan, he is a f*cker and deserves to suffer. What he did to his people is unforgivable. We are both talking about governments mostly free of corruption at the end of the process and my asertation is that any governmental type that is free of corruption is pretty much as good as any other. Who needs to vote if you king has your best interests at heart. Why imprint our values on another culture that does not share our world view? Let them choose what they want.

That's the whole point.

They can never set the standards of thier own lives, based on their own culture and societal structures, if they don't have a voice to do it.

If you think that dictators and kings with ultimate power rise to that position by being benign and loving rulers, I don't know what to tell you. Those who attain those positions are far more often ruthless dictators who grind all dissent under a murderous fist. And those with the passion to become such dictators don't really give a crap what the customs or societal standards of a region are. They want the power to transform all of it to their own vision and their vision alone. That's the problem. Democracy is the only government form structured to prevent precisely that.

[Razorwire]

That's the whole point.

They can never set the standards of thier own lives, based on their own culture and societal structures, if they don't have a voice to do it.

If you think that dictators and kings with ultimate power rise to that position by being benign and loving rulers, I don't know what to tell you. Those who attain those positions are far more often ruthless dictators who grind all dissent under a murderous fist. And those with the passion to become such dictators don't really give a crap what the customs or societal standards of a region are. They want the power to transform all of it to their own vision and their vision alone. That's the problem. Democracy is the only government form structured to prevent precisely that.

No I don't think that and I personally would go with a platonic republic where the educated elite would run things and be barred from owning anything but thier own clothes but...

That is me and I am not a member of the Islam nation, nor am I from anywhere but the USA. I do accept that other people think that the way that we do thing is wrong and they are perfecly with in their rights to think so and to not want to live like us. Some people think that their religous leaders know what is best for them and trust them. Some people think that their monarchs know what is best for them and trust them. Some people don't, I certainly don't trust either set. The point is that is my choice not to trust authority figures and religous types. It is your choice to disagree with me and it is not either of our choice to force someone to think like we do. We have to accept that some people will think that we are wrong and will want to live in another way. Let them.

[Feyshtey]

It is your choice to disagree with me and it is not either of our choice to force someone to think like we do. We have to accept that some people will think that we are wrong and will want to live in another way. Let them.

I think this is where our disagrement stems from.

My opinion is that all people everything should be allowed to think. Not to just continue to let others think for them. (Or more accurately, be forced to allow others to think for them.)

[Razorwire]

I think this is where our disagrement stems from.

My opinion is that all people everything should be allowed to think. Not to just continue to let others think for them. (Or more accurately, be forced to allow others to think for them.)

Not everyone wants to think for themselves /shrug

[Feyshtey]

Not everyone wants to think for themselves /shrug

Not everyone is given the choice. With a democracy you can choose to be active, or to just live with what everyone else thinks.

[Razorwire]

Not everyone is given the choice. With a democracy you can choose to be active, or to just live with what everyone else thinks.

But what if the 51% that get out the vote want to abolish democracy? What then? What happens to the 49% that wants it?

Now we are also talking about the 50% that don't care and don't vote in that election so really it's 25.5% of the people that are making the decisions for the whole?

I'm in devil's advocate mode now.

/edit at the end of WWII Greece voted in a communist government because that is what the people wanted. The Allies of course didn't let that happen because it was concidered that the side that held a country would set it up after WWII and the Brits abolished that government.

[Skarlath]

If you would prefer to satisfy the 49% rather than the majority then you don't have a democracy anyway.

I'm sure most people have been in a situation where the slight majority of a group want to go to one place whilst the rest want to go to another and yet you only have one car. Or something like that. What I am getting at is that if you are to be 'fair' then you must follow the majority.

If certain members get to run the show, even if they are in the minority of opinion, then you have something much more like an aristocracy or meritocracy.

What you described in Greece shows that there was not a democracy. But this is not a bad thing. Communism can never work with humans but the ideals it presents are admirable, and the common person wants to obtain ideals. In Greece they saw no other choice of routes to reach those ideals. Communism would not have taken them there, and would have had negative effects on the rest of the world. The allies enforcing a non-communist government provided a far better route to those ideals. One that had a hope of getting to that happy place.

It's all about standard of living, that's what any economist will tell you.

The common person does not know how to maximise their standard of living. They don't understand things, and would quite frankly prefer to get on with their lives doing the things they feel directly impacts them. That's what causes the need for politicians to claim they will increased spending in the public sector whilst reducing taxes.

Sometimes the common person needs to be guided. For their own sake they need to be held to one side and have far-reaching decisions made for them. In some situations, intervention is neccesary to ensure what they really want actually comes about.

[Razorwire]

If you would prefer to satisfy the 49% rather than the majority then you don't have a democracy anyway.

No what I am saying is that mob rule does not enlightenment make, the whole idea of there are more of us so you have to do what we say is just the same as we have more guns do what we say.

There is no reason for negotiation if you have majority.


I'm sure most people have been in a situation where the slight majority of a group want to go to one place whilst the rest want to go to another and yet you only have one car. Or something like that. What I am getting at is that if you are to be 'fair' then you must follow the majority.


Would it not be more fair to find a third or fourth option that would be a middle ground between the two choices? Say I am in the car with some friends and they all want to go to McDonalds, I hate McDonalds and would prefer not to eat there. In a majority situation (and remember this is where they WANT to go) we would be going to McDonalds and I wouldn't be eating. However if I can talk to them and work out maybe subway, maybe something else then we have left the realm of democracy, now I know that you are going to argue that I have just created a super majority but that is not the case. I have just turned the car into a socialist/communist collective that says it is more important to work toward the happiness of the whole instead of the majority.


If certain members get to run the show, even if they are in the minority of opinion, then you have something much more like an aristocracy or meritocracy.


Not nessisarily a bad thing, having those that know what they are doing running things can only be for the good.


What you described in Greece shows that there was not a democracy. But this is not a bad thing. Communism can never work with humans but the ideals it presents are admirable, and the common person wants to obtain ideals. In Greece they saw no other choice of routes to reach those ideals. Communism would not have taken them there, and would have had negative effects on the rest of the world. The allies enforcing a non-communist government provided a far better route to those ideals. One that had a hope of getting to that happy place.


No, it was a democratic vote to have a communist government.


It's all about standard of living, that's what any economist will tell you.


No they will tell you that greed is good, lower taxes are good and that it's your own fault that your are homeless and starving.

I will tell you greed is bad and that you have a social obligation to helping out your community and the rest of the human race just as they have an obligation to you.


The common person does not know how to maximise their standard of living. They don't understand things, and would quite frankly prefer to get on with their lives doing the things they feel directly impacts them. That's what causes the need for politicians to claim they will increased spending in the public sector whilst reducing taxes.

Sometimes the common person needs to be guided. For their own sake they need to be held to one side and have far-reaching decisions made for them. In some situations, intervention is neccesary to ensure what they really want actually comes about.

This is the entire arguement for a dictator, the common man doesn't know enough for self rule and must be guided. And this is completely the antithisis of what a democracy stands for. Only when the electorate is educated does democracy work and only when all of the electorate votes does a democracy work. All else is a half assed attempt to try and show that you are better than others.

And for the record the USA isn't a democracy, it's a republic with democratic ideals, we choose people that we think can govern us better than we can and give our desission making power to them (meritocracy as you mentioned before? or perhaps families like the Bushs for the Kennedys would qualify for the aristocrate titles? America is still very young, it hasn't had time to truely enoble our rich yet). But it is not and has never been a democracy.

[Skarlath]

Not nessisarily a bad thing, having those that know what they are doing running things can only be for the good.

I do agree. Aristocracies are bad, but Meritocracies would be great. Meritocracies are funny though, because how do you decide who has 'the best' for the job. Somewhere along the line people need to decide who the best person is, and so you kind of get our system today.


No, it was a democratic vote to have a communist government.

Yes, but the fact that this democratic choice was obliterated means that the Greek people were not getting what they wanted, and so Greece wasn't under a democractic rule, was what I was getting at.

No they will tell you that greed is good, lower taxes are good and that it's your own fault that your are homeless and starving.

I will tell you greed is bad and that you have a social obligation to helping out your community and the rest of the human race just as they have an obligation to you.


That is a very bland, and frankly incorrect statement. Economics deals heavily with equity, and encompasses solving problems such as measurements of standard of living being unusable due to distribution of wealth. Don't mix up the pure and noble study of economics with the messy way that countries often apply it.


This is the entire arguement for a dictator, the common man doesn't know enough for self rule and must be guided. And this is completely the antithisis of what a democracy stands for. Only when the electorate is educated does democracy work and only when all of the electorate votes does a democracy work. All else is a half assed attempt to try and show that you are better than others.

Yes, Yes. I know. I probably should have had a line in there somewhere separating my previous replies to things you had said and my own opinions. Though dictatorships aren't the way to go (and be sure what I previously typed doesn't narrow it down to a dictatorship alone, it's just an arguement that can be used in favour of dictatorships), I certainly believe that the current 'democratic governing' system could do with a lot of changes.

And for the record the USA isn't a democracy, it's a republic with democratic ideals, we choose people that we think can govern us better than we can and give our desission making power to them (meritocracy as you mentioned before? or perhaps families like the Bushs for the Kennedys would qualify for the aristocrate titles? America is still very young, it hasn't had time to truely enoble our rich yet). But it is not and has never been a democracy.

Yes, the USA runs into a lot of problems if it tries to call itself a democracy. Large corporations exerting pressure on governments certainly helps disqualify America in democratic status. I don't think the ruling families of America are quite on their way to an Aristocracy just yet, and as for a Meritocracy - as I said above, it's a bit of a wierd and somewhat bizarre idea.

The one recurring route of all problems in governing a country seems to always be people. Hopefully we can do something about it in the near future. :)

[Razorwire]

I do agree. Aristocracies are bad, but Meritocracies would be great. Meritocracies are funny though, because how do you decide who has 'the best' for the job. Somewhere along the line people need to decide who the best person is, and so you kind of get our system today.

Read the Republic by Plato meritocracy at it's finest... For the record I wouldn't be one of the leader I am so prone to temptation.



Yes, but the fact that this democratic choice was obliterated means that the Greek people were not getting what they wanted, and so Greece wasn't under a democractic rule, was what I was getting at.


I think I have totally lost where we are at here, my point was to show how a democratic vote can destroy democracy. The rest of it was just a bit of history.


That is a very bland, and frankly incorrect statement. Economics deals heavily with equity, and encompasses solving problems such as measurements of standard of living being unusable due to distribution of wealth. Don't mix up the pure and noble study of economics with the messy way that countries often apply it.

Okay I will completely appologize about this one and redirect my venom at the people that misuse it.


Yes, Yes. I know. I probably should have had a line in there somewhere separating my previous replies to things you had said and my own opinions. Though dictatorships aren't the way to go (and be sure what I previously typed doesn't narrow it down to a dictatorship alone, it's just an arguement that can be used in favour of dictatorships), I certainly believe that the current 'democratic governing' system could do with a lot of changes.


Check out the government in the book Starship Troopers by Heinlein (has nothing to do with the movie expect share a name). To get the vote a person must provide service to the nation paying into the system before the system will pay out in allowing participation showing that all the voters are interested.


Yes, the USA runs into a lot of problems if it tries to call itself a democracy. Large corporations exerting pressure on governments certainly helps disqualify America in democratic status. I don't think the ruling families of America are quite on their way to an Aristocracy just yet, and as for a Meritocracy - as I said above, it's a bit of a wierd and somewhat bizarre idea.

The educated elite know who is better at different things as long as the egos are left at the door. but we are talking about people and that would be impossible


The one recurring route of all problems in governing a country seems to always be people. Hopefully we can do something about it in the near future. :)

Simple solution ;) Get rid of the people.

[Saediien]

Two points:

First, you misread Plato. The Republic is not necessarily read as a how-to guide to organize the state. Rather, it can--and I think should--be read as a guide to the ordering on one's soul: the state as metaphor for the self. We can argue about that, but your assumption that The Republic is a practical manual for how to run a state is debatable at best. Read the Laws if you want to know how Plato would run a government.

Second, please pause to consider that the high-ranking officials of the German Nazi party, with the exception of Hitler, were all elite products of the best educational system the world has ever seen--German universities of the 19th century. Nazi Germany, by and large, was run by the definition of an educated elite.

[Saediien]

Simple solution ;) Get rid of the people.

Please see my second point, above.

[Razorwire]

Two points:

First, you misread Plato. The Republic is not necessarily read as a how-to guide to organize the state. Rather, it can--and I think should--be read as a guide to the ordering on one's soul: the state as metaphor for the self. We can argue about that, but your assumption that The Republic is a practical manual for how to run a state is debatable at best. Read the Laws if you want to know how Plato would run a government.

Then why was the Republic taught in my political philosophy course and not my exsistensialism course?

The soul as you are presenting it is a fairly modern concept. What Plato was presenting was what he thought would be the best possible government that he could think of. It is very idealised and would never actually work, but it is a political system and not a treaty on metaphysical health, though it does cover how you should live with in his proposed society. Much like Marxist or Jeffersonian idealism it's a great concept but humans are to corrupt to ever reach those lofty ideals.


Second, please pause to consider that the high-ranking officials of the German Nazi party, with the exception of Hitler, were all elite products of the best educational system the world has ever seen--German universities of the 19th century. Nazi Germany, by and large, was run by the definition of an educated elite.

Now pause to concider what the Nazi party was able to do (I mean aside from being a bunch of murdering f*ck heads). Nazi germany turned a destroyed country with severe restrictions placed on it at the end of WWI into a world power house that was almost able to kick the world's collective butt (look at the size/manpower of Germany and then the size of Nazi controlled territories during the war). In addition to that look at the absolute persision that they ran the government with. The train always ran on time (I think they still say in Italy "At least under Mussolini the trains ran on time"). In general those genocidal maniacs DID run the country very very well.

Much like the wand seller in Harry Potter said of Valdemort "He was a great wizard, an evil one but a great one none the less". The Nazi government was a great one, an evil one but great none the less. Or something like that.

Please note I stand against what the Nazis stood for.

[Saediien]

Your teacher misread Plato and what the Republic is about if she taught you that the Republic is simply a how-to manual on running a government. Like I said, go read Plato's The Laws if you want Plato's version of such a manual. The Republic is about the meaning of justice, virtue, reason, desire, and specifically references the soul as tripate--divided into a human nature (intellect), a leonine nature (anger), and a many-headed beast (apetite). Sounds kind of like the divisions or classes of the state in the same dialog, huh? Philosophy professors and political scientists have too little appreciation for Plato in my opinion, who was a far better writer than pretty much any philosopher who has ever lived. I guess there there is much more subtlety to his work than the average undergraduate taking a political philosphy survey course can be expected to grasp.

As for the Nazis, let me offer the following observations:

You say the best form of government is one run by an educated elite.
You agree with me that Nazi Germany was run by an educated elite.
You say that Nazi Germany was a great government.

But you also say that you "stand against what the Nazis stood for".

But why? It seems to me that there is something missing from your perscription for the best form of government. If what you need is an educated elite, what was missing from Nazi Germany? Perhaps there is something more to the best form of government than an educated elite?

Also, I'm rather suprised that the soul, as I present it (the metaphorical subject of The Republic) is a "fairly modern concept"? I can only assume that the Republic is the only book by Plato that you have ever read, and that was probably excerpted.

[Skarlath]

I have nothing extra to add just this second, but I had to throw in a /giggle.

You mention Plato and Harry Potter in the same post. Heehee.

What ever gets the message across I suppose. :)

[Razorwire]

I have nothing extra to add just this second, but I had to throw in a /giggle.

You mention Plato and Harry Potter in the same post. Heehee.

What ever gets the message across I suppose. :)


What ever makes the point :)

[Razorwire]

Your teacher misread Plato and what the Republic is about if she taught you that the Republic is simply a how-to manual on running a government. Like I said, go read Plato's The Laws if you want Plato's version of such a manual. The Republic is about the meaning of justice, virtue, reason, desire, and specifically references the soul as tripate--divided into a human nature (intellect), a leonine nature (anger), and a many-headed beast (apetite). Sounds kind of like the divisions or classes of the state in the same dialog, huh? Philosophy professors and political scientists have too little appreciation for Plato in my opinion, who was a far better writer than pretty much any philosopher who has ever lived. I guess there there is much more subtlety to his work than the average undergraduate taking a political philosphy survey course can be expected to grasp.

As for the Nazis, let me offer the following observations:

You say the best form of government is one run by an educated elite.
You agree with me that Nazi Germany was run by an educated elite.
You say that Nazi Germany was a great government.

But you also say that you "stand against what the Nazis stood for".

But why? It seems to me that there is something missing from your perscription for the best form of government. If what you need is an educated elite, what was missing from Nazi Germany? Perhaps there is something more to the best form of government than an educated elite?

Also, I'm rather suprised that the soul, as I present it (the metaphorical subject of The Republic) is a "fairly modern concept"? I can only assume that the Republic is the only book by Plato that you have ever read, and that was probably excerpted.

Okay dude, you win :) I will full bow out in favor of your greater knowledge and pass on the rest of this. Was fun to totally talking bollocks though.

[Saediien]

I don't want to win. I'm looking for teh truth! ;)

[Razorwire]

I don't want to win. I'm looking for teh truth! ;)

When you find it let us know ;)

[Falciform]

Face it, we're humans. Humans can't get along with each other unless there's a powerful human or set of humans who force them to get along. That's just how things are and (hopefully not, but fat chance) how they will always be. Unfortunately, us humans also tend to let power go to our heads so that the powerful ones forcing everyone to get along decide they're better than everyone else and act accordingly.

This is what I'll say for democracy (as us Americans see it) versus theocracy, monarchy, etc. Our democracy is the ONLY example of a set of powerful people peacefully transferring power to another set of powerful people all the time.

Anyway, to answer the topic of the thread, the only way to deal with a bunch of assholes is to be an asshole. Then again I think the US should stick to fixing problems at home rather than meddling with the Middle East. But what happens when they squeeze us for every penny we've got on oil and use that money to build nuclear weapons? It's a catch 22 of epic proportions.

[Choctaw]

Peace is rarely (if ever) led by example. Peace is either enforced by others onto a group of people or certain groups don't war because they both have too much to lose. Iraq is currently seeing the former.

[Dorfeater]

Being someone who is currently in this war. Gay.

I'll add my 2cp.

Note: I did not read every post in this thread because I simply do not have time.

Being over here, and have experienced it, there is no way there will ever be peace over here. Not in a million years. This whole gaggle of countries has too many different views, religious or otherwise, and the people within them also have many different views. On everything.

Embracing peace? Heh. What is peace? Not fighting? Nope. Its human nature as someone above stated. There will always be fighting, maybe not war. But then again... what is war?

Heh.

Im gonna go ahead and quote a song here... flame me later.

You want to save the world?
I can tell you what to do!
You want to end terror?
This solution is for you!
Answer the call up join the proud the few.
Pull on the trigger with your heart and soul
Cause war is peace now we know.

Fight fire with fire!
Douse violent flames with gasoline
Fight fire with fire!
Spite your foe with an all out holocaust!
Fight fire with fire!
Pour gasoline on the world inferno,
Burn it so hot that the world incinerates
when they're all dead we'll have no issues to resolve.

Sold As Freedom
Anti Flag

That is how we achieve peace, or.. what the majority see peace as. Thats what we are doing as Americans. Terrorism will never end, it will never stop. Because Terrorism begins with an idea. And you cant stop ideas.

Now. The Iraqis...

Headed for a civil war, no doubt. And big brother is stuck right in the middle. More Iraqi civilians are targetted by insurgents than American troops now. And isn't that thier right? I mean, we are trying to give these people the so called "freedom" that we Americans have.. yet 20 miles north of me currently there is a town completely encircled with sand barriers, with only 2 exits in or out of town.

Also, iirc, in my american government class I learned (dont quote me it was a long time ago) that as americans, we have the right... if things are really bad... to rebel and overthrow our government.

Yet, when the Iraqi's try to do this... we stop them. Sure we are building Iraq a new "democracy" but I personally dont think these people are ready for it. The insurgents answer everything with violence and they will not stop. If America withdrew its forces, the insurgents would overthrow the government and it would be just like it was or worse. It doesn't matter if the US stays here for another 10...20..30 years.. you cannot kill thoughts, especially thoughts that are bred into children from birth...

Especially when those thoughts are religious in nature.

Now Im not saying that all muslims have these ideals. I know that. Im not retarded. But the ones who do, are dangerous.

We train Iraq's new army. For what? We cant even defend ourselves properly how are we supposed to teach another army how to defend themselves? Sure, we have tactics. But soldiers die everyday.

Ehh.. look at me, Ive been ranting too much and I forgot what the hell my original point was.

Well.

Im doing my time, Ive been here, and when I get back to the states, and get out of the Army. I can guarantee that I will be doing what I can to get america the hell out of this war we started.

47 billion dollars (according to the stars and stripes, heh) went to war funds last year, and good ol' prez bush had just requested another 50 billion for this years operations.

What the hell? I could think of a thousand other things our country could be spending 50 billion dollars on. 50 billion dollars for a war that we are getting nowhere in.

What is wrong with our government america?

*sigh*

preachin to the choir

Im done, if you choose to read all of that.. Im sorry for wasting your time. Lol.

[Sergo]

It was an interesting read, Dorf, my only objections were to the use of "retarded" and "gay" in an otherwise thoughtful and reasoned study of the issue.

I have come to some of the same conclusions you have, and it's interesting to see that someone who's over there shares the same ideas.

When they started bombing each other's houses of worship, I became convinced that civil war is inevitable.

[Dorfeater]

My bad, sorry if I offended anyone. Heh. I just get so angry and well.. my age sometimes shows when I get angry. :rolleyes:

[Kullall]

My bad, sorry if I offended anyone. Heh. I just get so angry and well.. my age sometimes shows when I get angry. :rolleyes:
That's kind of the whole point of the flameboard, ya know?:)