who knows they may plan to hit japan since china and japan are still not on good terms w/ each other since china is still scarred by japan from WWII
Can a democracy make the wrong choice
- Thread starter Bold
- Start date
Ad: Buy Girls Und Panzer Merch from Play Asia!
QUOTE (Kit-Tsukasa @ Aug 20 2006, 09:26 PM) who knows they may plan to hit japan since china and japan are still not on good terms w/ each other since china is still scarred by japan from WWII
china scared by Japan...hahahah..thats funny...since china nowadays have nuclear now and jpn doesn't aleast yet.
wait does that mean China is scared of Jpn or other way around.
china scared by Japan...hahahah..thats funny...since china nowadays have nuclear now and jpn doesn't aleast yet.
wait does that mean China is scared of Jpn or other way around.
QUOTE (alchemist11 @ Aug 20 2006, 08:29 PM) china scared by Japan...hahahah..thats funny...since china nowadays have nuclear now and jpn doesn't aleast yet.
wait does that mean China is scared of Jpn or other way around.
i meant the other way around since japan should be scared of china because not only is china the biggest populated country in the world, they also have north korea who have missles and very close to japan and as we currently know, north korea can probably hit japan anytime they want, but that would only cause a World war III
(and that also means no more anime
)
wait does that mean China is scared of Jpn or other way around.
i meant the other way around since japan should be scared of china because not only is china the biggest populated country in the world, they also have north korea who have missles and very close to japan and as we currently know, north korea can probably hit japan anytime they want, but that would only cause a World war III
prolly...i guess but i still wonder was there anime even before Hiroshima and Nagasaki were bombed.
How is it possible for Jpn to be ally with US when they bombed them with the 2nd most powerful weapon in the world. and jpn not get angry even to this day..i guess its all about money...since jpn makes money from them through tech and anime money is all they want.
How is it possible for Jpn to be ally with US when they bombed them with the 2nd most powerful weapon in the world. and jpn not get angry even to this day..i guess its all about money...since jpn makes money from them through tech and anime money is all they want.
1st paragraph: no, "actual" anime wasn't around until 1970s or even 1980s.
2nd paragraph: yup its all about money these days. japan makes huge amounts each year from anime and games and most of those stuff come to the US sooner or later. basically US depends mostly on japan for those two things
so much for US being a "the most powerful country"
2nd paragraph: yup its all about money these days. japan makes huge amounts each year from anime and games and most of those stuff come to the US sooner or later. basically US depends mostly on japan for those two things
QUOTE (mohammed2006 @ Aug 20 2006, 04:25 PM) noob
i am sorry but i didn't sow this a tell naw and after reading it i change the way i look at you you may not believe it but the reason why a say jokes about you is maybe because i liked your style anyway yes life is the most important thing but if some one came and took your house and killed all of your family then you say life is more important thing than you go and live in the house next door than he come and take it than you keep running away and saying life is the most important thing because you are selfish who only think about him self and his life and don't think about Arther and wont protect the important thing to him this gay is not living this gay is dead the moment he left his house .. but as for me i try to live the best life i can live or die trying because life is important
This post may be extremely off-topic but anyhow, I'll respond to it and then catch up with the rest of the posts later on today or tomorrow night.
You know what? You may be right, from different points of view and perspectives, life can have different values, no, not only life but anything can have different values for different people. I know what do you mean, someone taking away all you have can sometimes be frustrating but that cannot be a reason to why a man should draw his sword upon another man. Such matters can be settled thru out peace-full manners. Yes I just did use such an old example, sorry I'm an old styled-type-of-guy who fails at history but becomes a part of history that cannot be forgotten. In almost every religion that I am fully aware of, the leaders have always attempted and did try to avoid as much as conflict as possible. Furthermore, that is how I look at the world and attempt to approach any critical situation with the potentials of extreme-type-of-conflict. We're all a men Sorry ladies, the word 'men' has always been used to aspire humans, treat yourself as a man for now and bare with my stupidity for few minutes. And gentlemen, please ignore this spoiler.
and all have feelings. We all get frustrated and angry at times, if someone, as you've mentioned took away everything that I worked for a very long time, I would be extremely angry and mad. Will try to use peaceful manners to take what I've worked so hard to attain. And then approach the situation with inappropiate manners, which I'm sure you know what it is.
Losing all of family members is indeed painful and does require revenge, you're right about that. But again, who am I to say what's right and what is wrong? We're nothing but mere flesh structed with few bones who run around their entire life pretending to be presuing an extremely important objective. But at the end, end up with nothing that they've wanted but pretend to have always wanted what they have. Now let's go back to the begininng of this paragraph, losing all of family members is painful, yes you're right... The loneliness is even more painful, the frustration kills you thousand times a second. It's such feeling that nobody and believe me when I say that, nobody in this world would want to experience such feeling. I know where you're going with this, I can just tell by this post that you're trying to referr to Israeli's nothing but mere inhuman group of people. But you're wrong. Not all of them are and even some soldiers are just there because they're required to be there according to the rules of the society they live in. Have you ever lost someone whom you've loved for a very long time? Do you even understand the feeling of losing a family member over such thing as war? Have you ever seen an orphan crying because of some idiotic war has taken away his parents? Do, any of you guys know how it feels like to lose most of the people you love, most of your family, friends, buddies, neighbours or even strangers? It tears apart your flesh one instant and burns them together just so they'd join up. This feeling makes your eyes burn away, burns your chicks, lips, ears and brain while the tears cool down your cheek. You want to cry, but you can't, why? Because they've died for their believes, leaving only you behind to suffer and stand, be there and observe them leaving this world one by one. That is the feeling you get when you lose your beloved ones, whether in a war or not. Some people confront you with the usual phrases such as " he/she was a great person.." You may think or believe they're right or wrong. It is up to you, what you believe in, in that very moment shall become the truth for you and everything else is just a lie.
I guess that really does complicate things, oh well... What I'm trying to say is, sometimes things are just not worth it, you may be selfish for sacrificing yourself for other people in some perspective and in others, you're just a super hero who sacrificed his life for the greater good. It really does depend on how you look at the situation and as I've said before, you're not really going to understand it until you lose the one you love the most. Doesn't have to be your wife, can be your brother, sister, parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles, nephews or even a friend. At times, running away is the best choice, you may lose at the end but it may bring moral victories along with it (If you wish, pm me for an example. It's a historical example and you may have heard about it.) Having said all of that, there are also times in which revenge and violence is required to deliver the neccessary message.
I don't really get what you were trying to say at the last few sentences of your post, but what I did get was
QUOTE but as for me i try to live the best life i can live or die trying because life is important Yeah, that is good, but again, what is your defination of important?
edit: I just read you guys' posts and I saw nothing but mere randomness. What do any of you know anything about Iran or North Korea? Well, none of us really should know anything about North Korea, since it is in complete isolation, but what about Iran? None of you guys really know anything about their politicians, I honestly don't know much about them either, since I've always hated their politicians and their speeches. I think I'm just having a bad day period thus I fail to find the connections between things. Now, can someone tell me, what is the relation between these two discussion topics? (Crisis of middle east and the nuclear stuff...) Are they just side notes and things that are just there to expand another's range of knowledge/references for further discussions about what we were discussing or... are they just plain random?
No, I didn't want to be bossy or anything, I was just confused about what was happening in this thread.
i am sorry but i didn't sow this a tell naw and after reading it i change the way i look at you you may not believe it but the reason why a say jokes about you is maybe because i liked your style anyway yes life is the most important thing but if some one came and took your house and killed all of your family then you say life is more important thing than you go and live in the house next door than he come and take it than you keep running away and saying life is the most important thing because you are selfish who only think about him self and his life and don't think about Arther and wont protect the important thing to him this gay is not living this gay is dead the moment he left his house .. but as for me i try to live the best life i can live or die trying because life is important
This post may be extremely off-topic but anyhow, I'll respond to it and then catch up with the rest of the posts later on today or tomorrow night.
You know what? You may be right, from different points of view and perspectives, life can have different values, no, not only life but anything can have different values for different people. I know what do you mean, someone taking away all you have can sometimes be frustrating but that cannot be a reason to why a man should draw his sword upon another man. Such matters can be settled thru out peace-full manners. Yes I just did use such an old example, sorry I'm an old styled-type-of-guy who fails at history but becomes a part of history that cannot be forgotten. In almost every religion that I am fully aware of, the leaders have always attempted and did try to avoid as much as conflict as possible. Furthermore, that is how I look at the world and attempt to approach any critical situation with the potentials of extreme-type-of-conflict. We're all a men Sorry ladies, the word 'men' has always been used to aspire humans, treat yourself as a man for now and bare with my stupidity for few minutes. And gentlemen, please ignore this spoiler.
Losing all of family members is indeed painful and does require revenge, you're right about that. But again, who am I to say what's right and what is wrong? We're nothing but mere flesh structed with few bones who run around their entire life pretending to be presuing an extremely important objective. But at the end, end up with nothing that they've wanted but pretend to have always wanted what they have. Now let's go back to the begininng of this paragraph, losing all of family members is painful, yes you're right... The loneliness is even more painful, the frustration kills you thousand times a second. It's such feeling that nobody and believe me when I say that, nobody in this world would want to experience such feeling. I know where you're going with this, I can just tell by this post that you're trying to referr to Israeli's nothing but mere inhuman group of people. But you're wrong. Not all of them are and even some soldiers are just there because they're required to be there according to the rules of the society they live in. Have you ever lost someone whom you've loved for a very long time? Do you even understand the feeling of losing a family member over such thing as war? Have you ever seen an orphan crying because of some idiotic war has taken away his parents? Do, any of you guys know how it feels like to lose most of the people you love, most of your family, friends, buddies, neighbours or even strangers? It tears apart your flesh one instant and burns them together just so they'd join up. This feeling makes your eyes burn away, burns your chicks, lips, ears and brain while the tears cool down your cheek. You want to cry, but you can't, why? Because they've died for their believes, leaving only you behind to suffer and stand, be there and observe them leaving this world one by one. That is the feeling you get when you lose your beloved ones, whether in a war or not. Some people confront you with the usual phrases such as " he/she was a great person.." You may think or believe they're right or wrong. It is up to you, what you believe in, in that very moment shall become the truth for you and everything else is just a lie.
I guess that really does complicate things, oh well... What I'm trying to say is, sometimes things are just not worth it, you may be selfish for sacrificing yourself for other people in some perspective and in others, you're just a super hero who sacrificed his life for the greater good. It really does depend on how you look at the situation and as I've said before, you're not really going to understand it until you lose the one you love the most. Doesn't have to be your wife, can be your brother, sister, parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles, nephews or even a friend. At times, running away is the best choice, you may lose at the end but it may bring moral victories along with it (If you wish, pm me for an example. It's a historical example and you may have heard about it.) Having said all of that, there are also times in which revenge and violence is required to deliver the neccessary message.
I don't really get what you were trying to say at the last few sentences of your post, but what I did get was
QUOTE but as for me i try to live the best life i can live or die trying because life is important Yeah, that is good, but again, what is your defination of important?
edit: I just read you guys' posts and I saw nothing but mere randomness. What do any of you know anything about Iran or North Korea? Well, none of us really should know anything about North Korea, since it is in complete isolation, but what about Iran? None of you guys really know anything about their politicians, I honestly don't know much about them either, since I've always hated their politicians and their speeches. I think I'm just having a bad day period thus I fail to find the connections between things. Now, can someone tell me, what is the relation between these two discussion topics? (Crisis of middle east and the nuclear stuff...) Are they just side notes and things that are just there to expand another's range of knowledge/references for further discussions about what we were discussing or... are they just plain random?
oddly enough this post attracted me enough to register. and even odder is the fact that i was discussing this with my roommate the other night.
To yer poll: Just as people can be wrong, democracy can be wrong. I believe it's even easier for the masses to be wrong than iti for an individual, and yet still for the samereasons. I think human error in making a judgment call can result from not taking intoconsideration all possible outcomes and their consequences by simply choosing a path that leads to immediate self gratification.
as for answer number two: War begets war and the middle east is a powder keg waiting to happen, 9/11 or not. (by the way, people really need to get over 9/11 and hurricane katrina and start living their lives as best they can without this constant play of victimhood)
I think the US has no right to be in this war, or any war really, and that it's probably one of the most bloody stupid mistakes our country could make.
War doesn't make sense in a world where everyone's got a nuclear bomb and biological warfare.
A world like that i one where way too many people are trigger happy and set in front of a big red button that says "DOOMSDAY BUTTON DO NOT TOUCH - THIS MEANS YOU - SERIOUSLY, I'M WATCHING YOU....." while in the back of their minds they're thinking "I wonder what this button does...."
.....
perhaps that last sentence needs to be edited, but i just woke up. give me a little slack.
Post
To yer poll: Just as people can be wrong, democracy can be wrong. I believe it's even easier for the masses to be wrong than iti for an individual, and yet still for the samereasons. I think human error in making a judgment call can result from not taking intoconsideration all possible outcomes and their consequences by simply choosing a path that leads to immediate self gratification.
as for answer number two: War begets war and the middle east is a powder keg waiting to happen, 9/11 or not. (by the way, people really need to get over 9/11 and hurricane katrina and start living their lives as best they can without this constant play of victimhood)
I think the US has no right to be in this war, or any war really, and that it's probably one of the most bloody stupid mistakes our country could make.
War doesn't make sense in a world where everyone's got a nuclear bomb and biological warfare.
A world like that i one where way too many people are trigger happy and set in front of a big red button that says "DOOMSDAY BUTTON DO NOT TOUCH - THIS MEANS YOU - SERIOUSLY, I'M WATCHING YOU....." while in the back of their minds they're thinking "I wonder what this button does...."
.....
perhaps that last sentence needs to be edited, but i just woke up. give me a little slack.
Post
QUOTE (postindustrialist @ Sep 11 2006, 11:52 AM)(by the way, people really need to get over 9/11 and hurricane katrina and start living their lives as best they can without this constant play of victimhood) But many people really like living in victimhood. Its an easy way to make yourself special. After all, people care and pitty victims.
The main problem with victimizing is that people have a short memory. Sure the attacks on the world trade center killed many people. It also made many people realize they are not living in an isolated place without contact with the rest of the world. On the other hand, there are many historical events that made a lot more victims. But if an event happend to our grand-parents or before, we see it as a distant past without impact to us.
QUOTE (postindustrialist @ Sep 11 2006, 11:52 AM) as for answer number two: War begets war and the middle east is a powder keg waiting to happen, 9/11 or not. It is a powder keg. But so are many other places. The point is that its the choice of the people living there. (of course not all of them want it to be that way, that's not what I mean)
When outside people want to impose something on an external group, the group will never like it. A great example of this is the US war of independance. What right did those people have to become terrorists and revolt against the authorities? Yes, technicly, all those people were outlaws and some were terrorists not hesitating to kill civilians to get to theur objectives (mainly english civilians, but still civilians)
Looking back on those events, the outcome led to a relatively stable goverment. But it all started because people were tired to feel they were controlled by outsiders. The concept still applies today. If you force someone to do something, they will eventually revolt and try to push back.
I feel like this is not complete but I have a meeting to go to, so I will stop here.
The main problem with victimizing is that people have a short memory. Sure the attacks on the world trade center killed many people. It also made many people realize they are not living in an isolated place without contact with the rest of the world. On the other hand, there are many historical events that made a lot more victims. But if an event happend to our grand-parents or before, we see it as a distant past without impact to us.
QUOTE (postindustrialist @ Sep 11 2006, 11:52 AM) as for answer number two: War begets war and the middle east is a powder keg waiting to happen, 9/11 or not. It is a powder keg. But so are many other places. The point is that its the choice of the people living there. (of course not all of them want it to be that way, that's not what I mean)
When outside people want to impose something on an external group, the group will never like it. A great example of this is the US war of independance. What right did those people have to become terrorists and revolt against the authorities? Yes, technicly, all those people were outlaws and some were terrorists not hesitating to kill civilians to get to theur objectives (mainly english civilians, but still civilians)
Looking back on those events, the outcome led to a relatively stable goverment. But it all started because people were tired to feel they were controlled by outsiders. The concept still applies today. If you force someone to do something, they will eventually revolt and try to push back.
I feel like this is not complete but I have a meeting to go to, so I will stop here.
QUOTE (Bold @ Sep 11 2006, 11:15 AM) But many people really like living in victimhood. Its an easy way to make yourself special. After all, people care and pitty victims.
The main problem with victimizing is that people have a short memory. Sure the attacks on the world trade center killed many people. It also made many people realize they are not living in an isolated place without contact with the rest of the world. On the other hand, there are many historical events that made a lot more victims. But if an event happend to our grand-parents or before, we see it as a distant past without impact to us.
It is a powder keg. But so are many other places. The point is that its the choice of the people living there. (of course not all of them want it to be that way, that's not what I mean)
When outside people want to impose something on an external group, the group will never like it. A great example of this is the US war of independance. What right did those people have to become terrorists and revolt against the authorities? Yes, technicly, all those people were outlaws and some were terrorists not hesitating to kill civilians to get to theur objectives (mainly english civilians, but still civilians)
Looking back on those events, the outcome led to a relatively stable goverment. But it all started because people were tired to feel they were controlled by outsiders. The concept still applies today. If you force someone to do something, they will eventually revolt and try to push back.
I feel like this is not complete but I have a meeting to go to, so I will stop here.
A need to feel victimized for the sake of pity and attention is considered a mental illness amongst individual, but what would you call it if an entire culture were to behave in such a way? It's not that people have a short term memory, I concede this, but that through the media and the need for a justification for our actions we fall back on this victimhood as a nation that i see as the problem. I also feel that we live in a victim culture these days where playing the eternal victim and always having an excuse ready for why we act the way we do is simply the norm anymore.
People need to relearn how to take responsibility for the things that they can control, and use it to their advantage rather than falling back on excuses for their apparent, but not actual, helplessness.
The events that happen to our grandparents may not effect us in many instances but continual excuses and the taking on of past familial grudges can lead to the continuation of past problems and issues, if not making situations worse. In the middle east most of the issues at hand are religious and ethnic (as most of the religious groups and sects, including judaism are also ethnically based)and stem back to thousands of years. It's the worst case of family feuding one can come up with. Worse yet is when a country like the US, a primarily Christian country with especially strong religious ties in this day and age, with a religiously motivated leader, and being the primamry if not only superpower remaining in the global arena, jumping in and making a bad situation worse.
As for the revolutions of the past, I haven't any great answers only that for some reason, perhaps the fact that more and more these days the world becomes less of a world of independant nations and more of a global interdependant village, some small group causing massive violence and destruction in order to speak out and declare itself anathema seems both foolish and incredibly selfish, not caring as to the widespread results of its actions. In addition to this the weaponry of former revolutions is in no way comparative to the weaponry of this day and age.
I hate to say it but we've finally stepped into the big league arena where the actions of every nation must be weighed carefully to result in best situations. War is simply no longer feasible.
also, I'm soooooo glad to hear you're going to a meeting. I'm happy to find a board where I can wane philosphically to intellectual peoples and not feel like an incredibly old fart (at the age of only 25).
The main problem with victimizing is that people have a short memory. Sure the attacks on the world trade center killed many people. It also made many people realize they are not living in an isolated place without contact with the rest of the world. On the other hand, there are many historical events that made a lot more victims. But if an event happend to our grand-parents or before, we see it as a distant past without impact to us.
It is a powder keg. But so are many other places. The point is that its the choice of the people living there. (of course not all of them want it to be that way, that's not what I mean)
When outside people want to impose something on an external group, the group will never like it. A great example of this is the US war of independance. What right did those people have to become terrorists and revolt against the authorities? Yes, technicly, all those people were outlaws and some were terrorists not hesitating to kill civilians to get to theur objectives (mainly english civilians, but still civilians)
Looking back on those events, the outcome led to a relatively stable goverment. But it all started because people were tired to feel they were controlled by outsiders. The concept still applies today. If you force someone to do something, they will eventually revolt and try to push back.
I feel like this is not complete but I have a meeting to go to, so I will stop here.
A need to feel victimized for the sake of pity and attention is considered a mental illness amongst individual, but what would you call it if an entire culture were to behave in such a way? It's not that people have a short term memory, I concede this, but that through the media and the need for a justification for our actions we fall back on this victimhood as a nation that i see as the problem. I also feel that we live in a victim culture these days where playing the eternal victim and always having an excuse ready for why we act the way we do is simply the norm anymore.
People need to relearn how to take responsibility for the things that they can control, and use it to their advantage rather than falling back on excuses for their apparent, but not actual, helplessness.
The events that happen to our grandparents may not effect us in many instances but continual excuses and the taking on of past familial grudges can lead to the continuation of past problems and issues, if not making situations worse. In the middle east most of the issues at hand are religious and ethnic (as most of the religious groups and sects, including judaism are also ethnically based)and stem back to thousands of years. It's the worst case of family feuding one can come up with. Worse yet is when a country like the US, a primarily Christian country with especially strong religious ties in this day and age, with a religiously motivated leader, and being the primamry if not only superpower remaining in the global arena, jumping in and making a bad situation worse.
As for the revolutions of the past, I haven't any great answers only that for some reason, perhaps the fact that more and more these days the world becomes less of a world of independant nations and more of a global interdependant village, some small group causing massive violence and destruction in order to speak out and declare itself anathema seems both foolish and incredibly selfish, not caring as to the widespread results of its actions. In addition to this the weaponry of former revolutions is in no way comparative to the weaponry of this day and age.
I hate to say it but we've finally stepped into the big league arena where the actions of every nation must be weighed carefully to result in best situations. War is simply no longer feasible.
also, I'm soooooo glad to hear you're going to a meeting. I'm happy to find a board where I can wane philosphically to intellectual peoples and not feel like an incredibly old fart (at the age of only 25).
What does the US have to do with isreal? Im preety shure it was the UK who issued the so and so declaration, and the UN who finally drew the bullshiit map that uprooted all the jews and muslums in bolth areas (though the amount of moslums is about 10X) and gave the palistinians the motivation for their shittiest idea, the six days war. Every action following that has been inkeeping with tactics, or at the very least jewish morals (if not christian or athiest morals). The palestinians used to be the victims of a UN oversight and a fight with the israeli's, but several wars and suicide bombing campaigns later, they are bitter losers in a war that (despite their motivations) they themself started. I dont think they should be liveing in refugee camps, because they should be liveing in other moslum countrys, there is no room for solveing the problem now, and the palestinians with their internal affairs ruled by AK47s (not to mention external) have shown themselves to be incapeable of self rule, and order in a civilized state. If you want to talk about accountablilty for actions, look no further than the palestinians crimes, whitch since the beginning of the conflict far outweigh the Isreli's.
On the subject of democracy, who do you think killed socrates. Notice that no government in history has been sucessfull, especially communist rule, and democracys.
About the money witheld from other countrys, notice that the money has been witheld, how is it not the US's buisness if the US is footing the bill, whould you return a deposit of arms to a friend when he is not in his right mind provided he has thought about it a long time. Finally even if you whould surrender his property, whould you surrender some of your arms, if he never had any in the first place.
On the subject of democracy, who do you think killed socrates. Notice that no government in history has been sucessfull, especially communist rule, and democracys.
About the money witheld from other countrys, notice that the money has been witheld, how is it not the US's buisness if the US is footing the bill, whould you return a deposit of arms to a friend when he is not in his right mind provided he has thought about it a long time. Finally even if you whould surrender his property, whould you surrender some of your arms, if he never had any in the first place.
QUOTE (Empire_ian @ Sep 17 2006, 11:20 PM) What does the US have to do with isreal?
The US has great ties with Israel. That's why the war didn't stop at first. Bush wanted it to continue so that he can continue to wipe out the Middle East, which I find really stupid. In the end, he still accomplished nothing though. The conflict only resulted in many innocent and pointless deaths.
The US has great ties with Israel. That's why the war didn't stop at first. Bush wanted it to continue so that he can continue to wipe out the Middle East, which I find really stupid. In the end, he still accomplished nothing though. The conflict only resulted in many innocent and pointless deaths.
and more than stupid, i think that the palestinians were desperate. they often did things the wrong way, but they often had no other way to do things.. with israeli colonates spread over their land occupying fertile fields, roads surrounded with barbed wire that connected those colonates, the little land they had became even smaller to them.
and recently, how many of the palestinian government members (which were democratically elected) were arrested by israeli forces? how can it be that a country is not allowed to have a government, even though it was chosen by the country's people? cutting the funds is one thing, which is bad but acceptable. arresting the government members is not.
and recently, how many of the palestinian government members (which were democratically elected) were arrested by israeli forces? how can it be that a country is not allowed to have a government, even though it was chosen by the country's people? cutting the funds is one thing, which is bad but acceptable. arresting the government members is not.
QUOTE (Empire_ian @ Sep 17 2006, 11:20 PM) there is no room for solveing the problem now, and the palestinians with their internal affairs ruled by AK47s (not to mention external) have shown themselves to be incapeable of self rule, and order in a civilized state.
What exactly are you refering to??? Palestine has a duly elected goverment and have fairly well written laws and political system. They are not ruled by the guns.
What exactly are you refering to??? Palestine has a duly elected goverment and have fairly well written laws and political system. They are not ruled by the guns.
UGH cant find that source, oh well. I heard an account somewhere of a certain political party attacking their own headquarters to nominate a different person. Ill admit that I cant really support that claim, but even so the idea of hamas running in an election is ridiculous. Even palestinians children in pro palestinian movies claim that Hamasniks are violent and counterproductive.
All i have to say is that Yes a democracy can make mistakes. we are only human after all.
the only problem is that they aren't suppossed to make mistakes. that is why we voted for them, so we know that we have a strong society where you know it is safe to live in. there are so many people behind the president that we don't know about, that we are almost, Nieve. we are only human...
What do you think of Obadiah Shoher's views on the Middle East conflict? One can argue, of course, that Shoher is ultra-right, but his followers are far from being a marginal group. Also, he rejects Jewish moralistic reasoning - that's alone is highly unusual for the Israeli right. And he is very influential here in Israel. So what do you think? uh, here's the site in question: <samsonblinded.org/blog> Middle East conflict
Here is another example of how democracy can go wrong.
In ancient Athens where democracy was first created it was put to a public vote the following case:
Traditionally the captured family of an enemy hero would be sentenced to death and the vote requested was this: Should the living wife of a dead enemy hero be burned at the stake as tradition dictated?
A democratic vote was called the results are recorded as follows:
51% votes YES
49% voted NO
Thus the wife of the dead enemy hero was burned at the stake according to tradition for no other reason than that she was the wife of a dead enemy hero.
As Winston Churchill once said: The greatest arguement against democracy is people; however it is still the best system of governement we know
In ancient Athens where democracy was first created it was put to a public vote the following case:
Traditionally the captured family of an enemy hero would be sentenced to death and the vote requested was this: Should the living wife of a dead enemy hero be burned at the stake as tradition dictated?
A democratic vote was called the results are recorded as follows:
51% votes YES
49% voted NO
Thus the wife of the dead enemy hero was burned at the stake according to tradition for no other reason than that she was the wife of a dead enemy hero.
As Winston Churchill once said: The greatest arguement against democracy is people; however it is still the best system of governement we know
QUOTE (AlexZello @ Feb 23 2008, 08:10 AM) What do you think of Obadiah Shoher's views on the Middle East conflict?
I think he should do more talk-shows, because I haven't heard of him before.
And Google doesn't provide interesting website about him (or maybe your transliteration of his name is unusual).
About democracy, it's a neutral concept. It doesn't really lead to good or to bad decisions in itself.
The specific thing about democracy is that it slows or prevents decisions (since it's harder to convince a majority of the citizens than a single ruler). So it prevents effectively most excess, and excess are often bad.
On the other hand, it also makes more difficult to make allegedly needed reforms, which is a bad choice. But since the 'need' of a reform varies greatly with the person you're speaking with, it's unavoidable.
I think he should do more talk-shows, because I haven't heard of him before.
And Google doesn't provide interesting website about him (or maybe your transliteration of his name is unusual).
About democracy, it's a neutral concept. It doesn't really lead to good or to bad decisions in itself.
The specific thing about democracy is that it slows or prevents decisions (since it's harder to convince a majority of the citizens than a single ruler). So it prevents effectively most excess, and excess are often bad.
On the other hand, it also makes more difficult to make allegedly needed reforms, which is a bad choice. But since the 'need' of a reform varies greatly with the person you're speaking with, it's unavoidable.
QUOTE (noob @ Jun 23 2006, 10:02 PM)There are flaws withing any type of government, whether it's autocracy or democracy, there will always be a group of people who will not be happy or satisfied with the government.
We, as foreigners have no, whatsoever right, to tell a people living a certain country, who, have gone through so much hardship and conflicts, what is right and what is wrong. Unless, unless unless UNLESS there are conflicts such as ethnic cleansing happening within the country (Serbia? Germany back in WWII? ) It is only then, when internationally accepted organizations WHO BRING peace such as UN have the right to interfere with the government's actions.
The provious types of governments, obivously held no whatsoever power against Israel. Israel for the last few years was able to attack, slaughter, destroy and take new lands and nobody has ever tried to stop them. If Palestinian have decided to choose a group, like Haamas to rule the country. So be it, maybe, if they govern that country, Palestinian will achieve peace.
Making milions of people to suffer because they live and believe in such government is against humanity. There was once when people pittied Jews for what happened in WWII. Yes, they, once upon a time were slaughtered by Nazi's, but they do not have any right to kill other humans, such as Palestinians, just because they feel 'insecure.' Pardon my language, buy insecurity my ass. Israel holds nuclear bombs and nobody has ever tried to stop them from producing more OR check and see what they're up to.
What I don't understand is, how is throughing rocks when you're being shot with m1/car15/g36/g3/ is "terrorizing" ??
Yeah, there are some people who "suicide bomb" and kill... what? 20 people? Who, again, we're not aware if they're Israeli or Palestini. But, using choppers, airplanes and tanks to get revenge isn't right either. I mean, what I see is like this:
Someone explodes a bomb and people die = 20-40's ppl die, 100's wound
15 Choppers with 3 airplanes bombar a city = 100's die and 1000's wound
but it doesn't stop there, they have to drag in tanks, arti and soldiers into the city too...
how many more that way? only god knows.
I've heard this many times, "...Eye for eye, man for man..." but how accurate is this "man for man" part of the avenger's motto? Uhh... Not that accurate.
Palestini's protest
they are being fired upon
in reaction they through rocks
chopper comes in and throughs some rockets at them
someone yells out loud "zomg h4x0r imma bomb you"
next thing you know is a city is being invaded by military forces...
The protest part reminds me of the old communist Chinese. Good ol' cold war days.
Now, if there was anyone who should interfere and stop this nonsense, it should be UN. They should stop and disarm both sides and control their boarders. Heck, while they're at it, they should also redraw the boarders so it'd be "fair" for BOTH sides.
@ Bold, the government would, most likely not spend any money on military equipment, if they do, people would not vote for them in the next election. And that would be more than a reason to spend money on the economy rather than military. Having said that, they will not spend any less money on defence programs/projects.
Great Post noob
My thoughts are pretty much as this post but I have something to add
The thing that “If you knock the door you will have responseâ€
Israel invades Palestine … so don’t think Palestinian will be silent.
We, as foreigners have no, whatsoever right, to tell a people living a certain country, who, have gone through so much hardship and conflicts, what is right and what is wrong. Unless, unless unless UNLESS there are conflicts such as ethnic cleansing happening within the country (Serbia? Germany back in WWII? ) It is only then, when internationally accepted organizations WHO BRING peace such as UN have the right to interfere with the government's actions.
The provious types of governments, obivously held no whatsoever power against Israel. Israel for the last few years was able to attack, slaughter, destroy and take new lands and nobody has ever tried to stop them. If Palestinian have decided to choose a group, like Haamas to rule the country. So be it, maybe, if they govern that country, Palestinian will achieve peace.
Making milions of people to suffer because they live and believe in such government is against humanity. There was once when people pittied Jews for what happened in WWII. Yes, they, once upon a time were slaughtered by Nazi's, but they do not have any right to kill other humans, such as Palestinians, just because they feel 'insecure.' Pardon my language, buy insecurity my ass. Israel holds nuclear bombs and nobody has ever tried to stop them from producing more OR check and see what they're up to.
What I don't understand is, how is throughing rocks when you're being shot with m1/car15/g36/g3/ is "terrorizing" ??
Yeah, there are some people who "suicide bomb" and kill... what? 20 people? Who, again, we're not aware if they're Israeli or Palestini. But, using choppers, airplanes and tanks to get revenge isn't right either. I mean, what I see is like this:
Someone explodes a bomb and people die = 20-40's ppl die, 100's wound
15 Choppers with 3 airplanes bombar a city = 100's die and 1000's wound
but it doesn't stop there, they have to drag in tanks, arti and soldiers into the city too...
how many more that way? only god knows.
I've heard this many times, "...Eye for eye, man for man..." but how accurate is this "man for man" part of the avenger's motto? Uhh... Not that accurate.
Palestini's protest
they are being fired upon
in reaction they through rocks
chopper comes in and throughs some rockets at them
someone yells out loud "zomg h4x0r imma bomb you"
next thing you know is a city is being invaded by military forces...
The protest part reminds me of the old communist Chinese. Good ol' cold war days.
Now, if there was anyone who should interfere and stop this nonsense, it should be UN. They should stop and disarm both sides and control their boarders. Heck, while they're at it, they should also redraw the boarders so it'd be "fair" for BOTH sides.
@ Bold, the government would, most likely not spend any money on military equipment, if they do, people would not vote for them in the next election. And that would be more than a reason to spend money on the economy rather than military. Having said that, they will not spend any less money on defence programs/projects.
Great Post noob
My thoughts are pretty much as this post but I have something to add
The thing that “If you knock the door you will have responseâ€
Israel invades Palestine … so don’t think Palestinian will be silent.
That was a long archaeological dig! Being the lazy bugger I am I did not read every post in its entirely (especially when the thread got side tracked into Canadian politics). Beat me for not following the rules!
To get back to the original question:
Answer to poll:
Can democracy make a wrong decision? In this question I assume the wrong decision is a choice that does more harm than good for the said country (be it financial, foreign relations or the general well being of the countries population).
I will say Yes. People are not perfect so there will always be a time when the wrong decision is made. Further the government is not always provided with all the facts and figures and as a result can make a mistake. Then there are other occasions where they purposely make the wrong choice (wrong as it does not benefit the country) to protect their own interests (money, staying in power, carrying out their own personal agendas).
That is why it is better to have a state where their are political parties and voters than a state governed by one person e.g a monarchy, dictatorship. It harder to make the obvious wrong decisions e.g massive corruption, genocide etc. It is not perfect however as decisions can take longer to take place which can harm the country. This can be particularly true in issues of the economy or war where things suddenly develop. But it is simply the lesser of two evils.
That is not to say that established democracies if given time can never make mistakes. On the contrary governments make mistakes all the time! To use real life examples the British government (a country with a established democracy) issued the making of the millennium dome. Cost the tax payers £790 million (about 1.5 billion US dollars) didn't generate anything. A mistake. Another more recent mistake involved the government not making enough safety measures against some important CD's. As a result the CD got leaked and the confidential information of 25 million people was disclosed to unknown source, most likely criminals (makes the Code Geass leak seem rather trivial!) Another mistake from the government! I'm sure you can think of many mistakes your government made.
QUOTE (Bold @ Jun 23 2006, 01:34 PM)So here is the question, can another country take upon itself to tell someone else that they did not vote for the right people?
Answer to question
The answer is no. I do not believe another country has the right to tell another country they voted for the wrong person (provided no foul play was involved). What is right and wrong are pretty relative concepts anyway so the person has no right to force their opinion on anyone. This is particularly true if done through force. It is like saying I don't like gays so I will attack them as they are not right in my opinion.
Taking the case of Hamas. At the time it may have been difficult to judge whether the party would behave like a true political party and not simply be a terrorist group that is supported by the populace. That said the Israeli government is hardly much better so that could be a moot point anyway.
However even if we say this fear is justified the action taken was not the best one. To stop humanitarian aid sends the message that other countries do not recognise Hamas as a proper government. Isn't there a saying innocent unless proven otherwise? Conditions could be made before giving the aid and if they fulfilled these criteria it would prove that Hamas is behaving like a political party and not a terrorist organisation. When looking at the behaviour of the Israeli government I find it hard to believe why the Palestinian government (Hamas) has to prove their innocence. This fact alone is part of the problem to the Palestinians. They will feel there is a perception that they are seen as the villains. As a result they will develop a siege mentality (them against us) which can often lead to other problems...
One last thing although issues of religion isn't strictly involved in this scenario religion does play a major part in this conflict. To think otherwise would be a mistake. Yes I understand not all Palestinians are Muslims and not all Israeli's are Jewish but they make up a large enough population to have a strong influence on their respective governments. As Jerusalem is considered the holy land this is not merely an issue of territory but the right to live in the holy land. It can even be an issue of which religion is considered the true one and thus has the right to live in the holy land (remember in the past this conflict wasn't limited to Muslims and Jewish people but also Christians). It is a problem that has existed for over a thousand years and I see no signs of it abating soon.
I am not saying you have to agree with all the reasons for the war but it is important to look at the whole biscuit before delving in!
Answer to poll:
Can democracy make a wrong decision? In this question I assume the wrong decision is a choice that does more harm than good for the said country (be it financial, foreign relations or the general well being of the countries population).
I will say Yes. People are not perfect so there will always be a time when the wrong decision is made. Further the government is not always provided with all the facts and figures and as a result can make a mistake. Then there are other occasions where they purposely make the wrong choice (wrong as it does not benefit the country) to protect their own interests (money, staying in power, carrying out their own personal agendas).
That is why it is better to have a state where their are political parties and voters than a state governed by one person e.g a monarchy, dictatorship. It harder to make the obvious wrong decisions e.g massive corruption, genocide etc. It is not perfect however as decisions can take longer to take place which can harm the country. This can be particularly true in issues of the economy or war where things suddenly develop. But it is simply the lesser of two evils.
That is not to say that established democracies if given time can never make mistakes. On the contrary governments make mistakes all the time! To use real life examples the British government (a country with a established democracy) issued the making of the millennium dome. Cost the tax payers £790 million (about 1.5 billion US dollars) didn't generate anything. A mistake. Another more recent mistake involved the government not making enough safety measures against some important CD's. As a result the CD got leaked and the confidential information of 25 million people was disclosed to unknown source, most likely criminals (makes the Code Geass leak seem rather trivial!) Another mistake from the government! I'm sure you can think of many mistakes your government made.
QUOTE (Bold @ Jun 23 2006, 01:34 PM)So here is the question, can another country take upon itself to tell someone else that they did not vote for the right people?
Answer to question
The answer is no. I do not believe another country has the right to tell another country they voted for the wrong person (provided no foul play was involved). What is right and wrong are pretty relative concepts anyway so the person has no right to force their opinion on anyone. This is particularly true if done through force. It is like saying I don't like gays so I will attack them as they are not right in my opinion.
Taking the case of Hamas. At the time it may have been difficult to judge whether the party would behave like a true political party and not simply be a terrorist group that is supported by the populace. That said the Israeli government is hardly much better so that could be a moot point anyway.
However even if we say this fear is justified the action taken was not the best one. To stop humanitarian aid sends the message that other countries do not recognise Hamas as a proper government. Isn't there a saying innocent unless proven otherwise? Conditions could be made before giving the aid and if they fulfilled these criteria it would prove that Hamas is behaving like a political party and not a terrorist organisation. When looking at the behaviour of the Israeli government I find it hard to believe why the Palestinian government (Hamas) has to prove their innocence. This fact alone is part of the problem to the Palestinians. They will feel there is a perception that they are seen as the villains. As a result they will develop a siege mentality (them against us) which can often lead to other problems...
One last thing although issues of religion isn't strictly involved in this scenario religion does play a major part in this conflict. To think otherwise would be a mistake. Yes I understand not all Palestinians are Muslims and not all Israeli's are Jewish but they make up a large enough population to have a strong influence on their respective governments. As Jerusalem is considered the holy land this is not merely an issue of territory but the right to live in the holy land. It can even be an issue of which religion is considered the true one and thus has the right to live in the holy land (remember in the past this conflict wasn't limited to Muslims and Jewish people but also Christians). It is a problem that has existed for over a thousand years and I see no signs of it abating soon.
I am not saying you have to agree with all the reasons for the war but it is important to look at the whole biscuit before delving in!
