C'jais Posted March 12, 2003 Share Posted March 12, 2003 I don't think you can enforce democracy at gunpoint. Europe has had over hundred years to develop the mindset required for it, and even then, many European countries have recently had dictatorships because the population was insecure, poor and liked the idea of having firm places in sociey better than the freedom of actually having to take care of your own future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billy Shears Posted March 13, 2003 Share Posted March 13, 2003 All we are saying is give peace a chance. -John Lennon With total peace, would it matter what kind of a government you had? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darthfergie Posted March 13, 2003 Share Posted March 13, 2003 Cuba. What a HORRIBLE example of a Dictatorship. Sure they have no wars, that because they have very few guns, no tanks, no airforce, no navy. They are being held under strict embargo and have been for years. Their latest cars are from the 60s or earlier. "Dictatorships work for you," especially in the hostile environment of politics. You are shooting yourself in the foot, internationally speaking, if you are one. And if you are close to a world power, like Cuba is, you're screwed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tie Guy Posted March 13, 2003 Share Posted March 13, 2003 Originally posted by Billy Shears All we are saying is give peace a chance. -John Lennon With total peace, would it matter what kind of a government you had? The problem is, only governments can maintain peace. Anarchy is chaos. It certainly does matter what kind of government, because even if you could get absolute peace (which will never happen), you'd still need some authoratative body to maintain it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zygomaticus Posted March 13, 2003 Share Posted March 13, 2003 Too bad the world can't be perfect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billy Shears Posted March 13, 2003 Share Posted March 13, 2003 The problem is, only governments can maintain peace. Anarchy is chaos. It certainly does matter what kind of government, because even if you could get absolute peace (which will never happen), you'd still need some authoratative body to maintain it. So are the actual choices temporary peace and Deomcracy? Becuase with ever-lasting peace, it really wouldn't matter if there was a government to uphold peace, because it would be ever-lasting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zygomaticus Posted March 13, 2003 Share Posted March 13, 2003 Everlasting peace can only occur if a government sees to it that it occurs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edlib Posted March 13, 2003 Share Posted March 13, 2003 Everlasting peace can only occur if there is a huge fundamental change in human nature. It would take something as drastic as a giant and sudden leap in human evolution, or perhaps even divine intervention for this to occur, however, so I'm not holding by breath. As we are wired today true, lasting peace is totally impossible. We are just too competitive. Our instincts are still based on the most primitive, reptilian part of our brain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duder Posted March 17, 2003 Share Posted March 17, 2003 Originally posted by Admiral Human nature will lead to another war. Peace is an idea that never really occurs. So I would pick democracy where I have freedoms and choices, where I don't have to worry about being pick up in the middle of the night if I disagree with the government. Peace is an idea that will never be fully realized (at least not in my lifetime) Spot on. Stability is the true cause. Peace is a dream, and if anyones cared to notice, no democracy as ever invaded another democracy. It's a worthy cause. Here in Europe people are able to dream the dream of peace because we allow the US (although I really think the Bush administration could have done a better job of maintaining diplomatic realtions post 9/11) to make and back up harsh decisions. I'm just glad that here in the UK we have a leader who is willing to make a responsible sacrifices. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Breton Posted March 17, 2003 Share Posted March 17, 2003 Peace is always a good thing. Dictatorship isn't always a bad thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Artoo Posted March 17, 2003 Share Posted March 17, 2003 Dictatorship isn't always a bad thing. *buzzer noise* WRONG! Since you've utterly failed the timed round will let you have it off easy in the bonus round. Here's your question: Name 1 post-1500's dictatorship where: A group of people wasn't abused/repressed without having a say-so in governement, and the dictatorship did not directly lead to/tie to a democracy. You have 3 posts, ready? Go! [/annoying game show host voice] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Breton Posted March 18, 2003 Share Posted March 18, 2003 Originally posted by Artoo *buzzer noise* WRONG! Since you've utterly failed the timed round will let you have it off easy in the bonus round. Here's your question: Name 1 dictatorship where: A group of people wasn't abused/repressed without having a say-so in governement, and the dictatorship did not directly lead to/tie to a democracy. You have 3 posts, read? Go! [/annoying game show host voice] I can mention a lot. But I'll stick with Norway under Magnus 6. Lagabøte. "Without peace, there can be no democracy." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Artoo Posted March 18, 2003 Share Posted March 18, 2003 You seem to have overlooked democracy's history if you believe that it takes peace for it to exist. I'm no expert in British history, so I'll let someone else fill in the facts there, but I believe there was alot of war about King and Parliament. Which eventually led to the parliamentary democracy. Democracy emerged from war. Also you must remember the US's founding. Fair democracy was fought for there also. It wasn't peace that led to the Representative Democracy of America, it was a Revolutionary War. Peace does not exist without democracy in this day in age. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jatt13 Posted March 18, 2003 Share Posted March 18, 2003 i agree w/ artoo. to achieve democracy from a dictatorship or any oppressing power you must have war. i doubt someone could just stage a rally in front of sadam's house protesting "we want a representative demacracy: and actually get it. correct me if i'm wrong here. this was a while back, but i still want to coment on it: The dictatorship I'm talking about would be something like one where you may not have rights, but you won't get killed unless you do something wrong. yeah, and in that dictatorship "wrong" would be voicing your opinion or standing up for something you believe in. as long as humans have free will, there will never be true peace. someone will always want something someone else has, and that someone else won't give that thing up, so one side will threaten the other and it will escalate to a war. you can look back through history and see it all over. example: American colonists: no taxation without representation! Britain: you're small and insignificant! we'll just tax you some more, cause we want money! *britain slaps more taxes on american colonies* Colonists: OK, now we're angry! stop it or we'll revolt! Britain: no you won't! you're a bunch of pansies! *slaps more taxes down* Colonists: ok, that's it! let's go to war and become our own country! *revolutionary war occurs* Colonists: yay! we're free! Britain: yeah, we didn't really try. we don't care. ok, maybe it went slightly differently, but you get the gist. britain wanted money, america wanted representation in the senate. neither wanted to give the other what they wanted, so war happened. and out of war came democracy. there will be more revolts and more wars over land for as long as humanity exists. so for were me, i say demacracy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Breton Posted March 19, 2003 Share Posted March 19, 2003 Originally posted by Jatt13 American colonists: no taxation without representation! Britain: you're small and insignificant! we'll just tax you some more, cause we want money! *britain slaps more taxes on american colonies* Colonists: OK, now we're angry! stop it or we'll revolt! Britain: no you won't! you're a bunch of pansies! *slaps more taxes down* Colonists: ok, that's it! let's go to war and become our own country! *revolutionary war occurs* Colonists: yay! we're free! Britain: yeah, we didn't really try. we don't care. Actually, it was pretty different. American colonists: We don't want to pay tax!!! Britain: But you must think about or economy, we can't... American colonists: WE DON'T WANT TO!!! Britain: Alright, alright...*sigh* *removes most of the taxes* American colinists: Hey! What about the small taxation on tea! Britain: Does it really matter much? I mean, tea is bad for your health, and... American coloninst: *Ruins a cargo of tea and kills the innocent captain* Britain: Hey! Why did you do that?! *aims gun at AC and shoots* American colonists: Hey! You shot me in my arm! Britain: *shoots AC in the leg* *France shoots Britain* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billy Shears Posted March 19, 2003 Share Posted March 19, 2003 If this was a poll on whether I would want peace or democracy, I would say peace. If I was given that choice by God or something, I would say peace. That's what I thought it meant, that I could have one, and always would. I would have peace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snafu7 Posted March 20, 2003 Share Posted March 20, 2003 I would have to say that I would want Democracy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.