Yep. A lot of signs point to the US invasion of Iraqi as being thought up long in advance. 9/11 was merely the catalyst to gain public support for the invasion out of fear for people that were no threat to us. I wish people would take a better look at Ron Paul. All the other candidates have so many flaws while this guy talks fiscal sense. That's what's best for this country since our happiness really boils down to how much money we have. Somebody said our economy expanded under Bush during this war. Don't forget our national deficit doubled as well. It's grown but our wealth is controlled by other nation's banks. That's not a positive and soon that bubble will have to burst especially when Dip**** GWB wants to spend another $3 trillion on his budget. He's just taking care of his special interest and McCain would do the same.
I've read, and I'm not sure if it's accurate, that while the deficit has increased, the percentage has actually decreased. So while the actual dollar amount has increased, it's relatively less than it was previously.
Aristotle had this figured out a few years ago. Free societies, republics, whatever you want to call them, are not for everybody.
Depending on your government type and your population type, sure. If you set up a government that is designed to be run by the people and operates based on representation through voting, then no, I don't think you can argue for denying certain people the to vote based solely on racial issues. Aristotle would argue that such a government isn't necessarily correct though and in many cases is foolish. Plato would argue that such a government is always incorrect.
so if one lives in a country that does not have representative government, then one by definition is not entitled to such?
The Dalai Lama would like democracy for Tibet. "11. No system of government is perfect, but democracy is closest to our essential human nature. It is also the only stable foundation upon which a just and free global political structure can be built. So it is in all our interests that those of us who already enjoy democracy should actively support everybody's right to do so." - The Dalai Lama (China's Devil) Buddhism and Democracy http://www.dalailama.com/page.164.htm
Please point out anywhere I have said anything about Tibet and the DL that would lead you to write what you did.
So if one lives in a country that does not have a representative government, we should invade them and change that?
you've both made it clear that Iraq does not qualify for representative government, by implication that they're not "ready" for it, and explicitly because democracy was "imposed" upon them. i'm fairly certain the tibetans would welcome such an imposition, and i imagine that in the abstract you support the lifting of the chinese occupation and tibetan self-determination. i wonder why you don't support, or didn't support, the same for Iraq? how about Iran, or NK? would you support a humanitarian invasion of NK whose aim was to lift the famine, and had the residual benefits of wiping out NK WMD and the installation of a democratic government?
Not in the slightest. If you think Iraq is messy, just wait until you saw war against North Korea. They have the fifth largest military in the world and they're completely brainwashed. They might just fight until the last man and if Kim ordered it, might just kill civilians on both borders to be safe. They have tons of weaponry aimed directly at Seoul, which being only ~30 miles from the DMZ, that I'm sure they would not hesitate to fire if provoked militarily. All of their resources go to their military. You think that Iraq has had a hard time adjusting to Western ideals, wait for Pyongyang to fall. A country that isolated, having been so for so long, will have no clue how to stand if the government were to fall. A massive exodus of refugees would enter both China and South Korea, creating a huge humanitarian crisis. Plus, bets are the Kim and the North Korean regime won't be able to sustain themselves much longer, at least in their current state. They barely had enough electricity to power Pyongyang while the New York Philharmonic was there. Unlike Sadaam, who had oil revenue, North Korea has nothing but illegal activities.
Because that wasn't what the war was about. I have made posts to the effect that democracy, by its very nature cannot be forced on a country at the point of a gun. But no-where have I ever made the implication that a country won't or can't take on a democratic government if it so chooses. Please show me where I've made any such implication. And if you can't, one can only assume that not only are you a plagiarist but you're also a ****ing liar. You've really sunk to the bottom haven't you basso? Is that all you have left? Lashing out at people on a basketball message board? You used to be at least amusing and I thought, as misguided as you were, you had some semblance of a point. You've become pathetic.
sam, is that you? so, did the germans and japanese "choose to take on a democratic government" or was it imposed? does tibet deserve its enslavement? should blacks be re-enslaved in this country because the civil war "wasn't about" slavery? note, lincoln said, on more than one occasion, "if i could save the union w/o freeing the slaves, i would"
