[Fyron]

Rex:

When someone doesn't agree with me I think it's propaganda too.

I was referencing nearly every post made in this thread, actually. Maybe 10 or so (that aren't vacuous Posts) aren't rife with propaganda for one side or another (well, except for the few tangent discussions like this current one about democracies...). Those are the few that just contain real facts, and nothing more. It has nothing to do with "not agreeing with me." Please don't insert words into my statements that I didn't say any more. It is tiring.

Also Their are plenty of examples of successful long lived states that were not Democracies. One thing they all do have in common is a strong legal system. I can give numerous examples.

That isn't disagreeing with any Posts made in this thread so far, as all we were talking about was whether democratic forms of government were stable or not. No one has claimed that all non-democratic governments are unstable or anything like that.

Some1:

Ok, there ARE 'stable' democracies, BUT a democracy is technically NOT STABLE.

Yes it is. Democracies are inherently stable forms of government because they are designed to promote (and force) "regime" changes at regular intervals. So, there are no sudden upheavals, no coups, no seizures of power. Those only happen in countries where the democracy was just formed after long periods of tyrannical governments, where the old powers were not sufficiently neutered, so they still have the strength to reclaim power. Otherwise, the democracy endures. Saying that this sort of thing is an example of the instability of democracy is wrong, becuase there never really was much of a democracy to begin with in those countries.

Ok, Irak 'always' was ruled by soennit leaders.
When there is a democracy this changes suddenly. I think a lot of people that are from the soennit side would not agree to that, cause this changes the attitude of Irak more to Iran.
This Base is not a good foundation for a 'stable' Democracy in my humble honest opinion....

What do you think?

The US has so many various ethnic Groups in it from all over the world that it makes that example sort of meaningless. The government of the US changes as "drastically" as in your example all the time. Noone flees the country because of it. There was no mass emmigration of Democrats from the country when Bush won in 2000. There was no mass emmigration of Republicans from the US when Clinton won in 1992 or 1996. The UK has a number of vastly distinct ethnic Groups in it. It doesn't have any such problems either. Neither does nearly any other democratic country in the world.

Ed:
[quote] Edit: Gees looks like this thread has claimed another 5 star rating. Who knew calling a democracy stable would piss people off./QUOTE] This is why the Ratings system should be removed... I suggest you (and everyone else) disable your rating.

[ April 19, 2003, 02:46: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]