View Single Post
  #1049  
Old April 19th, 2003, 12:30 PM
Some1's Avatar

Some1 Some1 is offline
Private
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 33
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Some1 is on a distinguished road
Default Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.

hmmmm,
Quote:
Got any examples of a stable dictatorship??
Example of Stable dictatorship?? Cuba, Castro? You have a lot of years the "same" policies, leader etc...

Quote:
Ok, there ARE 'stable' democracies, BUT a democracy is technically NOT STABLE.
Every x years a regime change = technically not stable. Often other leaders, other policies etc..

Quote:
Edit: Gees looks like this thread has claimed another 5 star rating. Who knew calling a democracy stable would piss people off.
I never rated people... But what do you complain you have twice as many stars as i have anyway.

Quote:
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.
Every 4 years a Upheaval (but following the rules) New politicy, new judges, new president...

But what i tried was including the Iraq model. Countries like that ARE instable AND ('Those only happen in countries where the democracy was just formed after long periods of tyrannical governments').... So, my question again, is a democracy the option GWB wants? And option for Iraq?

Quote:
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.
USA is a 'democracy' for some time now... And in its beginning years it was far from democratic (for a lot of ethnic Groups)... This sort of thing takes a Lot of time, and during that it is not very (i shall use the dreaded word again) 'stable'... So, my question again (2), is a democracy the option GWB wants?

Quote:
Seems there are differing views about stability. Even a country where the head of state is assassinated and replaced by his murderer every year, maybe even accompanied by a short civil war of 3-4 months, can technically considered to be "stable" if this happens on a regular, stable basis
lol

Quote:
Given the number of folks in this thread arguing that we primarily went to war just to line the pocket books of GWB's cronies, I'm surprised those same folks aren't arguing that we really don't have a democracy at all. Rather, we have an oligarchy.
Im one of them...

pfew, i have pain in my eyes from my monitor
See your replies later

R.
Reply With Quote