[OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.

[Aloofi]

Check this link. Probably some of you remember this from sept/2000.

The Photo that Started it All

[Aloofi]

Check out this one too:

Dishonest Reporting 'Award' for 2002



[ May 12, 2003, 18:30: Message edited by: Aloofi ]

[Loser]

Geoschmo:
You are correct, this is also a "we'll see" situation. However, I believe there is more historical support for this theory than you imply. I will not be able to back this up right now. Sorry about that.

Tesco:
I would say that this 'war' was about securing an American position and installing American influence in a strategic location in the Middle East.

[Wardad]

Originally posted by Loser:
Wardad:
A matriarchal or matrilineal society does not a democracy make...

They were not a Matriarchal society, but Women did have influence.

I do not see how early USA could be fairly considered a democracy.
52% of the population (Women) could not vote.
Slaves were not considered men, and could not vote.
Early on in some states only land owners could vote.

[ May 12, 2003, 18:49: Message edited by: Wardad ]

[rextorres]

The main justification for the "Photo-op War" was that we could not wait for the original inspectors to do their work. Well if the pro war people could not wait then why do the "unduped" have to wait for evidence that this war was worth wasting tax dollars? I keep reading that we should be patient - But I ask how long?

"As long as it takes" was not good enough for the pro war people so it's not good enough for me.

With the Bush Economy in full swing I suppose we'll have to wait for people to admit there weren't any wmd until after the next election.

[Loser]

Originally posted by Wardad:
They were not a Matriarchal society, but Women did have influence.

I believe the majority of northeastern native american cultures were matrilinial. And I believe in the agricultural Iroquois specifically the women owned the land and the men owned the seed. I assumed that's what you were referring to as it is consistantly brought up to me by local feminists. Knee-jerk reaction, sorry if I misunderstood you.

Originally posted by Wardad:
I do not see how early USA could be fairly considered a democracy.

I agree wholeheartedly, but if only the Iriquoi were close to democracy at the time, how does this become an statement to detract from the "democaries don't make war on each other" theory?

[Fyron]

No nation has ever had a democracy, actually, as that requires all citizens to be able to vote on every issue and to directly participate in every level of government. Not even Athens was a democracy. Most countries that people label as "democracies" actually have some form of a republic, in which people are in one way or another chosen to vote for large blocks of people in government. A republic does not require that all people living in the country to be considered citizens or to be given the right to vote. It is a subtle distinction, but an important one. The term "democracy" is often fallaciously used to describe a wide range of government types that are not democracies.

[ May 12, 2003, 20:03: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

[Aloofi]

Fyron, for an Imperator, you know a lot about democracy.

[geoschmo]

Fyron, your post is pretty non-helpful to the topic at hand. Yes of course by the strictest definition possible for the term democracy, few if any nations have ever had such a system. However the term has evolved over the years to encompass many similer forms of government. According to Webster's Online dictionary "Democracy" is defined as...

Main Entry: de·moc·ra·cy
Pronunciation: di-'mä-kr&-sE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -cies
Etymology: Middle French democratie, from Late Latin democratia, from Greek dEmokratia, from dEmos + -kratia -cracy
Date: 1576
1 a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections

(I added the bold for emphasis)

This definition would fit any of the governments commonly referred to as democracies today. Refuting this is just arguing semantics instead of contributing to the point of the discussion at hand.

Geoschmo

[ May 12, 2003, 20:59: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

[Wardad]

Imperator was not found in the Cambridge Dictionary.

I did find: imperative (URGENT) adjective
extremely important or urgent; needing to be done or given attention immediately.

So an Imperator must create urgency and need attention.
correct usage: The Imperator threw a tantrum.