Printable View
That is an easy one FluroChoco. You see Bush had no real competition. Kerry was not a great choice.. not to mention we were in Iraq at the time so many would feel safer with the same guy in power since he was the one who should have it all planed out.
Basicaly it ain't that they voted for Bush(or so it is with many I know) rather they voted agaisnt Kerry.
Which comes back to my argument against the first past the post election system. With a preferential vote system such as Australia has Bush could be the president, but if he didn't control the house of reps and the senate (part of the british and our political system) then he couldn't have gone to war as easily, and it is quite possible for the leader (president or prime minister) to not control both houses. Has only recently happend in Australia where Howard controls both. Is pretty scary for me, he can do whatever he wants, he can rewrite the constitution if it pleases him. Of course this wont happen because of public outcry and the other parties still hold some sway.
Anyway, with a preferential voting system America would give a fair voice to the minorities, people could have voted against Kerry without giving Bush control.
Erm, I dunno about Aus, but here in Britain it is an impossibility for the Prime Minister not to have a majority in the House of Commons. The House of Lords is another matter - I disagree with them in principle, but they've done a lot of good things for us - but the way our system works is that the PM is whoever wins the most seats in the Commons.Quote:
Originally Posted by FluroChoco
Anyway, another reason I have heard that many voted for Bush was because they were sick and tired of the rest of the world trying to tell them who to vote for.
For the record, Bush doesn't control Congress. He's just, apparently, charismatic (what?!) and our Senators are pretty stupid for clapping every three seconds to whatever tripe he says.
About the war - more seriously, most of America doesn't agree that we should have gone to war, but a lot feel that we should stay and finish what we said we were going to. I don't. But a lot of people think that the troops should stick around and help bring about a free Iraq. Which is noble. In fact, I'd like to see more free socities. But, it's the means in which we're doing it and whatnot that makes this a stupid, pointless war - not to mention the semi-puppet government that we might just establish.
Like I said before, I didn't care who won the war. If it was Bush, I would have to fight a pointless war. If it was Kerry, I'd have to fight against a Socialist America. Whatever. I voted Libertarian.
Non-mandatory 'public' healthcare and education are fine. My university, for instance, charges a (small) optional fee that provides for medical assistance. You choose whether or not to support it. That is acceptable because the individual chooses whether or not to enter the program.Quote:
Originally Posted by FluroChoco
Nationwide healthcare and education should (and can) be the same. Enough people will likely continue paying that the system retains itself, and those who choose not to pay can use their money in whatever manner they deem appropriate.
When it came to values and cleaniness the Native Americans of North America had the greatest civilization. Progress would've gone a lot slower if they were the dominant of the world because they don't live off the land. They liv eon the land and they nourish it. Which is why when the europeans came they had no immunities because their way of life was so damn clean that they rarely ever had diseases. Now Europeans were the nastiest of all people. We could all agree on this,
I don't think it's possible to select one. They all suck, face it - humans are backstabbing, lying, non-altruistic, etc. sort of beings. Seriously, did a cat create religion? Did a frog grant oppression? Do centipedes make laws?
Civilizations are bad. However, if I were to use 'greatest', 'civilization', and 'ever', all in one sentnence, in that order, Germany, Japan, and Russia come to mind.
Germany almost took over the entire world twice (There's a lot of things wrong with that, by the way - of course, good things could come from it too.) But, in defining 'greatness' there was one such man named Alexander the Great who was given that title because he had so much land
This brings me to Russia. Overlook the actual population and any politic problems it has, but look on a map. Do you see a bigger country than Russia? This is Greatness.
Moving on to Japan, and of course tying it in to this wondrous forum called 'Eyes on Final Fantasy' what sort of people came up with Final Fantasy? Japanese people. Who was rigorous but rewarding education system? Glance back a ways and see 'Japanese people' again. Who isn't allowed to have a military - and of course, therefore pacifist/pro-life/non-warmongerring - because other nations oppress it so? The Japanese.
Once again, a civilization is a terrible thing. Especially the ones that involve people.
I have seen that written online every so often. But never have I heard it spoken in this country that supposedly had people doing that. So, I write it up to the same basic catagory as how most of the world knows of the city of Chicago, but most outside of the US couldn't name the state it's in. Every society is guilty of misconceptions about every other society. Especially the part where they somehow believe that all other cultures are like their own, only a bit different... if that makes sence.Quote:
Originally Posted by I'm my own MILF
As for "greatest civilization" theory... what are we measuring by? If we go with the cultures that have the healthiest population (least number of non-accidental and/or preventable natural deaths)- then we'd have a close competition between America, Britain, and Australia. Clearly, this is based on averages of the populations. America was in the lead until the recent conflicts in Iraq and Afganistan.... presumably, we're no longer there.
If we go by technological developement, America and Japan are in heavy competition in that area. America is producing the innovative new devices that go one to change the world. Consider the score thus far.... electicity, light bulbs, automatic weapons, submarines, cars, airplanes, robotics, computers, the internet, and counting. Whereas the Japanese have taken our designs and improved on many (at least the most commonly used) of them.
If we count by territory owned, then it's a battle between Russia and China. Well, Russia a few decades ago. Nowadays, with all the new countries breaking away, Russia is losing territory. And, of what they still own, they can hardly be said to "controlling" it. Much of the eastern section of Russia has yet to hear of WW1.
If we count population, China is the clear victor... India, second place, doesn't come close. However, like Russia, many Chinese villages are hardly connected to the country. The don't make up much of the population (most of which you'll find within a few choice cities)- but they make up a quarter of the area within China's borders. There are over a DOZEN different languages in China. At least three of which were discovered since '94.
As far as military might. Well, in this case, the US is definately unrivalled. Fully committed to a total war (instead of this fine-tuned occupation stuff), the American military could easily crush any other country's forces. Probably make a good run at taking the combined forces of the rest of the planet.... which we'd probably lose, but it'd be one helluva competition. Of course, nukes change the system a bit.
Regardless, we can rule out all ancient civilizations. Their governments were corrupt in ways that make contemporary stuff look childlike in it's innocence. Their populations were doomed to short, miserable, bleak and pitiable existances. Life and death were cheap... when starvation, violence and laughably simple diseases are the top three killers in the world (the so-called "black plague", people catch it on occasions even today, it's often mistaken as a bad flu). We might as well shrug off their technologies.
As far as the arguments about socialism/etc/etc- let history do the judging of how well that works. There has yet to be a socialist or communist government that has lasted any longer than a couple decades. And don't claim that China is an exception. China's a fascist regime, communist in name only.
So you'd rule out Greece, with their mythology? The amazing Roman Empire - home to Roman Catholicism? You'd rule out Asia (Ancient China had an incredible strategist named Genhis Khan.) Ancient Japan, built upon Honor?Quote:
Regardless, we can rule out all ancient civilizations.
Check out a conspiracy website sometime. Sure, it's all nuts, but really - If you don't know what others think is going on, how could you possibly condemn an ancient civilization?Quote:
Their governments were corrupt in ways that make contemporary stuff look childlike in it's innocence.
Take India for example. People don't exactly value life there. True story - my father's there on a business trip. He's stop at a sign or light or something - this guy gets out of his car, goes and beats on a guy in another car, gets back in and drives away. 'miserable, bleak'? Or do you consider that a happy fairy tale?Quote:
Their populations were doomed to short, miserable, bleak and pitiable existances. Life and death were cheap...
Starvation and violence? It seems there's people in poverty in the USA, are you saying they don't starve? Even to death? And that's just in the USA. I won't talk about any 'third-world' countries. As for violence, there have been shootings. In schools. In the USA! :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: Ah yes, shrugging off technologies. I mean, pfft - no one needs the wheel. No one needs clothing. (That wasn't sarcastic, it's true - we don't actually need those things.)Quote:
when starvation, violence and laughably simple diseases are the top three killers in the world (the so-called "black plague", people catch it on occasions even today, it's often mistaken as a bad flu). We might as well shrug off their technologies.
And for some reason, the way you stated that life and death are cheap I take it you've seen Full Metal Alchemist. If you haven't, it states that the adult human being can be built on the cheap. But science is missing something. Science only outlawed human alchemy because it wasn't able to do it. That's like.... quitting with technology. Saying ancient technologies are irrelevent. Etc.
I'd say past civilizations have given modern civs. a run for our money.
My appoligies if this is harsh.
Yes, I'll rule out ancient Greece. Any society that executes some of it's greatest visionaries is a little lacking in cultural advancement. For that matter, when execution is considered public spectacle, then you can't exactly slice that up as "advanced".Quote:
Originally Posted by Erased
As for the "Amazing Roman Empire".... don't get me started. They became an empire through the rape and destruction of hundreds of lesser cultures. There are languages that don't exist because the Romans actively destroyed them. Burned every text, killed everyone who could speak them. Rome is the shining paragon of all things to do with the abuse of power. They only built roads in order to keep the soldiers in line. Smart, yes... altruistic, no way in hell. And who are you to say Roman Catholicism is greater than any one of the dozens of religions that they helped to destroy.
Uh... Ghenghis Khan... brilliant strategist, that much is true. Then again, so was Hitler. And the "Honor" codes of China and Japan were wonderful in and of themselves. Too bad that they were almost never practiced. Some followed them, no doubt, but the society as a whole barely paid lip service. And Japan's "Honor" isn't so ancient. They were following that very same "Honor" right into World War 2... Pearl Harbor was about as honorable as a dagger in the back.
Corruption... well, how about "this girl turned down my advances... therefor, I'm going to rape her in the street and order my men to kill her every living relative in front of her. They'll obey the order, and no one will ever do anything about it. They won't even argue. Conspiracy theories aside, even if they're all true, that stuff happens hidden in the shadows. The old school brand was done in plain sight without fear. No competition.Quote:
Check out a conspiracy website sometime. Sure, it's all nuts, but really - If you don't know what others think is going on, how could you possibly condemn an ancient civilization?
Take India for example. People don't exactly value life there. True story - my father's there on a business trip. He's stop at a sign or light or something - this guy gets out of his car, goes and beats on a guy in another car, gets back in and drives away. 'miserable, bleak'? Or do you consider that a happy fairy tale?
Oh, and I'm full aware that there are still spots in the world that don't place much value on human life. It's a disgrace and degeneration that still exists today, but we shouldn't excuse the past for it any more than the present. That's like saying "well, there are still serial killers, so Jack the Ripper isn't all that bad". I'm kinda disappointed that you brought up India, not Africa.Quote:
Starvation and violence? It seems there's people in poverty in the USA, are you saying they don't starve? Even to death? And that's just in the USA. I won't talk about any 'third-world' countries. As for violence, there have been shootings. In schools. In the USA! :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: Ah yes, shrugging off technologies. I mean, pfft - no one needs the wheel. No one needs clothing. (That wasn't sarcastic, it's true - we don't actually need those things.)
As for the technology, I was saying that no single culture in the past contributed much ALONE to the advancement. Brilliant developements occured every so often across the globe almost at random. The creators of those advancements deserve credit, but it's like they just appeared out of nowhere. Spontaneously, nothing but a particular area's luck that *this* person would be a revolutionary genius.
I didn't say life and death are cheap. I said that ancient cultures treated life cheaply. Individuals treated as if they don't exist, save for what they can do to serve the desires of those who have power. And that much, as far as a historical perspective, is certainly true.Quote:
And for some reason, the way you stated that life and death are cheap I take it you've seen Full Metal Alchemist. If you haven't, it states that the adult human being can be built on the cheap. But science is missing something. Science only outlawed human alchemy because it wasn't able to do it. That's like.... quitting with technology. Saying ancient technologies are irrelevent. Etc.
And I've seen the show. Pretty good, I think, but it had no influence on my statement. Almost everything I've said here, I've said before ever seeing the show, in debates going back years.
Oh, don't apologize, I like harsh. As long as you discuss intelligently, and you have thus far.Quote:
I'd say past civilizations have given modern civs. a run for our money.
My appoligies if this is harsh.
The Byzantines merit a vote for greatest civiliation simply because of their duration as a cohesive power. I can't think of any that lasted longer.
If we count all recorded civilizations, the greatest landholder was the British Empire at its peak. If we include strictly land-based cultures, the Mongol empire was largest (though the Brits still controlled more actual land).Quote:
Originally Posted by udsuna
In the modern world, Russia is unquestionably the largest landholder. Its recent loss of territory doesn't matter. And Canada is second. China is merely third.
The stats:
Russia: 17,075,200 sq km
Canada: 9,984,670 sq km
China: 9,596,960 sq km
How about we limit to *inhabited* or at least used, territory? The vast tracts of land that have never been home to human life should hardly qualify. And, incidentally, the uninhabited territory has yet to rebel from russia, though at this rate it probably will eventually. As for Canada... same principle. As for China... most of their land has plenty of people. More than enough. TOO MANY!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Skystone
And, yes, the British empire did a masterful job of landgrabbing. But they really didn't keep it all that long. And most of that area never became "british", as they always thought of themselves as members of their colony first, and members of Great Britain second (if at all).
Also, ancient greece also had slavery (an awful lot), and women had no voice or power in society. This really upsets me. If women and men had been equal since, like, the start, then think of all the great thing we would have developed, women only developed equality to the length where they could actively participate in the development of our conglomerated culture in the 1970's, when they were given a fair chance at school, and a fair chance in the workplace.
For every Eienstein, Pythagoras, Ptomely, Bach, Faraday and Da Vinci there could be a female equivalent. Sure there have been a few throughout history but they make a negligible proportion of our scientific development. We could be extremely more advanced than we are now, not only technologically but also socially, if we hade embraced equality (or not allowed inequality to flourish through such constructs as ancient civilisations).
Har! My view of a civilised society is one which embraces public health, welfare and education. This means that people dont starve or die from unnecessary illness (as well as gender and racial equality). Thus, in my opinion, some of the greatest civilizations are Australia, Canada, to an extent Britain and some Eurpoean nations. America, China and Russia fail miserably if you measure Civilisations in their humanity, and their campassion for the common woman/man.
Perhaps a great civilisation is tribal life. All are cared for by the group and equality reigns. There are many inhumane aspects of tribal life, the weak and sick are abandoned at birth or later to death. With indigenous Australian Aboriginies, a mother bearing twins left one to die at she could not carry or feed to childeren simeltaneously, hindering nomadic lifestyle. And low life expectancies due to lackof modern medicine. But equality strong. There is no rich-poor gap, no poverty, no corruption, little crime or abuse. Is a good example of a socialist/communist society THAT WORKED for thousands of years.
Note that most of this is based on Australian Aboriginal tribal lifestyle as this is what i am most knowledgable of, i assume similar lifestyles for Native American indians. I am not familiar with tribal lifestles in Europe's History.
btw Ghengis Khan was Mongolian, not Chinese but he conquered China (as well as alot more)
Oh, yeah. I forgot about that. *remembers* conquered China, wasn't Chinese.Quote:
btw Ghengis Khan was Mongolian, not Chinese but he conquered China (as well as alot more)
Udsuna, you bring up a lot of really good points. However, I don't think we can simply rule out (as 'ancient' civilizations):
Greece - Once again, mythology. Most modern fiction has some sort of mythology in it.
Rome - Again, Catholocism
Egypt - Paper :D I'd probably say mythology for them, too - but as for what they have as God of _______, Greece and Egypt have the same ideas. Also, the Great Pyramids
China - Was, and still is, a country with a LOT of land. Falling under the Alexander the Great definition of "Greatest".
Aztecs - credited for the discovery of chocolate. XD
Israel - Christianity.
There's more, but that's to name a few.
Also, to restate what I said before (slightly changed to sound slightly more intelligent):
Quote:
I don't think it's possible to select one....humans are backstabbing, lying, non-altruistic, etc. sort of beings.
[q=Bipper]All civilizations have grown and learned a great deal from each other.[/q]
Yeah, but your average tribesman, in any part of the world, dies by 40. And why doesn't America qualify under your concept of "welfare"... we dedicate a greater amount of our resources (both total, and in percentage of total production as well) than the rest of the world, combined. As far as charity goes, we certainly are unrivalled. Shouldn't that count for something?
You count *mythology* as "greatness"? They were good at making up stories, so what? They didn't do nearly the job of recording history as so literate a culture should have. Nor did they make any attempt at mass education, though the rich certainly had all they could hope for.
And as for catholicism... I can honestly say I believe the world would be a better place if it never existed. Four major crusades, and untold thousands of dead in the Inquisitions. Yeah, the catholic heritage has all the "greatness" of Nazi Germany.
Egypt has a legitimate run at "great". The pyramids (and paper... and glass, too). However, they, too, were fond of slavery.
Yes, the Aztecs (or one of their subjucated neighbors) developed chocolate, and for that I thank them. But blood-soaked rituals of gory death kinda counter that theory.
Uh... Israel didn't develop christianity. Jesus could be given credit, but he didn't want people to do anything but reform Judaism. All credit (and blame) goes to a few Apostles who decided to ignore their "Lord and Savior" and do things their own way.
QUOTE]You count *mythology* as "greatness"? They were good at making up stories, so what?[/QUOTE]
I'm quite glad most final fantasy's have good stories. And isn't final fantasy great? mythology=story=great. Greek's are great.... (Stupoid people give us better stories anyway... >.>) however, education is good - if it's done right. Seriously, mass education can be bad.
Well, yeah - I myself am atheist. But really, one of - if not the most popular religion in the US is Catholocism. Nazi Germany was great. In a really, really bad way. Plus, weren't all those Jews dying for their country? (Errm... sorry, that was pretty mean. I don't mean to offend anyone, either.)Quote:
And as for catholicism... I can honestly say I believe the world would be a better place if it never existed. Four major crusades, and untold thousands of dead in the Inquisitions. Yeah, the catholic heritage has all the "greatness" of Nazi Germany.
Slavery isn't really all that bad. It's just how it's carried out that's bad. Work without out pay isn't so bad - Come on, what's a video game?Quote:
Egypt... However, they, too, were fond of slavery
I'd definitely have to agree with you there.Quote:
But blood-soaked rituals of gory death kinda counter that theory.
Ok, fine - replace Christianity with Jesus Christ -_-Quote:
Uh... Israel didn't develop christianity. Jesus could be given credit, but he didn't want people to do anything but reform Judaism. All credit (and blame) goes to a few Apostles who decided to ignore their "Lord and Savior" and do things their own way.
I still think, that while civilization is bad, ancient civs have a good run for 'greatest civilization'.
Actually, there is no reason what-so-ever to believe that Jesus' mother lived in Israel. She and her new husband went on a little trip before she had her baby. For all we know, they could have lived anywhere in the Arabic world. And since little kid Jesus was already discussing theology by the age of 5, we can't give the local education system much credit, either.Quote:
Originally Posted by Erased
There is alot of slavery thrown in history that actually was not there, for example the Pyrmids, Its known that farmers in the wet season whenfarming was not possible went to work on the pyrmids, and had access to a form of doctor.
Uh... no one here said anything about using slaves to make pyramids. Honestly, I don't think the egyptians would allow them to touch the holy and sacred monument tombs of their rulers. Even to build them. But egypt was still quite fond of using slaves.
Ironically, slavery appears to have been invented in Africa.
To be fair to the Aztec, Incan, Mayan, and similar nations - their sacrificing is not as barbaric as it seems at first glance. Consider; they were sacrificing to appease and please the most powerful beings they could concieve of, who governed every aspect of their lives, and who's fickleness or whimsy could mean tens of thousands of deaths, or even the subjugation of the culture should a war go badly. They sacrificed Human lives because Human lives were, by far, the most valuable thing they had to give. Now I'm not saying they had an enlightened viewpoint, but you can see where they're coming from. In my eyes their flaw was the belief in these beings in the first place, not what they did to appease the beings.
Ok, that, I'll grant you. Don't really think it makes much difference in the long run. Although they did invent the most accurate calender system ever produced by human hands. We have better, now, to be sure... but only because our computers did it for us.
I thought the average 4th world person lived to be only 30 and their teeth rot out by 12.Quote:
Originally Posted by udsuna
Thats were all the prisoners go lol XD Siberria a paradise one arth. Pepole lvie their but very few. Heck their are towns in Russia and cities in Russia that aren't even on our maps.Quote:
Originally Posted by udsuna
Well, you do see that in third-world hellholes. But, usually, nomad tribes take pretty good care of themselves. Living off the land is appearantly much healthier than using the streets as a combination playground/livingroom/sewage disposal system.Quote:
Originally Posted by lordblazer
And I know there's populations in those chunks of Russia. But we don't count our reservation Natives as parts of the US, Canada doesn't count it's Inuit tribes, and Russia shouldn't be allowed to count people who don't even know the name of the country they're living in (because it's been that long since they've met outsiders).
In areas liek Brazil. The tribesman their have to fight maloria and theirs a lot of them that have literally hidden villages. So oyu know humanitarian aid can't come to them.
lol Maloria is wiping them out literally.
How can you "laugh out loud" at a race/civilisation dying from malaria? I don't think its very funny...
China under chairman Mao was pretty 'Great'. He pulled China from a primarily feudal system with the equivalent of medieval serfs and barons to a healthy communist society. He gave rights to women. Before Mao they simply existed as vassals of their fathers or husbands'. He intorduced laws against rape, the right for women to own property and business and the right for women to divorce amongst other things. Before this the barbaric practice of binding Women's feet was widely practised in China. Mao should not be associated with the China of today, nor the China that oppressed freedom of speech, that commited the atrocities tenesse square (is that right?). Mao died before these things occurred. The Chinese communist party of today follows drastically different policies to the party of the 60's.
Also, can America call Vietnam or the Gulf wars acts of charity? I admit America does have a welfare system and gives large amounts in international aid, but would this aid be needed if America did not abuse the economies of these countries in the first place.
I'm not amreican so i don't know, Does american welfare include:
A single parent pension that provides above the poverty line?
A dole for the liegitimately unemployed '' '' '' '' ?
An old age pension?
Disability pensions for the mentally ill/physically disabled that provides above the poverty line?
this is not an attack, I am not informed of the intircacies of America's welfare system.
Hah! Mao's policies also killed over 50,000,000 people. That number is so large as to be near-futile, because nobody can really understand the magnitude of death which that entails.Quote:
Originally Posted by FluroChoco
Only certain parts of Latin America can blame only the US for their economic situations (And those which do so, but get on with it and fix the mess are often improving daily.); Africa, Asia, and the Middle East ought to place most of the blame at Europe's feet. If everyone had free trade, and similar business laws to America or hell, even Western Europe, then they'd pull themselves up within a remarkably short amount of time.Quote:
Also, can America call Vietnam or the Gulf wars acts of charity? I admit America does have a welfare system and gives large amounts in international aid, but would this aid be needed if America did not abuse the economies of these countries in the first place.
As to the wars: No. Certainly for me part of the Iraq War is the fact that Iraqis are free from Saddam, but the Gulf War was defending Kuwait, and Nam was about beating Communism. Which really should be interpreted as a service to the entire planet, in my eyes, regardless of the nation's movites in doing so.
Is that a joke? Mao led China through the Cultural Revolution, which was one of the most destructive and morally disgusting periods in history. You are right, though - he did give women the same rights as men. But in Maoism, those rights mean next to nothing.Quote:
Originally Posted by FluroChoco
Well, that definately rules out that era for the Chinese claim to greatness. They did develop agriculture to the point where it would actually make a difference. They weren't the only ones to invent that idea, completely independent of any of the others, but they did invent agriculture.
Hmm, I'd have to say Prussia. The Prussian lifestyle was ruled by the military. They jumped 30,000+ troops in 20 years incriments and created the largest standing professional army in the world. If not for the princes decision Prussia would have remained a world power past the pentarchy.
Prussian Standing Professional Army.
I can't say much about gulf war one, but the current Iraq war is not about liberating anybody. Anyone who takes that stance knows nothing about the war.Quote:
As to the wars: No. Certainly for me part of the Iraq War is the fact that Iraqis are free from Saddam, but the Gulf War was defending Kuwait, and Nam was about beating Communism. Which really should be interpreted as a service to the entire planet, in my eyes, regardless of the nation's movites in doing so.
And nam was about beating communism not as a service to the world, but simply so that America could dominate the world.
I didn't say it was, I said that part of the reason I support it is because that has come about.Quote:
Originally Posted by nik0tine
You mistake intentions for outcomes. I'd far sooner have America in charge than Communism, but either way, I detest Communism and thus even if I didn't like America I would applaud what they did - for whatever reasons - against it.
Sadly, the viatnamese actually ASKED for our assistance. They made the request, because the Russians were supporting an insurgency that wanted to overthrow the standing government. Just like how Castro did with the old Cuban government. Admittedly, in both cases, the standing government was incompetent beyond belief.... but we had to get involved because it was either the USA or the USSR in charge when it was all over.
As for Iraq... you can't blame that one on the general American public. I still think Bush needs to be drawn and quartered.
How can america all itself a free country, a democracy, if the general public has no control over who its nation goes to war with?
What about Denmark? They have been pretty solid throughout history, never a key player in a war (to my knowledge, i may be wrong). No recent human rights atrocities. I kinda like denmark. Never tried to build an empire, never tried to hurt nobody. Perhaps an international 'snag'. I think denmark is the greatest nation at modesty. Im sure there are some pretty wrong things in Denmark's history that people are about to remind me of but i think recently, ikn comparison to the world players of today, Denmark is a pretty 'great' place to live
Because the general public also doesn't have to be in the army.Quote:
Originally Posted by FluroChoco
And the general public can do what Cindy Sheehan is doing.
And say what so many people online say.
Any nation which allows it's people to decry and dissent during a war about that same war is doing damned well, and could with very little justification remove most of those things.
And no nation's people have such control. The politicians make those decisions. I mean, a referendum on going to war? I think not.
Edit: From what I know of Denmark, they can only be classed as 'great' if 'great' now means 'inoffensive and unremarkable'. I'm sure it's far from a terrible place to be, but it hardly fits the description of great in my eyes.
I don't really see how you intend for any nation to ever really decide that. I wonder how many people would opt out of a war if we were attacked.Quote:
Originally Posted by FluroChoco
I agree with Aristotle when he said that pure democracy is nothing more than mob rule. That's why I am a fan of the constitutional republic we have in place.