Does anyone see something wrong with this?

[Dude_Doc]

As of 2004, the United States has a military strength comparable to the combined military strength of the next 17 nations. In cultural and economic spheres it is also dominant.

Quoted from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperpower

I'm sure other nations would put up a fight. The thing is, Japan, for example, is heavily influenced by the United States, and they haven't used their military power, which is still restriced, until last year (and that was a peacekeeping operation in Iraq).

[Ninja_Sher]

You don't know history, and same with present. Police is internal, army external, and USA is simply fulfilling their imperial ambitions. If Slovaks would be the strongest nation we would do so as well. We see our culture simply too worthy to limit in on us, if you understand.

slovaks suck  :P Checks rule  ;) ( in soccer and hockey, they reached semifinals both at Euro Soccer and World Cup of Hockey )

[VigilVirus]

Well, guess what? Some of us don't think democracy is the best form of government. Nothing is a damn fact. Think of Plato and his idea of Philosopher Kings. I think that hypothetical form of government is much better than some democracy full of stupid biblebeaters each with their own bias, wanting to tell us what's moral and immoral. Shit, you can take your bible and your democracy and shove it up your ass. Not everyone's going to believe in your drivel.

[nemafakei]

Let's look at this more closely.

What, if I were a US businessman with perhaps little moral agenda of my own, would I want from the political system of an LEDC with raw natural resources such as Iraq, with its oil?

Well, I would not want the political system to be too corrupt in the sense that the country's 'elite' was soaking up too much wealth, unless they were my customers. But I would not want it to protect the ordinary people so much that I can't get cheap workers when I set up business there. I would also want it to have a slightly tenuous hold on power - strong enough so I can keep stable profits coming out and not worry about my share price, but not so strong as not to need my money and/or the services of US weaponry - after all, the arms dealers have to make a profit somewhere, haven't they? Likewise, there's a good construction market going in war-torn countries.

So long as the vassal states require US arms supplies, they will make conditions for US companies favourable. It's in their own interest, and it's in the interest of the people to stay on the good side of the US - or the US could just abandon them.

And a democratic government with questionable legality or security issues would do very nicely - they need the US, and no-one's likely to make it difficult for the US, because if they do, either the country's security breaks down, or their economy is ruined - either way, the democratically elected officials are out of a job. That's why you can't have certain strong dictators any more - because only dictators are able to stay in power when US help has deserted them. That was Saddam's mistake. Note also that for a dictator to stand up to the US is not unimaginable - to become one, you have to have that sort of force of personality. But for a parliament to stand up to the US requires half its members to be prepared for the consequences.

[Andrew]

Anyone think that Bush figured he is paying his soldiers no matter what they do, so he might as well put them to work?

[Caid Ivik]

slovaks suck  :P Checks rule  ;) ( in soccer and hockey, they reached semifinals both at Euro Soccer and World Cup of Hockey )

You know what? On next hockey championship we'll kick your mapleleaved ass and in finale will again show Czechs who is the king here  8)

[Andrew]

Canada = Hockey

There is no comparison.

Although I must admit European countries are getting better. :)

[GUNWOUNDS]

Well, guess what? Some of us don't think democracy is the best form of government. Nothing is a damn fact. Think of Plato and his idea of Philosopher Kings. I think that hypothetical form of government is much better than some democracy full of stupid biblebeaters each with their own bias, wanting to tell us what's moral and immoral. Shit, you can take your bible and your democracy and shove it up your ass. Not everyone's going to believe in your drivel.

Democracy with freedoms, representation, and balance of powers between governmental branches is the best form of government ... only thing better would be an idealistic benevolent monarch like King Arthur.

As for nothing being a fact?.. well thats not worth addressing.

And biblebeaters? drivel?.... ummm .. nobody has brought up bibles or religion or christianity.

[SurlyPIG]

Really shows their true colors and abnormal pathological hate worthy of institutionalization.....unless they are juveniles... and in that case their parents need to reduce their access to forums and make them do their homework instead of posting with raging hormones while listening to "limp biscuit"

::)

Its like saying to someone  ... "Stop fucking cussing!!".

Think about it.

[GUNWOUNDS]

Nice attempt at an analogy Ace but you failed.

[VigilVirus]

You state your opinions like facts. Just because you think democracy is the best form of government doesn't make it so. That means, you shouldn't go around forcing it on people. Democracy has many downsides to it that people really hate as well, just like dictatorships.

I don't need counseling. Stop with the personal attacks. Is that really the best you can do? Desire to spread christianity and desire to spread Bush's right wing democracy are very close in their methods and their results. Even if democracy is the best way, guess what, US citizens fought for democracy and made themselves democractic out of free will, just like many countries of Europe. Democracy does not work if you force it on people and if you invade a country and set up a democractic government. At the end of the day, you'll just have a puppet government under your control, which is really what I believe Bush wants - protectorates with governments that listen to him. 

[GUNWOUNDS]

You state your opinions like facts. Just because you think democracy is the best form of government doesn't make it so. That means, you shouldn't go around forcing it on people. Democracy has many downsides to it that people really hate as well, just like dictatorships.

I don't need counseling. Stop with the personal attacks. Is that really the best you can do? Desire to spread christianity and desire to spread Bush's right wing democracy are very close in their methods and their results. Even if democracy is the best way, guess what, US citizens fought for democracy and made themselves democractic out of free will, just like many countries of Europe. Democracy does not work if you force it on people and if you invade a country and set up a democractic government. At the end of the day, you'll just have a puppet government under your control, which is really what I believe Bush wants - protectorates with governments that listen to him.

[Dante]

Freedom is, supposedly, inherant to democracy. So asking someone to provide an example of freedom without democracy is a bit oxymoronic. Of course it can be questioned as to whether freedom itself is a desirable goal. It is possible to be content, happy, etc, without being politically free. I cite such periods as Tudor England, where the monarchy was absolute and yet remained extremely popular (with one exception). There were parades in favour of the popular ones, and riots against the unpopular one.

The English Civil War may have been won by Parliment, but a great deal of people turned up to fight for the King, even sacrificing familiy ties and occasionally religious ones to do so. If someone thinks the King is better than parliment, they must think he's doing the right thing.

Modern Russia is, I'm told, becoming steadily more autocratic as the President just has to ask for more power and it is given to him. The report on this suggested that this may be a backlash against the supposedly left wing USSR (Heh...).

There have been such things as enlightened monarchs, or at least ones who knew how to govern effectively. Elizbeth I of England was extremely popular throughout her reign, and turned her country into a world power. The people had very little choice as to whether she was Queen or not, but they loved her anyway.

And you say that democracy doesnt work if you force it on people? .. go look at afghanistan where the women dance in the streets with no shrouds.... movie theaters re-opened... look in iraq... property/house values are rising which means people actually want to live there again and so real estate is booming.  Look in China where college students who are educated know what democracy is and set up protests...and get crushed by tanks.

Democracy by its very nature should be the will of the people. The people must accept it wilfully. Ideally it should also be fought for, because fighting for something gives it a sense of worth. Just handing someone democracy on a plate isn't a good idea, because they will not know its value and will most likely abuse it. I doubt Afghanistan will make any serious progress any time soon.

You also say that people need to fight for freedom out of their OWN WILL... well buddy that isnt possible sometimes...  Saddam isnt stupid he had secret police and everything... they would come to your house and cut your tongue out and rape your sister.  The only way to get rid of a dictator is to get control of his army and revolt... and if he is bribing the hell out of his military with gold and cash and hookers.... well chances are they arent gonna side with the poor citizens. 

When it isn't possible, it isn't worth it. If something is worth having, it is worth fighting for. As I said above, just giving freedom to someone will not work, they need to fight for it, work for it; otherwise they will not appreciate it.

[Caid Ivik]

Wonderful speach, Dust Scout. If I were an emperor, you would be my court propagandist  ;D

However, you should see a difference between view on democracy and freedom in western (and central) Europe and in Russia. Russia rose as a wall against asian hordes, a militaristic kingdom from beginning. They expanded to create an empire on roman style, with center in Moscow and barbarian provinces on the side (tough scale is much larger, if we take Siberia as a province). They are very like Rome, perhaps more Byzantium, a civilization-state seeing a barbarian and thus potential fatal enemy in every other one. It's a political thinking far different from nearly threat-free world of catholics and protestants, which has laws and morale even in wars.

[nemafakei]

Regarding inflammatory behaviour:

Devil's advocate, the last sentence Gunwounds quoted was entirely unnecessary.

Gunwounds, comments like that (as quoted by Ace) will not be tolerated either. How many times do I have to say it before you cease?

Now back to constructive discussion, perhaps?

"However in "real life" i think the U.S.  mixed economy democracy is the only one that maximizes freedom and has a plausable real life "application"."

I would hesitate to use the US as a model, simply because of the lack of real protection for the poor and the unfortunate. Britain, again, has some weaknesses in this respect, and I would perhaps choose a scandinavian model instead. Secondly, I would qualify that statement with the word "yet".

[SurlyPIG]

Thank you, Nema, but I don't think he even knows what you're talking about (in regards to what I quoted), so allow me...

Nice attempt at an analogy Ace but you failed.  I assume you think i am telling him to stop flaming by flaming him myself.  However that is a false assuption... i am not giving him any commands.  I am simply criticizing him in a civil manner (as opposed to his "shove it up your ass flames"). Re-read whats going on and you might understand. Hopefully.

Close, but not what I was going for.

And biblebeaters? drivel?.... ummm .. nobody has brought up bibles or religion or christianity.  I think it is funny how people with a chip on their shoulder towards religion like to bash it when its not even mentioned or a focal point of the discussion.  Really shows their true colors and abnormal pathological hate worthy of institutionalization.....unless they are juveniles... and in that case their parents need to reduce their access to forums and make them do their homework instead of posting with raging hormones while listening to "limp biscuit"

You condemned out-of-context pot-shots at a religion in green.  You then made such a pot shot at "juveniles" in red.  That's the connection.  That's the irony.

EDIT: And by the way, it's spelled "Limb Bizkit."

[VigilVirus]

Why does the amount of freedoms always have to be the main issue in whether a government is successful or not? There are other factors, like security and individual prosperity. The US government does not always provide the latter. People lose their jobs and end up working at cheap minimum wage jobs because of bad government policies. Unemployment rate hovers around 6% constantly. That's around 20 million unemployed individuals. A system with governmental central control over business could provide more jobs than that.

It's all a matter of one factor outweighing another.

[Dude_Doc]

EDIT: And by the way, it's spelled "Limb Bizkit."

Limp Bizkit.

[GUNWOUNDS]

hehe can anyone make up their mind on how it is spelled?

[Dude_Doc]

hehe can anyone make up their mind on how it is spelled?

It is spelled Limp Bizkit because:

A) I have some of their albums.

B) The official site says so: http://www.limpbizkit.com/

[nemafakei]

No, no, no, no, no, NO!

Sorry, that sort of reasoning drvies me barmy.

The spelling is not a consequence of the site or your ownership of the album. Your album and the site result in you knowing the spelling. The fact of the spelling results in the spelling on the album and the site.

Got it?

"So you see nema and ace my statement was politically correct as i addressed the possibility of him being a disturbed adult or a disturbed child and i gave remedies for both.  Please read my posts carefully as not to misunderstand them"

The fact, irrespective of what you consider my interpretation of the precise details to have been, is that you made a personal attack for no good reason. And if you're going to continue to be rude, then I'll give you an example of my belief that freedoms can be manifested only insofar as you don't abuse them.

And I don't think that

"I don't need counseling. Stop with the personal attacks. Is that really the best you can do?"

is an amicable settlement of the situation. Advocate merely objected to your conduct, and you did not apologise.

[GUNWOUNDS]

It is spelled Limp Bizkit because:

A) I have some of their albums.

B) The official site says so: http://www.limpbizkit.com/

I know i know i was KIDDING.

Why does the amount of freedoms always have to be the main issue in whether a government is successful or not? There are other factors, like security and individual prosperity. The US government does not always provide the latter. People lose their jobs and end up working at cheap minimum wage jobs because of bad government policies. Unemployment rate hovers around 6% constantly. That's around 20 million unemployed individuals. A system with governmental central control over business could provide more jobs than that.

It's all a matter of one factor outweighing another.

I understand what you are saying.... but the problems you are addressing could be present in any system..... its called a bad roll of the dice... but you know what?

[nemafakei]

"You are threatening me me for being rude !"

There's not much point in having rules if there's never any chance of them being enforced. Everyone is subject to the same threat if persistantly rude; I am merely reminding you fo that fact.

"So EXCUSE me if i lose my temper at someone who was extremely rude towards my faith and in turn i only flame them with 1/100th of the venom  they used"

For a start, there's a big difference between attacking a religious or political persuasion and attacking a person, if you really want to try to use retaliation as your excuse, which is in any case a poor one.

"is that you only called him out on it so you could call me out on mine because of your personal distaste for me"

My 'personal distaste' for you, as a moderator, extends only insofar as you are repeatedly abusive. It is my view that repeat offenders do not begin with a clean slate in any given thread.

"Why is it only about my conduct?  What about my objection to his conduct?"

There were two objections. both are being upheld.

"If you were truly perceptive you would notice that my flame/rebukes are usually civilized"

Neither a vulgar tone nor a derisory tone are laudable. Neither are being lauded.

Intersting note: which really carries more venom?

"So EXCUSE me if i lose my temper at someone who..."

I've asked you both to apologise, but that is not what I meant.

Now, both of you could have simply added a sincere sentence at the end of your posts, apologising. Neither of you have done so far.

Either you each accept that your conduct left something to be lacking, else you condone this sort of shrill impoliteness which does the boards no good at all.

[GUNWOUNDS]

1.) For a start, there's a big difference between attacking a religious or political persuasion and attacking a person, if you really want to try to use retaliation as your excuse, which is in any case a poor one.

2.) Either you each accept that your conduct left something to be lacking, else you condone this sort of shrill impoliteness which does the boards no good at all.

1.) I disagree.

[nemafakei]

Your response has been duly noted.

No, I'm not explaining myself again. I shouldn't have needed to the first time. It is too often that the moderator's actions that are called into question before the offender considers that he or she might have been at the slightest bit at fault.

Clarification: note that I've only been moderating new posts these past few days since I've returned to it. I don't have the time to retroactively moderate.