# Six in Ten Americans Expect a New World War



## Makalakumu (Jul 24, 2005)

6 out of 10 Americans expect WWIII in their futures.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8681159/

Hell, some Americans believe that we are already in WWIV!

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/A11802017_1.pdf

I happen to agree with Mr. Podhoretz on a few things.  

What do you think?  Is our future going to be dominated by a war that, as VP Cheney says, "will last the rest of our lives..."?  Does the future need to be so bleak?  What are the alternatives?


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jul 24, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> 6 out of 10 Americans expect WWIII in their futures.
> 
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8681159/
> 
> ...


  We spent from 1945 till 1990 in a state of constant coldwar.  Conflict is a natural part of human existence.  We all can achieve peace someday....it's called death.  Other than that, conflict will continue on some level, large or small.  

Though I doubt we'll ever into a state of industrial warfare as we did during WWI and WWII.  Things have changed.  State sponsored terrorism and covert actions to destablize other nations will be the order of the near future.  Guerilla (small-war) warfare will be the situation that we continue to see in the future.  Secretly sponsoring of one side or the other by major powers will be how they throw their lot in.


----------



## arnisador (Jul 24, 2005)

I worry about things like China and Taiwan, the Koreas, Iran, etc. Yes, I can imagine a lengthy WWIII occurring.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jul 24, 2005)

What we are seeing are the last vestiges of fascist and communist dictatorships , as well as repressive theocracies, desperately clinging to their last outposts.  Is it any surprise that Iran and North Korea have helped each other with their nuclear programs?  It's because they are allies in the struggle against the democratic forces arrayed against them.  The 20th century was kind to dictators and despots, the 21st century doesn't appear as though it's going to be so accomidating.


----------



## Andrew Green (Jul 24, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> I worry about things like China and Taiwan, the Koreas, Iran, etc. Yes, I can imagine a lengthy WWIII occurring.


 And they worry about the US...  hence the problem.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jul 24, 2005)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> And they worry about the US... hence the problem.


 They worry about the US because we threaten their dictatorial regimes. They should be afraid, and we should do everything in our power to ensure that their fear is not unfounded. We should covertly and overtly support democratic groups seeking reform both within their countries and without. We should undermine them at every turn, until the dictatorial governments that run them cease to exist.  

Of course we won't do this.  We'll take the easy path, as is the western way.


----------



## Andrew Green (Jul 24, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> They worry about the US because we threaten their dictatorial regimes. They should be afraid, and we should do everything in our power to ensure that their fear is not unfounded. We should covertly and overtly support democratic groups seeking reform both within their countries and without. We should undermine them at every turn, until the dictatorial governments that run them cease to exist.
> 
> Of course we won't do this.  We'll take the easy path, as is the western way.


 Are you sure that US style democracy is the right sort of government for every nation on the planet?  

 Should they be saying the same thing about how they should be threatening democracy with Communism?


----------



## Marginal (Jul 24, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> They worry about the US because we threaten their dictatorial regimes. They should be afraid, and we should do everything in our power to ensure that their fear is not unfounded. We should covertly and overtly support democratic groups seeking reform both within their countries and without. We should undermine them at every turn, until the dictatorial governments that run them cease to exist.
> 
> Of course we won't do this.  We'll take the easy path, as is the western way.


We have done this. That's how Castro came to power. Not to mention the path Iran took after the US removed Iran's leader, and failed to install a puppet dictator and so on.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jul 25, 2005)

Marginal said:
			
		

> We have done this. That's how Castro came to power. Not to mention the path Iran took after the US removed Iran's leader, and failed to install a puppet dictator and so on.


 Merely pointing out past mistakes gives us no vision of the future. That the US made unpallatable decisions during the cold war, does not help us understand how to deal with the dictatorial regimes created by it. It is merely a way of trying to silence opposing views.

I will give you props for one inadvertant accurate point.  It has been the failure of the US to effectively deal with Iran and it's terrorist activities since 1979 that has created much of the terrorist problem we currently have.  Our lack of action against Iran has convinced the terrorists that the US is a paper tiger, and that attacking us will yield only a token response, and, most likely, cause us to cave in.  So props for that insight.


----------



## still learning (Jul 25, 2005)

Hello, History will be correct,(repeats it self) and we will have more than one future world wars......Man has not change, hate is still taught to our children, they will grow to continune our fights!

 Untill we (mankind) changes it's violent ways, wars will always be around. As long as we have army's, and hate, fear, distrust each other! We can count on having more than one more world war!!!!!!

  That fight or flee instinct in us will it ever change?   " Hope" is a big word here..............Aloha


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jul 25, 2005)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> Are you sure that US style democracy is the right sort of government for every nation on the planet?
> 
> Should they be saying the same thing about how they should be threatening democracy with Communism?


 Name two democratic countries that have declared war on one another in the last hundred years. I'll be waiting a reply. If that reply is "none", then it is in our best interest (our interest is what i'm concerned with) to spread democratic ideals. 

For example, would you tell an african american family to simply try and peacefully co-exist with the Klansmen down the block?  Is it reasonable to tell the couple to try and "understand" why the Klansmen hate them?  Some things are irreconcileable.  

As I mentioned, life is conflict. There is no way to peacefully coexist on the same planet with diametrically opposite political views. Hard as it is for the relativists to accept, we have a horse in this race, and it's in our interest to be on the winning side. If you are truly relativistic, sit it out.

Democracy and Despotism are two of those things.  One has to go.  I'll let you decide which.  Some things really are an either/or proposition, much as many would wish otherwise.  This is one of those things.


----------



## Dan G (Jul 25, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Name two democratic countries that have declared war on one another in the last hundred years. I'll be waiting a reply. If that reply is "none", then it is in our best interest (our interest is what i'm concerned with) to spread democratic ideals.


Cyprus and Turkey - 20 July 1974.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Cyprus#Modern_History
http://www.national-army-museum.ac.uk/pages/cyprus.html
Although technically after the coup instigated on 15 July by the non-democratic Greek government Cyprus was no longer a democracy. It remains a highly controversial area of modern history, but it is generally accepted in Greek Cyprus that elements within the US at the time approved the Turkish response long before the Greek coup was engineered. Makarios was stubbornly against playing the Cold war game, and was hence seen as pro-Russian at the time. He was restored as president after the invasian, and Greek Cyprus remains decidedly democratic. Strangely the UK remained neutral despite having troops based in Cyprus at the time.

Indo-Pakistan wars 1948, 1965 and 1971, 1984, 1999 etc etc.
Pakistan and India have both been in military confrontations over Kashmir whilst Pakistan nominally enjoyed democratic governments at some of those points. (I simply can't be bothered to work out exactly which points - However, 1971 was a civil war in Pakistan, and 1948 doesn't count as it followed straight on from the British leaving)
http://www.defencejournal.com/2001/august/anatomy.htm

Bombing the Rainbow Warrior - France and New Zealand July 10 1985. Didn't result in a war, but was a blatant act of terrorism and breach of sovereignty. 
I actually think the lack of fuss over this incident supports your argument. Geographical distance and respect for international law and the EU precluded an appropriate Kiwi response. Saved another embarassing French surrender. 

Technically the declaration of war by the UK against Germany in 1939 was a war between two democratically elected governments.Depends how you define democracy - is it just an internal political mechanism or a commitment to a set of universal ideals and values as well? 

I don't think it is democracy in itself that prevents wars it is the treaties and trade bonds, and shared values that most democratic nations have that prevent conflicts escalating. 

I do agree with your main point though. Just because democracies have gone to war or perpetrated unjust actions does not mean that spreading "democratic ideals" should be wrong. I think almost everytime a democratic country (generally the UK, US or France over the past 100 years)has either interfered with, or prevented a democracy with true democratic ideals (i.e. not WWII Germany) the results have been unhappy in the long term even if short term interests were served. :asian: 

Can anyone think of two instances where this isn't the case?

Your question made me think. Thanks.

Dan


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jul 25, 2005)

Dan G said:
			
		

> Cyprus and Turkey - 20 July 1974.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Cyprus#Modern_History
> http://www.national-army-museum.ac.uk/pages/cyprus.html
> Although technically after the coup instigated on 15 July by the non-democratic Greek government Cyprus was no longer a democracy. It remains a highly controversial area of modern history, but it is generally accepted in Greek Cyprus that elements within the US at the time approved the Turkish response long before the Greek coup was engineered. Makarios was stubbornly against playing the Cold war game, and was hence seen as pro-Russian at the time. He was restored as president after the invasian, and Greek Cyprus remains decidedly democratic. Strangely the UK remained neutral despite having troops based in Cyprus at the time.
> ...


It is necessary to draw a distinction between democracy in the loose sense that they do hold elections (of some sort, even if only one name is on the ballot) and a liberal democracy, is necessary. When that distinction is made, it is even rarer to find instances of two liberal democracies in conflict resulting in warfare.

Even lumping all technical democracies together, it is exceedingly rare to find those instances. Usually they are instances when a technical democracy is devolving in to a military dictatorship, or is driven by large scale sectarian or religious division. Pakistan and India illustrate democracies driven by undemocratic religious forces in to conflict over a disputed region.

At any rate, it is evident that the clearest path the most peaceful planet we can make it, is for every nation to embrace liberal democracy as a political ideology, even if each of those interpretations varies.

It is also clear that in the pursuit of the lesser of two evils of the cold war, western democracies played a cynical game that has created problems for us far beyond the cold war.  It's time we start dealing with those problems, to include abandoning former despotic allies who have now outlived not only their usefulness, but their place in history.  

It's time the liberal democracies consigned the anachronistic despotic regimes to the dustbin of history they so richly deserve.


----------



## Dan G (Jul 25, 2005)

I agree.

That would be a world I'd like to see.

Not sure what the smartest way to get there is though.

:asian: 

Dan


----------



## silatman (Jul 25, 2005)

Forget political reasons as long as there is religion you will always have war. Ban every religion as an organized entity and the world would be on the way to reconcilliation.
Will never happen but it is nice to dream.


----------



## Andrew Green (Jul 25, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> For example, would you tell an african american family to simply try and peacefully co-exist with the Klansmen down the block? Is it reasonable to tell the couple to try and "understand" why the Klansmen hate them? Some things are irreconcileable.


 The KKK is all about intolerance and the superiority of one race, are you sure this is the comparisson you want to go into?  How about if we replace "race" with "culture/government"?

 The reason the US seems to be so hated amongst many countries is the superiority complex of many of its people and government.  So your idea on how to solve this is to use force to make them all think like you?  What am I missing here?


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jul 25, 2005)

[/QUOTE] The KKK is all about intolerance and the superiority of one race, are you sure this is the comparisson you want to go into? How about if we replace "race" with "culture/government"? [/QUOTE] Seems you don't understand the analogy. The statement that the US should try and understand the motives of despotic regimes and terrorists (i.e. Klansmen), and try to live with them, is the point of the analogy. Yeah, i'd say that's pretty accurate.

[/QUOTE] The reason the US seems to be so hated amongst many countries is the superiority complex of many of its people and government. So your idea on how to solve this is to use force to make them all think like you? What am I missing here? [/QUOTE] Your missing a basic understanding of human behavior. You're operating under the false assumption that we can appease our enemies away, and that doesn't work. 

Many people hate us for a lot of different reasons, some of which we may have encouraged, but many are just a natural consequence of being a successful nation. Envy plays a huge role in much of the hatred we have around the planet. 

There are many people hungry to take what we have, by force if necessary. Now, we can do the altruistic thing and just surrender immediately and step aside, or we can do what will ensure the survival of our children and grandchildren. You can do the former, I choose the later.

This neurotic penchant that many in the western world have, this self-hate that forces them to blame themselves and their neighbors for the problems of the world, isn't shared by our enemies. They have absolute faith in the righteousness of their cause. While we pontificate and equivocate, they move forward with their agenda, with no doubt of it's righteousness. It seems they have the resolve that many of us apparently lack. 

I'm starting to see it as an immune deficiency disease in the immune system of western society. Our ability to defend our culture from threats has been undermined by several maladaptive philosophies. It is not clear to me that our culture will long continue. The ideology that tells me to empathetically understand my enemy who is trying to destroy me, seems more like an ideology of suicide than a real plan of action. 

Further, I have to find it amusing whenever people who consider themselves progressive liberals, suddenly find themselves, for political reasons, defending the right of despotic regimes to exist.  Are you actually suggesting that is the case, that you feel strongly that despotic regimes have the right to continue to exist?  So much for belief in universal human rights.


----------



## Andrew Green (Jul 25, 2005)

> I'm starting to see it as an immune deficiency disease in the immune system of western society. Our ability to defend our culture from threats has been undermined by several maladaptive philosophies. It is not clear to me that our culture will long continue.


 So you're saying American culture is the "right way", but yet it is under threat of other cultures that are far more self-secure?

 Maybe American culture is not the only way that works afterall.  If people living under different cultures are that much happier with there culture then Americans are, that seems to be saying something doesn't it?


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jul 25, 2005)

Dan G said:
			
		

> I agree.
> 
> That would be a world I'd like to see.
> 
> ...


 The only secure world for my daughter and son to live in, is one free from despotic regimes. Only when every country on earth grants it's citizens equal representation, and universal sufferage, will an organization like the UN mean something. Only then will nations be able to reason together under fair international law. 

Any time someone tells me that a nation violated international law, I shake my head. As it is, there isn't currently anything that can be called international law. There are loose nit agreements between nations. But I digress.

In short, yeah, that's the world i'd like to see. But how to get there is the real question.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jul 25, 2005)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> So you're saying American culture is the "right way", but yet it is under threat of other cultures that are far more self-secure?


What i'm saying is that western style liberal democracy is the right way. You disagree?

And what does "Self-secure" mean? 



			
				Andrew Green said:
			
		

> Maybe American culture is not the only way that works afterall. If people living under different cultures are that much happier with there culture then Americans are, that seems to be saying something doesn't it?


As far as happier, you actually believe that North Koreans are happier living in abject poverty and totalitarian splender? You don't get out much do you? But lets not talk about vague generalizations, it's too easy to get bogged down in vague relativistic BS. 

Instead, why don't you name one of these happier, more successful, more "self-secure" totalitarian paradises and we'll discuss it.


----------



## Andrew Green (Jul 25, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> What i'm saying is that western style liberal democracy is the right way. You disagree?


 Yes, it is ONE way, there are others.

 Or do you really think that the American way is the only way that matters?


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jul 25, 2005)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> Yes, it is ONE way, there are others.
> 
> Or do you really think that the American way is the only way that matters?


I'm waiting for the name of this great, self-secure, happy, totalitarian paradise you referred to.

It makes me laugh when people who consider themselves progressive, start defending despotism.  Now I call that irony.


----------



## Andrew Green (Jul 25, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> I'm waiting for the name of this great, self-secure, happy, totalitarian paradise you referred to.


 Cause the US is such a paradise?

   No ghettos?  Low crime rate? Religious Tolerance? Rasial Tolerance? Uncoruptable government? No riots?


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jul 25, 2005)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> Cause the US is such a paradise?
> 
> No ghettos? Low crime rate? Religious Tolerance? Ratial Tolerance? Uncorptable government? No riots?


Still waiting for the name of that totalitarian paradise that's better......


----------



## Andrew Green (Jul 25, 2005)

So your argument is, "There is no perfect example of any other form of government, therefore ours yours by default, even though it is flawed as well"?

 Good job.  I conceed to your superior argument.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jul 25, 2005)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> So your argument is, "There is no perfect example of any other form of government, therefore ours yours by default, even though it is flawed as well"?
> 
> Good job. I conceed to your superior argument.


 My argument is that liberal democracy is the best form of government going. It provides the most good for the most people, and has already been illustrated to nearly eliminate violent conflict when disputing parties are both democracies, as examples of one liberal democracy engaging in war with another are nearly nill. I'm waiting for a refutation of that argument.

Your argument seems to be that totalitarian dictatorships have as much right to exists as democracies. Do you even know what a totalitarian dictatorship is? Have you ever seen or learned about the horrors of Hitler and Stalin? Have you seen pictures of the holocaust, of the ovens. You consider THAT to have a valid right to exist? If that's your argument, you better do better then, "Oh yeah, well, uh, democracy is flawed, too." Yeah, but we don't round up jews by the millions and shove them in to ovens.

Between the two of them, Stalin and Hitler (with the help of Japan and Italy) were responsible for the deaths of over 100 MILLION people in the 20th century. 

In case some wit decides to try and argue that Hitler and Stalin aren't indicative of other dictators, think again. Right now, dictators fall in to three classes.....Fascist dictators, such as the Baathist of Syria and Iraq (Saddam was Baathist). The Baathist party was founded during the 1930's emulating the Nazis and the Italian fascists....Marxist Dictators, in Stalin's image (i.e. North Korea....and Theocracies, such as Iran and the Taliban. 

Massacre and atrocity are part and parcel of totalitarian regimes, as the fear of the citizen is necessary to keep order. Not the silly, whiny alleged fear that some leftists claim the media keeps Americans in through some bizarre, convoluted conspiracy....real fear, like when the secret police come and take you away to a place where men pries out your fingernails and toenails, and tortures you with a blowtorch and a pair of pliers until you tell them what they want to hear. If you won't talk, they start on your wife and children. 

Now, I say again, is it those type of regime that you say has the right to exist?


----------



## Tgace (Jul 25, 2005)

Hmmm..lets name all the horrors commited under non-democratic leadership. I dont think Bobs server has the capacity.


----------



## Andrew Green (Jul 25, 2005)

It'd be hard to name ANY country that hasn't commited horrors...

 How many inoccent people have died because of US military action in the past 100 years?  US riots? Violent Crime?

 You might not top the list, but you are definately on it.  So once again it is point to the extremes and say everyone else is like that, so we must be right.

 The US is not perfect, no one is.


----------



## ginshun (Jul 25, 2005)

I don't think that anyone here is trying to argue that the US is perfect.

 What people are arguing is that the style of government used in the US and in most of the worlds free countries is pretty much the best system going.  

 You seem to be arguing that it is not, yet you can't name a single example of a better system. 

 Well?


----------



## Tgace (Jul 25, 2005)

Purges? Holocausts? Political "re-education" camps (killing fields)? Every country has crime problems,many have poor/homeless problems. Not many democratic socities kill millions of their own citizens because of political ideology differences. Nobody is saying the US is "perfect" however our faults are nowhere as bad as the track records of Europe and elsewhere over the ages. Actually its quite "clean" in comparison to the historical records they have compiled.


----------



## Andrew Green (Jul 25, 2005)

You also got a relatively short history 

 But in that time:  
 - American Indians (Genocide)
 - Civil War (Many of own killed)
 - Riots
 - Slavery




> What people are arguing is that the style of government used in the US and in most of the worlds free countries is pretty much the best system going.


 For them, not for everyone.  Same as martial arts, some systems are better for some people, other systems are better for others.


----------



## Tgace (Jul 25, 2005)

Now, now Canadas hands arent so lilly white either....

http://www.libertadlatina.org/Crisis_Canada_Index.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Canada


----------



## ginshun (Jul 25, 2005)

Well obviously we are talking about the middle east here, specifically Iraq and Afganhistan I would imagine.

 So please enlightien us on what (in your expert opinion) system of government would work better for the people of those two countries than would a democracy?

 What exactly are you arguing for, theocracy or despotism?


----------



## Andrew Green (Jul 25, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Now, now Canadas hands arent so lilly white either....
> 
> http://www.libertadlatina.org/Crisis_Canada_Index.htm
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Canada


 Never claimed they where...

 In fact I've been claiming that no ones hands are clean, and no system is superior for every culture.


----------



## Andrew Green (Jul 25, 2005)

ginshun said:
			
		

> So please enlightien us on what (in your expert opinion) system of government would work better for the people of those two countries than would a democracy?


 How about asking the people that live there, instead of deciding for them what is in there best interests?


----------



## Tgace (Jul 25, 2005)

They never had a choice in the past. People like Sadaam and the Taliban made them for them. Isnt that "choice" what democracy is about in the first place?


----------



## FearlessFreep (Jul 25, 2005)

"Tis better to shoot for the moon and miss by a mile then to shoot for a puddle and hit dead center"


----------



## arnisador (Jul 25, 2005)

I didn't know the story of slavery in Canada, but it isn't surprising.

What's this got to do with WWIII?


----------



## Andrew Green (Jul 25, 2005)

Intolerence of other cultures, religions and government structures, the cause of many wars.


----------



## Marginal (Jul 26, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Merely pointing out past mistakes gives us no vision of the future. That the US made unpallatable decisions during the cold war, does not help us understand how to deal with the dictatorial regimes created by it.



Not sure how repeating past mistakes helps.


----------



## FearlessFreep (Jul 26, 2005)

I'm not sure that many wars are actually caused by intolerance.  They seem to be usually caused by internal social pressures that war becomes a way to release.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jul 26, 2005)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> How about asking the people that live there, instead of deciding for them what is in there best interests?


Ask...lol.  Now I understand, you're just clueless on the topic.  You apparently don't even understand the concept of a dictatorship.  We'll just ASK the people what they WANT?!  Yeah, that's the point. They don't have the right under a dictator to decide what they want.  How are you going to ask the people living in a totalitarian regime what they want?  What they want is irrelavent under a dictator.  



			
				Andrew Green said:
			
		

> Intolerence of other cultures, religions and government structures, the cause of many wars.


Intolerance for DESPOTS?! HAHAHAHAHA. Now you've gone over the deep end. We're supposed to more TOLERANT to DICTATORS?! I'd hate to hurt the feelings of a violent, sadistic dictator. You might want to get out more.


This discussion is giving me a headache.  First, i've had to explain why people living in a dictatorship can't simply be asked what they want.

Then, i've been told I need to be more tolerant of dictators.


----------



## Andrew Green (Jul 26, 2005)

I hate to be the bringer of bad news, but the whole world doesn't think Democracy is such a good thing.  In fact, many seem to see it as a BAD thing.

 But this is like arguing religion, some people just can't accept that anyone would be better off following a different religion then they do.  Can't wrap there mind around it, people that do so must be under the inluence of the devil and unable to freely choose.

 Sorry, but not everyone thinks the same.


----------



## Flatlander (Jul 26, 2005)

Though I haven't had the opportunity to discuss this with a sufficient sample of humanity in order to claim statistical accuracy, I will go out on a limb here and suggest that the vast majority of people would prefer to live under a government that gives them:

* equality
* rule of law
* a vote
* freedoms of expression, mobility, press, etc.

Those of us living in free and democratic countries can sometimes take these rights for granted.  Personally, I feel that access to these rights should be universal, and that the disallowing of them is inherent to non-democratic nations so as to provide their leadership with a measure of control.  Any leader prepared to sacrifice the freedoms of their citizens for the protection of their own power has necessarily demonstrated their inability to act in the best interests of their citizenry, and therefore, is not fit to lead.  

As we move through time, we should be witnessing an improvement of our respective circumstances.  We should all be working toward positive change.  Historically, non-democratic leaders have not demonstrated the ability to act in anybody's best interest except their own.  Perhaps this is mainly due to human nature.  Either way, democracy is the only system with adequate checks and balances to ensure that the leadership's self interest isn't abused (overly), (usually).

I have spoken to a large number of people who have emigrated from non-democratic nations.  They all seem to be very happy to be here, and wouldn't choose return home unless there were a change in govenmental structure.  That's been my experience, anyway.


----------



## still learning (Jul 26, 2005)

Hello,  It will happen many more times - world wars!

 The next most powerful country in the world will be the Chinese?  Wanna bet?

 watch in the next 25 years!


----------



## still learning (Jul 26, 2005)

Hello,  It will happen many more times - world wars! next 100 years

   The next most powerful country in the world will be the Chinese?  Wanna bet?

   watch in the next 25 years!

 1/5 of the world population now, and If they wanted an army, imagine if each parent raise more than one child to be a soldier in 18 years from now?  ....Aloha


----------



## KenpoEMT (Jul 26, 2005)

still learning said:
			
		

> Hello, It will happen many more times - world wars! next 100 years
> 
> The next most powerful country in the world will be the Chinese? Wanna bet?
> 
> ...


I think the only way to avoid war with China is to maintain a Weapons R&D program that is several generations ahead of the Communist Chinese. Very powerful world leaders only fear death.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jul 27, 2005)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> I hate to be the bringer of bad news, but the whole world doesn't think Democracy is such a good thing. In fact, many seem to see it as a BAD thing.
> 
> But this is like arguing religion, some people just can't accept that anyone would be better off following a different religion then they do. Can't wrap there mind around it, people that do so must be under the inluence of the devil and unable to freely choose.
> 
> Sorry, but not everyone thinks the same.


Ok, here's a little test.  Are you or anyone you know willing to give up your freedoms and democratic beliefs, to live in a totalitarian paradise?  

Put more to the point, how many boat people are leaving FOR Cuba?  Hundreds risk drowning every year to come to the US.  

How many people in a democratic society YEARN for a totalitarian regime like Stalin's or Hitler's?  How many people in totalitarian regimes yearn to live in a democratic society.

The answers are pretty clear.  Liberal Democracy is by far the choice of the common man world wide.  The fact that violent dictators use violent, repressive methods to squash dissent is NOT evidence of the people's choice to remain in chains.  The fact that you think it does is nothing but evidence of your status as a spoiled child of our Liberal Democracies that has never (thank god) had first hand experience with things like the holocaust.

Talk with a holocaust survivor and ask them about the relative merits of totalitarian dictators.  Tell them your theory about a dictatorship having an equal right to exist as a liberal democracy.  Make sure to note the tattoo on their arm where they were marked like cattle for the slaughter.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jul 27, 2005)

Theban_Legion said:
			
		

> I think the only way to avoid war with China is to maintain a Weapons R&D program that is several generations ahead of the Communist Chinese. Very powerful world leaders only fear death.


A liberal democracy has a vested interest in maintaining superior firepower in the face of a world occupied by violent dictators.  Those who beat their swords in to plow shears often find themselves plowing under the yoke of those who kept their swords.  In the face of superior numbers, we need to maintain superior weapons.


----------



## Andrew Green (Jul 27, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Put more to the point, how many boat people are leaving FOR Cuba?  Hundreds risk drowning every year to come to the US.


 Why?  Because of the government, or because of the US immposed sanctions that keep the country in poverty?

 Canadian churches have a hard time sending donations to Cuba, because the US won't let them bring it through there territory.  But that sounds like the behaviour you are attributing to them.



> How many people in a democratic society YEARN for a totalitarian regime like Stalin's or Hitler's? How many people in totalitarian regimes yearn to live in a democratic society.


 Ok, so once again point to the extreme's and cry foul.  Good job.



> The fact that violent dictators use violent, repressive methods to squash dissent is NOT evidence of the people's choice to remain in chains.


 Ok, so when the US uses military power to crush smaller countries that oppose it that is ok?  But when they use it to crush rebellions that is not ok?  When the US had a civil war that was what had to happen, but when other countries have civil wars that is cause they are not democracies?



> The fact that you think it does is nothing but evidence of your status as a spoiled child of our Liberal Democracies that has never (thank god) had first hand experience with things like the holocaust.


 Well, I guess I could reply that the fact that you are incapable of seeing that other cultures might have other needs and yours is not always superior is a sign of your childish ignorance and sense of self-superiority...  But why would we want this to start getting into personal attacks?



> Talk with a holocaust survivor and ask them about the relative merits of totalitarian dictators. Tell them your theory about a dictatorship having an equal right to exist as a liberal democracy. Make sure to note the tattoo on their arm where they were marked like cattle for the slaughter.


 Again, viewing the extreme's.  Not every non-democratic state is a Evil Totalitarian regime.  



> A liberal democracy has a vested interest in maintaining superior firepower in the face of a world occupied by violent dictators. Those who beat their swords in to plow shears often find themselves plowing under the yoke of those who kept their swords. In the face of superior numbers, we need to maintain superior weapons.


 Ok, so keep them inline by threat of force...  wait... isn't that one of the evil things you claimed anything but a liberal democracy did?


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jul 27, 2005)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> Why? Because of the government, or because of the US immposed sanctions that keep the country in poverty?


Could be that Castro imprisons people for having banned books. It could be that Castro has put to death thousands of political prisoners. It could be a host of things that is apparently tabboo topics for the enlightented spoiled western leftists. I'll defer to the opinions of people who have lived under Castro. You can find a multitude of them in Miami. I wouldn't tell them you defend Castro too loudly, though, they might punch you in the mouth.

Here's a little about Castro and the renowned Che Guevara

"Promptly upon entering Havana on January 8, 1959 Fidel Castro abolished Habeas Corpus and appointed Che Guevara his main executioner. "To send men to the firing squad, judicial proof is unnecessary," The Argentine Ernesto "Che" Guevara declared. "These procedures are an archaic bourgeois detail. This is a revolution! And a revolutionary must become a cold killing machine motivated by pure hate. We must create the pedagogy of the paredon (the execution wall)""

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=18739

The above article was written by a cuban american. 


			
				Andrew Green said:
			
		

> Canadian churches have a hard time sending donations to Cuba, because the US won't let them bring it through there territory. But that sounds like the behaviour you are attributing to them.


 How many churches do you think there are in Cuba? 



			
				Andrew Green said:
			
		

> Ok, so once again point to the extreme's and cry foul. Good job.


EXTREMES?! Oh, so you think that most Totalitarian Dictators are GOOD?! Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Castro, Mao, Kim Sung Il, Ho Chi Minh, Saddam Hussein, etc, are just bad examples of good dictators? 

Here's a little breakdown. http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/tyrants.htm
And this http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/dictat.html




			
				Andrew Green said:
			
		

> Ok, so when the US uses military power to crush smaller countries that oppose it that is ok? But when they use it to crush rebellions that is not ok? When the US had a civil war that was what had to happen, but when other countries have civil wars that is cause they are not democracies?


 "Ok" or "Not Ok" is a term for a perfect world. This one is occupied as much by violent dictators as Liberal Democracies. 

Name one Liberal Democracy the US has used military power to crush. Totalitarian regimes are not kindly, paternalistic states, they are states ran by blood thirsty tyrants. This country was founded on the principle that no people should live under a tyrant. Sorry that you're willing to make a devil's bargain with a tyrant in the hopes that he'll leave you alone, but that's just your naivete in action.

Keep in mind the US civil war was to end the barbaric plague called Slavery. It had to happen because freedom and democracy must win out against totalitarianism (thanks for inadvertanly making my point). 



			
				Andrew Green said:
			
		

> Well, I guess I could reply that the fact that you are incapable of seeing that other cultures might have other needs and yours is not always superior is a sign of your childish ignorance and sense of self-superiority... But why would we want this to start getting into personal attacks?


 You could say that, but I don't think it would have that much meaning, as it would simply sound an ignorant statement of someone who is obviously ignorant of the evils that some people on this planet are forced to live under. It's obvious that you're merely parroting someone else's politics without even the slightest basis for what they came from. No doubt you've simply been poisoned by the "Western Civilization is bad" bug. That's the one that believes that any enemy of the US is goooood. Even if that person tortures and murders his own subjects on an unimaginable scale. Ah, politics. 

Of course by your relativistic thinking, you really don't have much room to judge the so called atrocities you claim the US has committed. I mean, if everythings ok, then you have nothing to ever complain about.



			
				Andrew Green said:
			
		

> Again, viewing the extreme's. Not every non-democratic state is a Evil Totalitarian regime.


 Really, name a benevolent totalitarian dictator.



			
				Andrew Green said:
			
		

> Ok, so keep them inline by threat of force... wait... isn't that one of the evil things you claimed anything but a liberal democracy did?


Keep who in-line? Dictators? No they should be rooted out and destroyed. Force of arms protects us from the dictators. A free people decides what their arms are used for. A dictator decides what his are used for. That's the difference. Democracies take responsibility for their governments and it's actions. 

As long as violence is the tool of the dictator, it shall be a tool we reserve the right to wield. You don't appease a dictator to death. Because this is the mindset of the dictator we are facing. This is what one of the founders of that Cuban paradise you believe exists, had to say:

"Hatred as an element of struggle; unbending hatred for the enemy, which pushes a human being beyond his natural limitations, making him into an effective, violent, selective, and cold-blooded killing machine. This is what our soldiers must become " Che Guevara

http://slate.msn.com/id/2107100/

Here's what's going on in your Cuban paradise

"Right now a tremendous social struggle is taking place in Cuba. Dissident liberals have demanded fundamental human rights, and the dictatorship has rounded up all but one or two of the dissident leaders and sentenced them to many years in prison. Among those imprisoned leaders is an important Cuban poet and journalist, Raúl Rivero, who is serving a 20-year sentence. In the last couple of years the dissident movement has sprung up in yet another form in Cuba, as a campaign to establish independent libraries, free of state control; and state repression has fallen on this campaign, too."

With the outcome being the imprisonment of librarians for the crime of....possession of unauthorized books!!!! 

So this is what you are defending? This is the will of the people?! I still say you should get out more often.  I really can't see how you have the nerve to sit in the middle of Canada and pontificate about how dictators have the right to hold an entire people in their hands, and crush them at will.  

To sit in a nation like Canada, which values freedoms so much, and to claim that it would be just as well to live in a nation where the secret police can rip you out of your home and torture you for no other reason than possession of an unauthorized copy of a book, boggles my mind.  I can only assume that you've simply come to take your freedoms for granted, that you have a heard time really grasping what it's like to live otherwise.


----------



## arnisador (Jul 27, 2005)

I too am not sure the whole world wants democracy. I continue to be surprised by the number of monarchs in the world, however diluted their power!

 As to most of the world wanting equality, the vote, and freedom of expression...yes, but only for themselves in many cases. Would your average Afghan male accept those for all Afghanis, or just for males? In some Islamic countries, even the women oppose giving women the right to vote. (I'm referring to surveys from _this year_.) Do they really think that or are they just saying it? Maybe it's hard to say, but I'm not so sure.

 It's just not as simple as it "should" be. Many countries severely limit freedom of expression and point to the benefits of that--guarding official secrets, no libel, no having offensive speech forced on others, etc.


----------



## Marginal (Jul 27, 2005)

Would a country ruled by an enlightened despot really prefer democracy? Enlightened despotism tends to be considered a more efficient (responsive) form of government.


----------



## Tgace (Jul 27, 2005)

The more I read here the more whacked some people seem.....


----------



## Dan G (Jul 27, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Really, name a benevolent totalitarian dictator.


Marshal Jozef Pilsudski of Poland - 1925 - 1935 was surprisingly decent as military rulers go.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jozef_Pilsudski

http://www.polandsholocaust.org/1917-1938.html


This doesn't really rebutt your arguments - he was arguably ahead of his time and forcing through a liberal agenda for an independent Poland by any means possible. He was arguably not a true totalitarian either (depending on your point of view of course). Interesting character anyway.

I just can't resist trying to answer a question...

Dan:asian:


----------



## Tgace (Jul 28, 2005)

So the Iraqis really wanted this stuff to happen to their fellow countrymen and who are we to do anything about it? Hey it worked for them....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_situation_in_Saddam's_Iraq
http://www.state.gov/s/wci/fs/19352.htm
http://defendamerica.mil/specials/june2003/atrocities.html


----------



## ginshun (Jul 28, 2005)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> How about asking the people that live there, instead of deciding for them what is in there best interests?


 
 Didn't the recent elections in Iraq have a higher % of voter turnout than the recent election here in the states? And that in the midst of terrorists threatening to blow up polling places and kill people who were trying to vote.

 I don't know what that tells you, but it tells me that the people in Iraq want democracy more than they want Saddam or the Taliban runnig their country.

  Tell me again how democracy is no good over there because the people don't want it.


----------



## Thesemindz (Jul 28, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> I too am not sure the whole world wants democracy. I continue to be surprised by the number of monarchs in the world, however diluted their power!
> 
> As to most of the world wanting equality, the vote, and freedom of expression...yes, but only for themselves in many cases. Would your average Afghan male accept those for all Afghanis, or just for males? In some Islamic countries, even the women oppose giving women the right to vote. (I'm referring to surveys from _this year_.) Do they really think that or are they just saying it? Maybe it's hard to say, but I'm not so sure.
> 
> It's just not as simple as it "should" be. Many countries severely limit freedom of expression and point to the benefits of that--guarding official secrets, no libel, no having offensive speech forced on others, etc.



I just wanted to point out that there were, and still are, many women in this country who oppose universal sufferage. I have personally spoken to women in this day and age who continue to argue that women should not have the right to vote. One arguement I've heard is that men are the head of household, and as such carry the burden of responsibility for the decisions made by the country for better or for worse.

Just for the record, I think all adults are responsible for their own decisions and lives, and as such, should have both the right and the responsibility to vote.


-Rob


----------



## arnisador (Jul 28, 2005)

I think we're in agreement about how things are, and about how they should be!


----------



## Andrew Green (Jul 28, 2005)

Thesemindz said:
			
		

> I just wanted to point out that there were, and still are, many women in this country who oppose universal sufferage. I have personally spoken to women in this day and age who continue to argue that women should not have the right to vote.


 And probably a good many that think God should decide who is in charge, not the people.  Choosing someone other then the person God appoints is a violation of his will.

 In fact, MANY cultures have thought like that over the years, far more then have believed everyone should vote.

 I'd also imagine that a good many people might believe that there should be some requirements to vote, not let the mob decide the fate of the country.

 Different cultures, different values...


----------



## Rich Parsons (Jul 28, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> I too am not sure the whole world wants democracy. I continue to be surprised by the number of monarchs in the world, however diluted their power!
> 
> As to most of the world wanting equality, the vote, and freedom of expression...yes, but only for themselves in many cases. Would your average Afghan male accept those for all Afghanis, or just for males? In some Islamic countries, even the women oppose giving women the right to vote. (I'm referring to surveys from _this year_.) Do they really think that or are they just saying it? Maybe it's hard to say, but I'm not so sure.
> 
> It's just not as simple as it "should" be. Many countries severely limit freedom of expression and point to the benefits of that--guarding official secrets, no libel, no having offensive speech forced on others, etc.



If you are raised a certain way to believe a certain way, and then in come a bunch of people to tell everyone they are wrong, you would not like it, and resist what they had to offer.

For example a Democracy or in the case of the USA a Republic, versus that of a religous country.

If the religous country came into the Republic and demanded that all women must give way to men, and that they are not to speak, etc, then many people would be upset. 

The same is true if a Republic goes into a country and states it will be a certain way then meny people will resist.

If you notice, in Iraq, the US only helped the elections, by getting them going, and not by telling them how to vote or who could vote, and not vote. This was decided, I believe amongst themselves.

As to another war, it is inevitable. Until the world is run by a single government that is beneficial to the majority, and those in the minority are that un-happy, or capable of causing problems (* either way *), then you will have those that believe conflict is the only way to handle the situation.

 :asian:


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jul 29, 2005)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> And probably a good many that think God should decide who is in charge, not the people. Choosing someone other then the person God appoints is a violation of his will.
> 
> In fact, MANY cultures have thought like that over the years, far more then have believed everyone should vote.
> 
> ...


 So you're saying that you're backing the move to make Canada a theocracy?


----------



## arnisador (Jul 29, 2005)

All of it except for Quebec.


----------

