Forum Home
PC World Chat
Thread ID: 53967	2005-02-01 03:57:00	Hooray for Democracy in Iraq!	vinref (6194)	PC World Chat

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
320306	2005-02-06 10:17:00	The treatment of Westerners at the hands of insurgents in various Islamic countries, by comparison, is barbaric. Beheadings on video, terrified pleading by victims shortly before execution. Lovely stuff. The so-called atrocities at Al Gharib prison (which appalled me) were boarding school bullying by comparison. One action does not justify or lessen the illegality of, and abhorence for, the other. It seems to me there were three drivers for the invasion of Iraq:... You missed out the one concerning regional political, economic and social stability. Which begets oil-price stability in the West, which begets low inflation and happy corporations and citizens. The wags amongst you may fail to notice that this chain of events does have the potential to benefit everyone, including the Iraqis and those that were unwilling to help out in any form in Iraq.	vinref (6194)
320307	2005-02-06 18:57:00	The treatment of Westerners at the hands of insurgents in various Islamic countries, by comparison, is barbaric. Beheadings on video, terrified pleading by victims shortly before execution. Lovely stuff. The so-called atrocities at Al Gharib prison (which appalled me) were boarding school bullying by comparison. Barbarism is relative. Beheading is a standard method of execution in Arabia, was standard in France until recent times, and was used to execute traitors in England. One difference is videoing the event, particularly gruesome having ones head sawn off slowly with a bluntish knife. Your comparison with prisoner treatment is not relevant. A better comparison would be with the dozens of people decapitated, blown apart, entrails blown out, by bombing of houses, restaurant, etc when trying to take out Sadam, faulty intelligence again he wasn't there! The NorthEast Intelligence Network website, an extreme right wing site, was "quite happy" to have all the beheading videos for download, so as to stir up revulsion in the US, but they didnt show any still pictures of Iraqi children with their heads blown off. 2. An honest belief that Saddam had serious weapons which he would use against the Kurds, Saudi, and Israel. Furthermore he would disrupt a significant part of the worlds oil supplies. We have already seen that the ex-weapons inspector Scott Ritter, and who else to know better, was scorning the possession of WMD by Sadam. But he was vilified by the Bush regime because it didnt fit in with their preconceived "intelligence". Intelligence that was concocted, like the British Dossier used as one justification for war which used a graduate stuents thesis on the 1991 war, and other public sources, and so-called high level intelligence. news.bbc.co.uk www.fromthewilderness.com As Steve said killing is killing, and barbarism is not confined to any one group.	Terry Porritt (14)
320308	2005-02-06 20:10:00	No skin off my nose what sort of govenment they have, democracy isn't the be all and end all of anything. The yanks should just get the hell out of all the countries they have been meddling in for the last 60 years. Too right, ever thought that in 100 or so years, democracy will more than likely be replaced by some new form of government system and will probably be thought of the same way as we see communism now! The strive for democracy has probably cost more lives too. Stupid governments! Who needs them?	Veale (536)
320309	2005-02-06 20:21:00	Fair enough Veale. What political system do you see as dominant in 100 years? Control by mega corporations like General Motors etc? It is trendy to dis governments and politicians. What would you replace them with?	Winston001 (3612)
320310	2005-02-06 20:35:00	Who knows what will replace democracy, doesn't particularly bother me, maybe it'll be a system where everyone will have a say in what goes on! (That is how democracy is meant to work, its a pity governments like to abuse their positions regarding this, but what can you do....) In terms of replacing them?... Why replace them? Why do WE need them? They take your money and everything else. Most conversations regarding politics (including this one) are negative, yet chances are, you will go out and vote in the next lot at the next elections and then ***** about them for the next four years! Neverending cycle!	Veale (536)
320311	2005-02-07 02:17:00	With all due respect, I don't think this thread is negative. It has a robust exchange of views and demonstrates that many people think and read much more deeply than the 5 minute soundbites we are dished up by TV news. I'm still curious as to who exactly you think will be responsible for making laws, building roads, paying police, beneficiaries, and for hospitals, if we do not have elected representatives?	Winston001 (3612)
320312	2005-02-07 02:56:00	Who knows what will replace democracy, doesn't particularly bother me, maybe it'll be a system where everyone will have a say in what goes on! (That is how democracy is meant to work, its a pity governments like to abuse their positions regarding this, but what can you do....) I faintly remember a film ages ago (sort of comedy/satire) where this political group got themselves elected on the promise of letting everyone have a say in what went on with the running of the country etc. To cut a long story short, everyone got so sick and tired of having there daily routine (watching TV, having a beer at the pub etc) interrupted by having to vote on piffling issues, that in the end they said "sod it, we're sick of this, you decide what to do". Cut to the end scene: Politician sitting in a dark corner laughing like a madman....Muuuaaahhaaaa!!!	craigb (4884)
320313	2005-02-07 03:14:00	I'm still curious as to who exactly you think will be responsible for making laws, building roads, paying police, beneficiaries, and for hospitals, if we do not have elected representatives? Good point, although your points regarding laws, police, beneficaries, hospitals do nothing to actually support having a government, why? Laws - Break them and you get bugger all (10years for murder???) Police - Same old argument (Tax collectors etc, no real police anymore) Beneficaries - Why are we paying for them? If ACC levies were used correctly and dole bludgers were gone it would be a different story. Hospitals - Think about the last time you actually got treated by a real doctor, in a realistic timeframe for a realistic price? Its not that we dont need a government, its just the fact that all elected officials generally go on a power trip and get bugger all proper work done!	Veale (536)
320314	2005-02-07 04:59:00	Too right, ever thought that in 100 or so years, democracy will more than likely be replaced by some new form of government system and will probably be thought of the same way as we see communism now! The strive for democracy has probably cost more lives too. Stupid governments! Who needs them? Which brings us to Anarchism and Anarchy. There is the popular meaning of anarchy as lawlessness etc: www.google.co.nz and then there is the more subtle meaning such as this one: "Change opinion, convince the public that government is not only unnecessary, but extremely harmful, and then the word anarchy, just because it means absence of government, will come to mean for everybody: natural order, unity of human needs and the interests of all, complete freedom within complete solidarity." ...taken from here amongst other various shades of description: www.infoshop.org The lawlessness meaning probably came from the actions of Anarchists in the 1800s/1900s who liked to throw bombs around. The problem with all these concepts (including democracy) is that they assume inherent goodness in humans so that everyone does the right thing with maybe only a few bad apples. I tend to believe ( a bad word in science) in the inherent bad in people, it is only the realisation from earliest times, that mutual support (tribalism if you like) is essential for group survival that has enabled the human race to get this far. The strength of the collective. Then we always have the individuals who use the protection of the collective to try and do their own thing regardless of the overall good. So the argument probably centres around how powerful the collective should be, and how far it extends into everyday life. Without some form of cohesive society where individuals sacrifice some freedom for the common good, then we would indeed get to the popular meaning of anarchy.	Terry Porritt (14)
320315	2005-02-07 05:14:00	I tend to believe ( a bad word in science) in the inherent bad in people, it is only the realisation from earliest times, that mutual support (tribalism if you like) is essential for group survival that has enabled the human race to get this far. The strength of the collective. Then we always have the individuals who use the protection of the collective to try and do their own thing regardless of the overall good. So the argument probably centres around how powerful the collective should be, and how far it extends into everyday life. Without some form of cohesive society where individuals sacrifice some freedom for the common good, then we would indeed get to the popular meaning of anarchy. You are dead right in saying that Humans have "benefited" from forming cohesive societies. Yet it is because of this forming of cohesive societies that the world is in such poor shape. Without societies there would be no leaders of society vying for world domination. Which is really why I posted my first thread. "Hooray for Democracy in Iraq" whiptedo, thanks to Americas 'Struggle for Freedom' countless people have died 'for the greater good'. Really is a whole load of horses*&t if you ask me. It comes down to the basics of "Mind your own business", why interfer with something that has nothing to do with you? Aimed at U.S, not posters! My little ***** for the day! Should be careful though, god knows how far their dirty little hands have spread, maybe their Patriot Act includes NZ? Peace out, Veale	Veale (536)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11