Debate between Iraqi man vs Little Girl

[MfA]

At which point the question becomes: of what real vaule is such buraucracy without authority?

That is a silly question, if a buraucracy becomes autonomous it is a buraucracy no longer. Buraucrats are there to implement decisions taken higher up the food chain, in this case by the member countries, that is just how things work.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

At which point the question becomes: of what real vaule is such buraucracy without authority?

That is a silly question, if a buraucracy becomes autonomous it is a buraucracy no longer. Buraucrats are there to implement decisions taken higher up the food chain, in this case by the member countries, that is just how things work.

It's not a silly question, imo.

What happens if only one or two member countries are willing / able to implement decisions taken "higher up on the food chain." What happens if the vast majority of resources at the disposal of the Buraucrats come from one or two of the members?

Such a situation is inherently flawed IMO. It was workable in the immediate post-war world, and even in the cold-war world with two superpowers in more or less direct opposition it was workable. But in this world with "one" superpower....in has inherent issues, and it again comes down to trust.

1) In a buracracy where the superpower doesn't have more than an "equal" say in matters:

Does the U.S. trust the other nations to not abuse the U.S. and it's resources, by "unfairly" sucking it's resources dry through initiatives that are wasteful and nothing but self-serving?

2) In a buracracy where the SuperPower is given much more than equal say:

Do the other countries trust the U.S. not to abuse its own power?

 

[kyleb]

What kind of circular argument is that? Authority comes from respect, but it must be "clear" that the authority is behaving, uh, respectably?

that is part of circle of life from what i have seen of it. it is the same grounds that i have many great authorities in history oppress i society and eventually fall from not paying heed to; and the same grounds that when followed built this nation, as well as many others, into wonderful places to live. i can see that were your opinions on democracy are far different from mine; from what you have said i cannot help but think that you feel democracy should be nothing more than a kingdom with a "choose your dictators" clause for the people, that is not democracy to me.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

that is part of circle of life from what i have seen of it.

And from where I see it, you don't allow Bush to "start" this circle of life anywhere.

i can see that were your opinions on democracy are far different from mine;

Apparently.

from what you have said i cannot help but think that you feel democracy should be nothing more than a kingdom with a "choose your dictators" clause for the people, that is not democracy to me.

Um, from what you have said, I cannot help but think you feel democracy should be nothing more than mob rule. That is not good to me. My how easy it is to over-generalize and make idiodic statements.

You know what sounds like good democracy to me?

Electing representatitves, with having regularly scheduled and frequent opportunity to elect someone else to replace them should you feel they are not doing a responsible job. That doesn't sound like any dictatorship that I know of.

 

[Saem]

What about when you have a two party system with no real way out and not much difference in their stances.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

You first have to convince me that there's no real differences in their stances. I don't buy into that for one instant.

Aside from that, there will never be any "representative", whether there is one, two, or 50 political parties, that can fully represent each and every single one of my views on various issues. That doesn't mean I shouldn't vote for the person whom I think best represents my views / philosophy, and let the chips fall where they may.

 

[MfA]

1) In a buracracy where the superpower doesn't have more than an "equal" say in matters:
<snip>
2) In a buracracy where the SuperPower is given much more than equal say:

The council is not part of the buraucracy.

You apparently do not understand what the arguement was about, how the council reaches their decisions is entirely irrelevant. Epicstruggle contended that the UN could make decisions such as to commit troups to new peace keeping operations outside of the meetings of its members, which is quite clearly ridiculous. Take away the councils and all that is left are the buraucrats, necessary but not what defines the UN ... to all extents and purposes the UN is just a meeting place, as pax contended.

Not that it matters anymore, wether you dragged your opinion into a post on a totally different subject or not you still got to make your point and Im sure you can find people to respond to it ... just not me

 

[kyleb]

And from where I see it, you don't allow Bush to "start" this circle of life anywhere.

none of us get to "start" the circle, it has been around far longer than any of us. as for instigating violence; i do not let myself start such things and i have yet to find any reason to stand behind others that do.

Apparently.

but i am not alone by any means:

"I subscribe to the principle, that the will of the majority honestly expressed should give law." --Thomas Jefferson: The Anas, 1793.

Um, from what you have said, I cannot help but think you feel democracy should be nothing more than mob rule. That is not good to me. My how easy it is to over-generalize and make idiodic statements.

see quote from Jefferson above. also take into account that the current "mob" might be more inclined to be civilized if their opinions were more respected by their governments. it is very much a two way street in any society.

You know what sounds like good democracy to me?

Electing representatitves, with having regularly scheduled and frequent opportunity to elect someone else to replace them should you feel they are not doing a responsible job. That doesn't sound like any dictatorship that I know of.

that is a dictatorship in between elections in my book, or more precisely a somewhat popularly elected technocracy. i really do not belive that is what our founding fathers wanted us to become; i honestly do not see why anyone could want that with a good heart.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

none of us get to "start" the circle, it has been around far longer than any of us.

You missed my point.

We seem to agree that Respect and Authrority are not automatics. They are earned more or less based on actions takem.

You are not giving Bush a chance to prove his "worthiness" of having respect. You do not feel that the manner in which the action against Iraq is carried out makes any difference. You oppose any action, but based on what? You are not allowing Bush to establish himself in your so-called "circle of life".

as for instigating violence; i do not let myself start such things and i have yet to find any reason to stand behind others that do.

And yet, you continually fail to recognize that we don't feel that WE are the ones starting this violence. It started back in the Gulf war, was never fully resolved, and the terrorist actions of 9/11 just brought everything to a head.

"I subscribe to the principle, that the will of the majority honestly expressed should give law." --Thomas Jefferson: The Anas, 1793.

So then why don't we run this country as a true democracy, and just "put everything up for a vote?"

Or do you think that's what we should do?

also take into account that the current "mob" might be more inclined to be civilized if their opinions were more respected by their governments. it is very much a two way street in any society.

And also take into account that the current "mob" might not fully appreciate all the implications a decision has, and that the "mob" does not have access to every piece of information that the representatives do.

Do you have children, Kyle?

that is a dictatorship in between elections in my book,

OK, so you think the U.S. is "dicatatorship between elections" then? Or do you think our representatives are ok...as long as all of their actions on every issue are dictated by polls. (In which case, what difference does it make which representatives are elected in the first place?)

That is no different than mob rule in my book.

or more precisely a somewhat popularly elected technocracy. i really do not belive that is what our founding fathers wanted us to become; i honestly do not see why anyone could want that with a good heart.

Back to attacks on "motive" again, right Kyle? Leftists are all the same. Make simplistic and emotional attacks on motive or character, and just ignore results and the actual plan and arguments themselves.

I don't see how anyone with a good heart could allow Sadam's regime to continue, even if they posed no threat to the U.S. at all. Obviously, anyone who doesn't favor Sadam's removal has a black hole where his heart should be. How could anyone speak highly of democracy, and at the same time support a Tyannical dictatotor of which the attrocities are so well documented and known?

I can play more of these games too. But to what end? Unfortunately, they don't address the issue at hand, and are only inflamatory, but what they hell...

Our founding fathers charged the U.S. governement with first and foremost, protecting the United States citizens from foreign attack. Our president was sworn in to uphold that constitution. I honestly do not see how anyone with a good heart could want to see this nation destroyed.

 

[DemoCoder]

Direct democracy doesn't work. It's bad enough that we have to do our taxes, and vote every 2 years. But do you expect everyone to do their homework and make informed decisions on each and every nuanced political issue? To watch testimony from lobbyists and experts on each side?

We'd never get any work done, nor any vacation. The fallacy that many policy wonks commit is that they think everyone is as interested in politics as they are, so the ideal system would be one where everyone can vote on everything. Little wonder that most people who support direct democracy are other college students, tenured professors, or people who do nothing but spend their time thinking about politics.

In the real world, people have distinct passions and interests, and our civilization rose to great heights on specialization. I elect someone to sit in committees all day hashing out law, listening to constituents, so that I am free to do other things. I simply do not want to put the effort in that my representatives do, and if I didn't put that level of effort in, my vote would essentially be an IGNORANT one, like the vast majority of those cast today: vote by party line or sound bite.

I grant these people a limited monopoly on power for a 2, 4, or 6 year term, mostly based on my agreement with their espoused philosophy and character. At the end of this time, I review their record, and choose to keep them, or hire someone else. This is exactly how you hire someone in business. They can fake the job interview, but sooner or later, I will figure out they are not qualified.

To call this a dictatorship is ludicrous. Congress and the President are constrained by the Constitution. The President is constained by Congress. Congress is constrained by the Judiciary. And all are constrained by the People, albeit, indirectly.

For very limit times, only if someone is willing to commit political suicide, can they ignore these constraints. Sure, people can still launch illegal actions in our government. But to have each and every government action reviewed by the people in real time would bring this country to a standstill, and still result in violations of human rights, as the majority are often the biggest violators.

Bush could order martial law tommorow, disband congress, and have the CIA kidnap and torture top news media executives. Just how long do you think he would last in office before impeachment. The military, courts, congress, and people would immediately be in opposition, and if he didn't resign, I'd say 1 week before proceedings start.

Result: no dictatorship.

 

[epicstruggle]

authority is supposed to come from the masses; at least that is how i understand it is spoused to work in a democracy, even a representative one.

were that is the case it leaves us in that position precisely, but many officials are appointed by democratically elected leaders, and some from democracies where the peoples opinion is being ignored. that is the position i have trouble with.

kyleb, could you please inform me where your from? Id like to know what type of government you grew up in. You might have mentioned where you lived but I hope you can repeat it.

The reason I as is that you do not know the type of government the United States of America has. For many decades schools in the US have done a bad job of explaining the real difference between a democratic and a republic form of government. I hope to educate/inform you of the differences. I hope you also ponder the consequences/implications of each type of government.

First let me quote you from 2 of the most important documents ever written by man.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Article. IV.
...
Section. 4.

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.

Second, Id like to tell you that the United States of America has a Republic for of government. Please see above for sources. Why is this important. Ill tell you why, there are major differences between what a government can and cannot do depending on its type. Let me explain the differences.

-democracy
In a democracy the "majority rules" - and the minority loses. A hypothetical example can demonstrate the idea. Pretend that you're a land owner, and that I would like to buy some of your property. You don't want to sell this property because it's been in your family for several generations. In a democracy, I could gather a dozen other land owners together, proposing that we divide your land between us. We will allow you to vote on the proposition, because this IS a democracy after all -- and you will lose thirteen to one. That's a democracy!

-republic
In a republic, nothing can outvote your individual rights! They are unalienable. If the land belongs to you it doesn't matter if I have a hundred friends, a thousand friends, or a hundred thousand friends! YOUR PROPERTY IS YOUR PROPERTY! It is the government's fiduciary responsibility to protect your rights. If you are in doubt, read your copy of the Declaration of Independence. Right after "...life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" it says, "That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed".

one reason why democracy is not an ideal form of government:
Every day more and more people go on welfare. The government gives them money which it has taken from you in taxes. Since a majority of people in this country already get some kind of aid from the government, do they have the right to vote for more of your paycheck? If so, how much can they take? Fifty percent? Seventy five percent? One hundred percent? This is democracy in action. At this point, wouldn't it be easier for people who were still working to just go on welfare? If everybody is on welfare, there wouldn't be anyone left to tax, and the system would collapse.
(from http://www.badnarik.org/info/republic.html)
please see this page also for more info:
http://w3f.com/patriots/democracy.html

Now why does this matter. Popular opinion should matter very little to elected officials. However, since they need to get elected they sometimes pander to polls to get elected. Now if you have a leader like President Bush, who would rather do his job and not pay attention to what polls say, then you have a real leader. There have been many situations where public opinion outweighed the correct thing to do, ie slavery, suffarage, wars.

Leaders of this country should do things based on the best interests of its people and not what the public thinks should be done.

I might add more later. I have to go have dinner.
ps im posting this in one other thread.

later,

 

[kyleb]

it seems you posted this in two threads epicstruggle, but i will copy my responce here:

i am sorry but i don't rightly have a simple answer for your question as i am from a lot of places. i was born in Kentucky and sense then lived in Alabama, Kansas, Texas, and D.C. as well as over seas in both Korea and Germany. i am currently back in Eastern Kansas, and the majority of my family reside in New Mexico, Texas and in central Kansas. oh, and i agree with Russ, your concepts of democracy and republic are rather shaky in my book.

also as to your quotes which i unfortunately neglected to comment on in the other thread, i want to point out the fact that were created to apply to within the borders of the country there were created in. the were also intended for others to imitate, but nothing in them suggest that we should step out of our own boarders to enforce those ideals. also, please take note of the language used in the constitution:

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.

our current agenda of attacking, invading and policing foreign violence is by no means indorsed by the quote you presented.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

our current agenda of attacking, invading and policing foreign violence is by no means indorsed by the quote you presented.

I disagree, and it's troubling to see your interpretation.

Was 9/11 not an "invasion"?

If we believe (as the President does) that the Iraqi regime can play a key role in another similar invasion, the constitution endorses the government to protect us from that. It does not preclude any type of action, so long as it is for the purposes of "protection".

I didn't think that was even debatable.

What is debatable, is whether one believes that Iraq is a threat from which we need protection. Not that we can't attack Iraq if we identify it (or its regime) as a contributor to an invading force.

 

[kyleb]

i do not understand your position on this Joe as it seems to me that if i accepted it seems to be that i would have to also support Hitler as he started his war out of frear of invasion as well. i highly doubt that you support Hitler's actions but i do not see how you can consider them any different other than by the scale of the atrocity, and such an argument is not enough to sway my opinion on this.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

i do not understand your position on this Joe

That's the first thing you've said all night that makes sense. Obviously, you don't understand it, and it saddens me.

 

[epicstruggle]

kyleb, the president is doing what is need to protect this country. Like joe said this country has been invaded, by people who hate the very idea of freedom. We need to root these people out and make sure that they do not have somewhere else to regroup.

later,

 

[kyleb]

doh, i missed this thread.

anyway, epicstruggle; i cannot bring myself to belive that anyone hates the idea of freedom and not see this act as something that will serve to protect our country or our freedom. i see that other people belive that but i do not find logic in it myself.

 

[Nagorak]

"How exactly will leaving Sadam in power, promote peace and justice in Iraq?"

More importantly, how does leaving George W. Bush in power promote world peace, unity and stability?

How does leaving George W. Bush in power keep our country from going bankrupt due to fiscal mismanagement?

See, it's easy to ask slanted questions to promote your view point... If only issues were really that simple.

Personally, I will be interested in seeing whether we really setup a democracy in Iraq. I give even odds to the administration "changing plans" again and just going with another "friendlier" dictator.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

More importantly, how does leaving George W. Bush in power promote world peace, unity and stability?

Read the rest of this thread, where it's been discussed ad nausem.

the entire world believes that Sadam should be disarmed, in the interests of peace, unity and stablility: see countless UN resloutions culminating in 1441. The difference is, the U.S. appears to be the only one serious about it.

No, again, please answer the relevant question at hand. The question that the "little girl" constantly dodged, which the Iraqi asked point blank. This is only indirectly related to the war. But it is a valid question for those who claim that Sadam shouldn't be rmoved from power:


"How exactly will leaving Sadam in power, promote peace and justice in Iraq?"

See, it's easy to ask slanted questions to promote your view point... If only issues were really that simple.

Issues aren't simple. Solutions are not as simple as a piece of paper either. Sometimes, solutions are tough and are not without sacrifice.

Thank god we have an administration that understands that.

How does leaving George W. Bush in power keep our country from going bankrupt due to fiscal mismanagement?

The same way keeping Ronald Reagan in power with the same fiscal policies and philosophy lead to bankruptcy...it didn't.

 

[Sxotty]

I have more faith in the UN making an intelligent decision than the Bush administration (or any other single government for that matter).

I cannot believe someone from a free country would truly believe that, but I guess it is good to have faith in something.

How can the US possibly justify attacking Iraq all on its own without the approval of the rest of the world (ie UN) but be outraged at Iraq attacking Kuwait (first Gulf war). Is it because they are right and Iraq is wrong?

LOL you should do stand up, lets see Iraq invaded Kuwait to keep Kuwait, we are not invading Iraq to keep it, perhaps you do not see that. You may believe that the US will stay there and steal all their oil, and if so say that is your belief, but otherwise what you say makes absolutely no sense.

There are many logical and rational reasons to say what the US is doing is bad, such as where do you stop when it comes to removing jerks like Saddam, or In the past war has not been an especially apt tool for instating democratic governments, the list goes on, but say something that makes sense, not sensation.