Quote:
|
Originally Posted by roachboy
yakk: on the non-use of caps
i dont like them aesthetically--i dont like how they look--they dont do anything (like change pronunciation)--so i don't use them when i don't have to.
that and i think i use no caps to split one type of voice off from another--so if i post here in this mode, i do it in a particular style--if i use more formal conventions, i find it all too easy to slip into a more formal/academic voice. in which i am much more careful--which means that things take even longer to set up and argue.
|
Unfortunetally, I find your particular style annoying to read. Sentances run on into rambling phrases, and concepts aren't broken apart. I don't read verbally, so the lack of verbal effect from capitalization doesn't matter -- capitalization provides structure that makes parsing easier for me.
I don't like having to work at just reading the words, it gets in the way of understanding the meaning behind the words.
Good day.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
America does have vested interest in countries we have interfered with in a governmental manner. When we had to rebuild Iraq, we need some way to justify the war financially (for the investors, i.e. the federal government) and ethically (to everyone who cares that so many people dies in the war). The showing of how we 'liberated' the people is the show for the peopel who care, the oil and strategic military location are the justification for the $200 billion we had to put into this. The democracy we are establishing there is important for borth groups.
|
The problem is that America's military adventures look, from the outside, to be an attempt to ensure the return-on-investment of the US military and on the industry that supports the US military.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by alansmithee
It just hit me: many people who's opinions, based on their posts on this board, would be identified as liberal/democrat are now trying to make arguements AGAINST democracy.
|
Some of them may be argueing in favour of letting people self-determine their own destinies, and at the very least don't hold a gun to their heads and say "make up your own mind".
This thread is about forcing democracy on people.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by alansmithee
If America isn't a "true democracy", then neither is Canada. Both would be termed republics, more accurately.
|
Canada is a Constitutional Monarchy, not a Republic, thank you very much.
There are differences. In practice, I would put forward that the powers and limitations of the state (and it's head) are limited as much by tradition in Canada as they are by the rules of law.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
With America and Canada, we have countries that revolted themselves and implimented democracy themselves.
|
Actually, democracy was given to and/or grew in Canada. There where revolts, but no "successful" ones.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
One exemption. One could argue that Canada was on the United State's coat tails on that one. The point was that democracy was not introduced to them by an outside force. They decided on the change when it was necessary. No one invaded them and removed their government from power, then made them a democracy. True change comes from within, not from without.
|
Those where pretty long coat tales then! A gap of about 100 years exists between the US's revolts against crown rule and the British North America act. Another 125 years passed before Canada reincorperated itself as an independant nation (until 1982, Canada's existance and fundamental law was an act of British parliament. In 1982, Canada's existance and fundamental law became an act of Canadian parliament.)
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by KMA-628
I would think those "Democracies" were pretty forced. Where does Italy fall? Great Britain (they were a monarchy well after we established out gov't--do you think we inspired some change there as well?)? Mexico? etc., etc.
|
GB was a constitutional monarchy before the US revolted. The lack of representation in the British parliament was, as far as I am aware, one of the core complaints of the American people.
"Taxation without representation".
GB is still a constitutional monarchy.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by jorgelito
A large part of their success lay in the fact that we continued to occupy them to help guide their fledgling democracies and contributed to building their political institutions. We basically baby sat them until they were able to stand on their own. Plus, I believe they had less difficulty with insurgencies.
|
Part of that was the victory not only in the battle field, but in the battle of ideas.
German fascist docterine was discredited. The Japanese emperor claimed he was not divine.
Both nations where being run by cults of personalities. The personality was dead and defeated, and the new ideas where more interesting.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei
Actually Manx I disagree with just about all of your points made. Thing is, love it or hate Bush is doing things by the books. War in Iraq: a war that the majority of Americans backed (read: 51+%, number was actually higher), a war that got approval by the congress elected by the people... now on the basis that he acted in good faith, how was that undemocratic?
|
Assuming GWB is a saint, GWB is a saint -- I'll grant you that. Assuming false, I'll fly to the moon.
The problem is, GWB stated
as president things that where not true, and convinced the nation to go to war on the basis of these "facts".