How Long....?

[person777]

How long do you think it will be before the U.S. and its allies will engage in a war with Iran? I think we'll be at war in less than a year.:(

[Against Miik!]

If we were smart we would engage in bilateral talks like today and go to war never.

[person777]

If we were smart we would engage in bilateral talks like today and go to war never.
I don't think that would ever work out though, our leaders and thier leaders they're all too stubborn and set in thier ways.

[PerpetualBurn]

Lol.

[PepsiMetal]

How long do you think it will be before the U.S. and its allies will engage in a war with Iran? I think we'll be at war in less than a year.:(

They're not going to engage a full war with Iran.

I'm not sure what US' planning right now, but EU is trying to talk Iran so they can reach an agreement. I heard Bush might be interested in joining talks as well. Israel, on the other hand might attack via air, but that'll cause even more hatred towards jews in the Middle East, so it would be a pretty bad idea.

I hope there won't be any wars, but you never know.

[Against Miik!]

I don't think that would ever work out though, our leaders and thier leaders they're all too stubborn and set in thier ways.

True, but really, how long can we keep this war machine going. Somebody is gonna have to give, and it has to be us. Iran is a legitimate country, just like the U.S., and they have there wants. For us to completely ignore that and send troops in is very selfish and biggoted. Of course, thats what we are becoming know for now isn't it? Honestly though, the world is too big to just go in with troops and declare war everytime we have an issue with somebody. It would help how we are viewed internationally if we at least tried to talk to them.

[person777]

True, but really, how long can we keep this war machine going. Somebody is gonna have to give, and it has to be us. Iran is a legitimate country, just like the U.S., and they have there wants. For us to completely ignore that and send troops in is very selfish and biggoted. Of course, thats what we are becoming know for now isn't it? Honestly though, the world is too big to just go in with troops and declare war everytime we have an issue with somebody. It would help how we are viewed internationally if we at least tried to talk to them.
If talks failed then what would we do?

[PerpetualBurn]

We would stop supposing hypothetical situations and actually exhaust the diplomacy at hand. Of course if all else fails then it may be necessary to take military action to prevent Iran gaining nuclear arms, but I don't see this coming soon.

[Against Miik!]

If talks failed then what would we do?


I don't know. We've never gotten to that point. We usually just go in guns a blazing.

[BassRevelation1029]

If we were smart we would engage in bilateral talks like today and go to war never.
according to bush, bilateral talks wont work.

[SalientArbiter]

The corrupt leaders of Iran will settle for small incentives and personal gain.

Whether or not the terrorists in the country will still have access to any dangerous long-range missiles with the capacity to use them is another question, and one that can't be addressed by talking to the people "in charge" in Iran anyway.

[Reaganista]

a day or two, tops

[ChickenStu]

Anybody remember the scene in Bad Santa where there are discussing percentages and Bernie Mac asks for half, and Tony Cox is like no way thats crazy...but then eventually it works up to half.

Well Bernie Mac is Iran, and Tony Cox is our Executive branch.

Bush and his staff need to be tougher on this issue, along with numerous others. If we concede nuclear technology secrets for the stopping of enriching uranium it will just be Clinton-North Korea all over again.

[ChickenStu]

a day or two, tops

Haha, thats fantastic.

A nice devastation attack, however, not the Iraq pussyfooting.

[Against Miik!]

according to bush, bilateral talks wont work.

Well yeah, which is why he hasn't even considered them. What he doesn't know, however, is that he isn't the smartest man in the world, and at the moment, he isn't the most powerful. The U.S. isn't playing with any chips right now. Whatever he has done up until now hasn't worked. A good leader recognizes thier mistakes and tries to change them. He won't.

[ChickenStu]

They laughed in our face when we tried to reason with them...and now that we are thinking about giving up nuclear technology secrets they are saying its getting warmer but they still havent said yes.

You will not see any strongarming/ war with Iran unless Bush gets some balls.

/Is dissapointed in some of Bush's actions as of late.

[free_thinkers_are_dangerous]

My best guess is never. Hopefully Bush's incompetence will catch up to him before he can cause too much damage.

[ChickenStu]

My best guess is never. Hopefully Bush's incompetence will catch up to him before he can cause too much damage.

Was that programmed response #47b?

[free_thinkers_are_dangerous]

Was that programmed response #47b?

No, that's a guy walking through a minefield for the last 6 years and somehow not hearing the billions of people yelling at him that he's walking through a minefield.

[ChickenStu]

What are you talking about?

[Cain]

We have no reason to go to war with Iran.

[free_thinkers_are_dangerous]

What are you talking about?

Politics. Look it up.

[PepsiMetal]

We have no reason to go to war with Iran.

That is correct.

[free_thinkers_are_dangerous]

Well, to be fair, Ahmedinijad (sp?) is a crazy mofo. It just isn't worth going to war over what he might do.

[Cain]

Well, to be fair, Ahmedinijad (sp?) is a crazy mofo. It just isn't worth going to war over what he might do.

Exactly. Punching the teeth out of someone who said he'd punch your teeth out will still get you in trouble with the principle.

And the whole nuclear arms concern is a bit silly, considering the act of dropping an atomic weapon on someone occupies a space somewhere between zero and -50 on the "what's most likely to secure your political goals and future" chart. The terrorism thing is equally unfounded. Why would a dictator provide the tools for destruction to radical militants with no oversight, and whose goals and targets can rapidly change?

[free_thinkers_are_dangerous]

Exactly. Punching the teeth out of someone who said he'd punch your teeth out will still get you in trouble with the principle.

Unless you think God is the principal, there isn't a principal in this scenario :p. It's just you and a fat kid with a hammer. Sure, you have the bigger hammer, but the best way not to get hurt is not to fight in the first place, flex your muscles a little, and use your bigger hammer as a deterrent. If the fat kid swings his hammer at you, by all means tear him a new one :).

And the whole nuclear arms concern is a bit silly, considering the act of dropping an atomic weapon on someone occupies a space somewhere between zero and -50 on the "what's most likely to secure your political goals and future" chart. The terrorism thing is equally unfounded. Why would a dictator provide the tools for destruction to radical militants with no oversight, and whose goals and targets can rapidly change?

This is where the crazy part comes in, unfortunately. Ahmedinijad might or might not be willing to sell his soul to Allah to destroy Israel, and it's why people need to keep their eyes on him.

To be honest, though, if I were in his position I'd be hurrying my *** up to get some nukes just so I could not use them. If history has shown anything, it's that you can get away with messing with the US if you have the nukes. Russia? Had nukes, didn't get touched. China? Had nukes, didn't get touched. Iraq? Didn't have nukes, got raped. North Korea? Had nukes, didn't get touched. And so on. ... I forget who was pointing this out, but it was some former high-ranking White House official on CNN. It was pretty interesting.

[AKid2]

Exactly. Punching the teeth out of someone who said he'd punch your teeth out will still get you in trouble with the principle.

And the whole nuclear arms concern is a bit silly, considering the act of dropping an atomic weapon on someone occupies a space somewhere between zero and -50 on the "what's most likely to secure your political goals and future" chart. The terrorism thing is equally unfounded. Why would a dictator provide the tools for destruction to radical militants with no oversight, and whose goals and targets can rapidly change?


I'm not a guru really, could you explain the unlikliehood of an atomic attack? It seems like if we continue to patronize countries the way we have, we could encourage quite a bit of strategy-less hate.

[free_thinkers_are_dangerous]

I'm not a guru really, could you explain the unlikliehood of an atomic attack? It seems like if we continue to patronize countries the way we have, we could encourage quite a bit of strategy-less hate.

It's unlikely because it's the sort of thing that everybody knows will result in pretty much everybody's death. Would you launch first knowing the other guy has enough nukes to destroy the world 15 times over? Or would he strike at you first knowing you could take out half his population? The danger, of course, is running into a guy like Kim-Jong Il. How do you scare a guy who truly believes a nuclear apocalypse will result in a rebirth of the world into a better place?

I know it's been done, but I love Einstein's comments on this. "I do not know what the third world war will be fought with, but the fourth will be fought with sticks and stones."

[Reaganista]

And the whole nuclear arms concern is a bit silly, considering the act of dropping an atomic weapon on someone occupies a space somewhere between zero and -50 on the "what's most likely to secure your political goals and future" chart
the problem isn't that they might start nuking people for no reason if they get them, the problem is that then we have to treat them like their authority is legitimate.

[Against Miik!]

the problem isn't that they might start nuking people for no reason if they get them, the problem is that then we have to treat them like their authority is legitimate.

What I don't get is why we don't treat them like that now.

[PepsiMetal]

the problem isn't that they might start nuking people for no reason if they get them, the problem is that then we have to treat them like their authority is legitimate.

Their authority is legitimate you idiot.

They have a better working republic government than American's ally Saudi Arabia.

[Reaganista]

What I don't get is why we don't treat them like that now.
because they're a horribly authoritarian theocracy

Their authority is legitimate you idiot.
They have a better working republic government than American's ally Saudi Arabia.
nope sorry theocracies are never legimate

[PepsiMetal]

nope sorry theocracies are never legimate

Even CIA's site classifies Iran as a Theocratic Republic. And most of Islamic laws do not apply to people of other religions, which means they're becoming closer and closer to a real democracy.

[Against Miik!]

Theocracies were the main form of rule for centuries. Democracy is a relatively recent development. Just because they are different doesn't mean they aren't a legitimate government. The whole we don't negotiate with terrorists thing is a little to Hollywood for me. Sorry I don't want my country run that way.

I guess you would say that the Nazi Germany that nearly overtook all of Europe(and probably would have suceeded if Pearl Harbor wasn't bombed), wasn't legitimate either.

[LittlePound]

Unless you think God is the principal, there isn't a principal in this scenario :p. It's just you and a fat kid with a hammer. Sure, you have the bigger hammer, but the best way not to get hurt is not to fight in the first place, flex your muscles a little, and use your bigger hammer as a deterrent. If the fat kid swings his hammer at you, by all means tear him a new one :).


but when you're dealing with something as powerful as nuclear warheads, could you really afford to wait until the "fat kid swings first?"

[Reaganista]

Even CIA's site classifies Iran as a Theocratic Republic. And most of Islamic laws do not apply to people of other religions, which means they're becoming closer and closer to a real democracy.
no theocracy is ever legitimate, it doesn't matter how they pick which religious elites will run their country, it's still a church-state

Theocracies were the main form of rule for centuries. Democracy is a relatively recent development. Just because they are different doesn't mean they aren't a legitimate government.

yes it does, seeing as one of their differences is that they depart from the only thing that can ever make a government legitimate


I guess you would say that the Nazi Germany that nearly overtook all of Europe(and probably would have suceeded if Pearl Harbor wasn't bombed), wasn't legitimate either.
ZERO ENABLE SIGS NOW

[Against Miik!]

yes it does, seeing as one of their differences is that they depart from the only thing that can ever make a government legitimate



care to elaborate?

[PepsiMetal]

no theocracy is ever legitimate, it doesn't matter how they pick which religious elites will run their country, it's still a church-state

There will never be a complete Church-State seperation as long as all of the politicians are Religious. US doesn't have a complete Church-State seperation either, so that's a stupid reason to judge them by.

[Reaganista]

There will never be a complete Church-State seperation as long as all of the politicians are Religious. US doesn't have a complete Church-State seperation either, so that's a stupid reason to judge them by
by church-state I meant the church is the state, hence theocracy

the US isn't even a little bit like a theocracy. It mandated right there in the first amendment.

[Smokey D]

There will never be a complete Church-State seperation as long as all of the politicians are Religious. US doesn't have a complete Church-State seperation either, so that's a stupid reason to judge them by.

There is a huge difference between a theocracy and a state with religious leaders.

For one, a theocracy assumes to derive its authority from God, and makes use of its coersive powers to enforce a particular religion on the population. While it doesn't pay to try and apply Western concepts of liberal democracy whole-heartedly to the Middle East, there comes a point at which we must ask ourselves which is more important: the right for a government to impose what it deems norms, or the right of the people to have the freedom to decide on those norms. To my mind, it really isn't that hard a decision.

[coheneran]

People are too obsessed with "our great" democracy nowadays. You know people, there are other ways to live a happy unoppressed life that don't involve bureaucracy and hierarchical power structures.

[PerpetualBurn]

What a pile of crap. Everyone should be entitled to democracy.

[Smokey D]

People are too obsessed with "our great" democracy nowadays. You know people, there are other ways to live a happy unoppressed life that don't involve bureaucracy and hierarchical power structures.

Unfortunately, maintaining standards of living at what we would think of as acceptable levels necessitates complex societies, and complex societies necessitate government.

[Jude]

nope sorry theocracies are never legimate
Um

How's that work? Are you now the international arbiter of what government is and isn't legitimate?

[matt_h]

bush will find some false info and drag everyone else in. it will be iraq all over again and everyone will get nuked and it will be the end of the world.

[neal_672]

bush will find some false info and drag everyone else in. it will be iraq all over again and everyone will get nuked and it will be the end of the world.


How very insightful of you, thank you.

:rolleyes:

[Reaganista]

Um

How's that work? Are you now the international arbiter of what government is and isn't legitimate?
no I'm just somebody saying stuff that we've known since the 17th century

[free_thinkers_are_dangerous]

but when you're dealing with something as powerful as nuclear warheads, could you really afford to wait until the "fat kid swings first?"

Put it this way. If the US attacks Iran, they're screwed. It'll be like Iraq, but many times harder, and with more people striking directly at the US on its own soil. If the US doesn't attack Iran, flexes their muscles a little, and every now and then reminds Ahmedinijad that they have enough missiles to turn his entire country to rubble in 15 minutes or less, they stand a pretty good chance of not having to go to war in the first place.

Most people also seem to be forgetting that a war with Iran any time soon isn't a realistic option. US troops are already spread too thin in Iraq, the debt/deficit is HUGE, and international support for a second unprovoked war will be pretty much 0. Then what are the plans for dealing with 20 times more terrorists than there were because of Iraq?

[Jude]

no I'm just somebody saying stuff that we've known since the 17th century
Which stuff is that? Legitimate is a completely subjective word.

[Reaganista]

nope.

[Jude]

nope.
Actually yup.

[Reaganista]

sorry nothing subjective about whether a government draws it's authority from the people or not

[free_thinkers_are_dangerous]

What's subjective is that, according to you, that's the only way for a government to be legitimate.

[Reaganista]

nope that's what legitimate is

[-1up!-]

nope that's what legitimate is
yeah absolute truth ftw. :rolleyes:

[Reaganista]

not absolute truth just the meaning of the word

[free_thinkers_are_dangerous]

No, it's your interpretation of one meaning of the word.


"hey guys are these facts legit?"
"yeah they were democratically elected to be true"

:rolleyes:

[Reaganista]

you see this one's weird because it should be obvious to any reader that it's equivocation. i thought people usually tried to sneak that through

[Jude]

not absolute truth just the meaning of the word

le·git·i·mate Audio pronunciation of "legitimate" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (l-jt-mt)
adj.

1. Being in compliance with the law; lawful: a legitimate business.
2. Being in accordance with established or accepted patterns and standards: legitimate advertising practices.
3. Based on logical reasoning; reasonable: a legitimate solution to the problem.
4. Authentic; genuine: a legitimate complaint.
5. Born of legally married parents: legitimate issue.
6. Of, relating to, or ruling by hereditary right: a legitimate monarch.
7. Of or relating to drama of high professional quality that excludes burlesque, vaudeville, and some forms of musical comedy: the legitimate theater.
What were you saying?

[spitfirejunky]

Are you guys trying to tell us that a theocracy is legitimate?

[PepsiMetal]

Are you guys trying to tell us that a theocracy is legitimate?

If 99.99% of population is same religion, why not? :confused:

Plus theocratic republics like Iran do not force any Islamic laws on people with other religions, so it's pretty fair.

[spitfirejunky]

Well, I'm not about to get my hands dirty with this debate, I just wanted to see your position.

But I can tell you that Prophet Mohammed doesn't approve of theocracy.

[Reaganista]

What were you saying?
yeah it directly violates the first and third

[Already_Taken]

yeah it directly violates the first and third
because those are totally legit in international affairs :rolleyes:

[PerpetualBurn]

If 99.99% of population is same religion, why not? :confused:

Because 0.01% of the population would be opressed on the basis of their religion.

[LittlePound]

Because 0.01% of the population would be opressed on the basis of their religion.
how would it be any different than in a democracy, majority still wins.
Ex. Some people don't believe murdering is wrong...most do. So by making laws that say murdering is wrong and that if you do it you will get punished is opressing the .o1% that think it's ok. I'm not saying i'm for theocracies, i'd much rather have a democracy any day, but that excuse of yours doesn't work. THere is always going to be a small percentage of people who are "opressed" becuase they don't agree with the majority.

[PepsiMetal]

Because 0.01% of the population would be opressed on the basis of their religion.

No. Because the islamic law doesn't apply to people of other religions in a theocratic republic. Those of other religions aren't forced to follow islamic law and can follow their own religions freely. It's just that majority of the country takes the islamic step in doing things. Like LittlePound said, it's basically a majority rule.

[PerpetualBurn]

how would it be any different than in a democracy, majority still wins.
Ex. Some people don't believe murdering is wrong...most do. So by making laws that say murdering is wrong and that if you do it you will get punished is opressing the .o1% that think it's ok. I'm not saying i'm for theocracies, i'd much rather have a democracy any day, but that excuse of yours doesn't work. THere is always going to be a small percentage of people who are "opressed" becuase they don't agree with the majority.Stop spewing forth whatever drivel somehow passes through your fragile mind. A government based on the laws and ideals of a particular religion is institutionally racist.

Preventing murder protects an individual's right to live, it does not opress people that would like to murder.

[PerpetualBurn]

No. Because the islamic law doesn't apply to people of other religions in a theocratic republic. Those of other religions aren't forced to follow islamic law and can follow their own religions freely. It's just that majority of the country takes the islamic step in doing things. Like LittlePound said, it's basically a majority rule.


The state should not take Islamic steps to do anything.

[Jude]

Are you guys trying to tell us that a theocracy is legitimate?
It's as legitimate as everything else. As I said, legitimate is 100% subjective. Whatever Tway tries to tell you.

[Jude]

yeah it directly violates the first and third
No. It can't violate the first if it makes its own laws. Besides legitimate by one set of laws may be illegitimate by another. I can't believe you're trying to argue this.

And how is any other government based on logical reasoning more than it? You can't logically prove to me that republican democracy is better than dictatorship. To do so you have to prove a number of other unproveable things. And to try and do so you get into a pointless circle-jerking philosophy debate which I don't feel like.

Now my personal opinion is that their form of government is not the best. However I am in no position to say it is "illegitimate", and neither are you. That amounts to "I don't like it" and no more.

[PerpetualBurn]

3. Based on logical reasoning; reasonable: a legitimate solution to the problem.

It's not reasonable to have any government which is not democratic.

[The End]

It's not reasonable to have any government which is not democratic.

uhh yes actually it is

[Cain]

Because 0.01% of the population would be opressed on the basis of their religion.

To play devil's advocate, how fair is it to ignore what 99.9 percent of the country thinks about how it should be run in favor of the .01 percent of the country that might be oppressed by such conditions? No doubt this is why we are facing such problems with coming up with an "equal" government in Iraq. The sectarian strife is directly related to the inability of two numerically unequal religious sects to work together. Therefore, no government involving the both of them can possibly be both equal and truly democratic, at least philosophically. You award a disproportionate amount of power to Sunnis by disallowing Shiites to have their agenda be more prominent on the Iraqi national stage, despite the fact that such a condition would be representative of the national makeup.

Democracy's biggest problem is its paradoxical inability to make allowances and workarounds for disadvantaged populations through legislation alone. It's why things intended to offset inequality, like affirmative action, are nevertheless paradoxically unfair and unequal. Regardless of whether things like that are considered RIGHT (and I do think that to some degree those things are just and right), you cannot change the fact that you are giving somebody something for less than what you ask of another person to achieve that same "something", and in a democracy that is a fundamental conflict of mission: the idea that everyone is equal no matter what. You can't make everybody truly equal by shifting the balance of power within a naturally unequal system. You need to change public perceptions about human difference to the degree that everybody works together willingly, making the need to politically assign a minority group disproportionate power in order to counteract a disproportionate disadvantage to be eliminated. You can't change hearts and minds with edicts and legislation, and equality will never be reached through that route.

[The End]

To play devil's advocate, how fair is it to ignore what 99.9 percent of the country thinks about how it should be run in favor of the .01 percent of the country that might be oppressed by such conditions? No doubt this is why we are facing such problems with coming up with an "equal" government in Iraq. The sectarian strife is directly related to the inability of two numerically unequal religious sects to work together. Therefore, no government involving the both of them can possibly be both equal and truly democratic, at least philosophically. You award a disproportionate amount of power to Sunnis by disallowing Shiites to have their agenda be more prominent on the Iraqi national stage, despite the fact that such a condition would be representative of the national makeup.

Democracy's biggest problem is its paradoxical inability to make allowances and workarounds for disadvantaged populations through legislation alone. It's why affirmative action is unfair and it's why reparations are unfair. Regardless of whether things like affirmative action is considered RIGHT, you cannot change the fact that you are giving somebody something for less than what you ask of another person, and in a democracy that is a fundamental conflict of mission: the idea that everyone is equal no matter what. You can't make everybody truly equal by shifting the balance of power within a naturally unequal system. You need to change public perceptions about human difference to the degree that everybody works together willingly, making the need to assign a minority group disproportionate power in order to counteract a disproportionate disadvantage to be eliminated. You can't change hearts and minds with law.

cain i like how you think

[nowhesingsnowhesobs]

the end, what alternative system of government do you propose?

[PerpetualBurn]

To play devil's advocate, how fair is it to ignore what 99.9 percent of the country thinks about how it should be run in favor of the .01 percent of the country that might be oppressed by such conditions?

Because there are certain things which are wrong no matter how many hypothetical racists there are.

[The End]

the end, what alternative system of government do you propose?

for Iran? or for who

[nowhesingsnowhesobs]

for whatever

[The End]

well i dont propose any, but im saying that democracy isnt the only choice

[Cain]

Because there are certain things which are wrong no matter how many hypothetical racists there are.

But if you truly intend to uphold democratic ideals what does it matter? Concepts of "right and wrong" in this convuluted society are blurry and often subjective anyway. Indeed, "right and wrong" are based on rules of morality that mankind invented. If we argue that mankind should be allowed the power to influence government in order that the will of the people should be represented in national legislation, and the will of 99.9% of the population is to elect a theocracy that will leave .01% of the remaining athiests completely unrepresented, what sense does it make to say "no no anything but that" when the almost total majority desires such a thing? In a democracy you would have to obey the command of this 99.9% to remain a workable democracy. Otherwise you force an opinion the populace does not share into force.

[PerpetualBurn]

But if you truly intend to uphold democratic ideals what does it matter?

Why would you type so much when I'm only going to point out the obvious: you can't legitimately vote away the rights of a minority based on race or religion.

If a religious party is elected, then it is still a democracy and the party can be voted out democratically.

[Cain]

Why would you type so much when I'm only going to point out the obvious: you can't legitimately vote away the rights of a minority based on race or religion.

If a religious party is elected, then it is still a democracy and the party can be voted out democratically.

And my point, which should also be obvious, is that you are one of an enlightened few who would agree with that statement. Others would gladly vote for such a thing given the opportunity under a democratic system, and unless you revoke your earlier statement that all people deserve democracy you'd be in no position to tell them that they were wrong.

[PerpetualBurn]

All people do deserve democracy. I fail to see that you've done anything to put that in contention.

Just because some people might vote for a religious party doesn't mean that the government should be religious forever more.

[Cain]

All people do deserve democracy. I fail to see that you've done anything to put that in contention.

Just because some people might vote for a religious party doesn't mean that the government should be religious forever more.

I don't think we're on the same page here.

[PerpetualBurn]

We won't be as long as you try to argue that some people don't deserve to be represented by their government.

[Reaganista]

No. It can't violate the first if it makes its own laws. Besides legitimate by one set of laws may be illegitimate by another. I can't believe you're trying to argue this.

um it violates the UDHR


And how is any other government based on logical reasoning more than it? You can't logically prove to me that republican democracy is better than dictatorship.
haha somebody slept through histroy class

[Reaganista]

unless you revoke your earlier statement that all people deserve democracy you'd be in no position to tell them that they were wrong.
of course you would be.

'all people have a right to democracy'
and 'any majority has the right to subject any minority to whatever they please' are completely different statements

[Cain]

We won't be as long as you try to argue that some people don't deserve to be represented by their government.

Look, first of all, to begin with I was playing devil's advocate, and I rapidly ceased talking about pure issues of representation. Second of all, I don't care how fashionable it may be to do the terse sound-bite thing in response to "lol long Cain posts." If you don't read anything but the first line, you won't understand how I elaborate on them. And since I agree with you anyway, there was therefore little point in continuing expending the effort to continue the argument, since you don't want to read what I have to say in the first place. That is why we're not on the same page.

'all people have a right to democracy'
and 'any majority has the right to subject any minority to whatever they please' are completely different statements

I know that, I agree with that. My point throughout this whole thing has been that you can't force equality through democracy, or get equal conditions for all people through pure legislation. You have to want democracy for it to work, and you have to believe in it to use it properly.

I was basically offering up the possibility that democracy in Iraq, for instance, no matter how much a Westerner may feel they "deserve it," as I do, may not in the end be either possible or appropriate considering the way their society has developed.

[Jude]

um it violates the UDHR
What makes the UDHR any more legitimate than anyone else's set of rules?


haha somebody slept through histroy class
No I slept through algebra. Don't avoid the question.

[Reaganista]

I know that, I agree with that. My point throughout this whole thing has been that you can't force equality through democracy, or get equal conditions for all people through pure legislation. You have to want democracy for it to work, and you have to believe in it to use it properly.

I was basically offering up the possibility that democracy in Iraq, for instance, no matter how much a Westerner may feel they "deserve it," as I do, may not in the end be either possible or appropriate considering the way their society has developed.

Ok let me amend it to say all people deserve democracy and are capable of it

What makes the UDHR any more legitimate than anyone else's set of rules?


unlike anybody else's set of rules, it was enacted by the un1

No I slept through algebra. Don't avoid the question.
i didn't avoid the question the answer is history

[Smokey D]

If 99.99% of population is same religion, why not? :confused:

Because tyranny of the majority is still tyranny.

Plus theocratic republics like Iran do not force any Islamic laws on people with other religions, so it's pretty fair.

They force their Muslim subjects to live by strict moral scriptures that not all people may agree with. It removes personal involvement and allows the government to dictate what is morally correct and true. If I were a religious person, this would surely be a problem, no?

What's more, Iran and other Islamic theocracies are well known to not let people repudiate their faith, under punishment of death.

well i dont propose any, but im saying that democracy isnt the only choice

The only legitimate choice.

And how is any other government based on logical reasoning more than it? You can't logically prove to me that republican democracy is better than dictatorship.

Empirical evidence is logical.



As for Cain's dilemna between the power of the majority and the rights gaurunteed to the minority, it is simple. We merely reason what is the purpose of democracy (to give political rights and freedom to all people), and from there we are justfully allowed to ignore deomcratic decisions that suspend these rights and freedoms.

[Jude]

unlike anybody else's set of rules, it was enacted by the un1

That doesn't make it anymore "legitimate". And you still haven't explained how one government is more legitimate than another or how legitimate is not subjective.

i didn't avoid the question the answer is history
It's logical to declare equal rights for all men as granted by God and own hundreds of humans? :confused:

[free_thinkers_are_dangerous]

Tway, seeing as being democratically elected is the only way to have a "legitimate" government, would you say that an election in which someone gains power without winning the popular vote is legitimate? or that multi-party systems, where you can easily win a majority government with less than 50% of the vote, are legitimate?

And if being democratically elected is the only criteria, what would you say about governments that were elected but are doing a terrible job? I don't think the current American government has any credibility or legitimacy no matter who elected them.

[Reaganista]

That doesn't make it anymore "legitimate". And you still haven't explained how one government is more legitimate than another or how legitimate is not subjective.

of course it makes it more legitimate, the UN is the only body with the authority to legislate the behavior of nations


It's logical to declare equal rights for all men as granted by God and own hundreds of humans?
I think you're kind of an idiot.

throughout history tyrannical regimes have been horrible places to live and liberal democracies have been comparatively great. evidence.

Tway, seeing as being democratically elected is the only way to have a "legitimate" government
the only legitimate governments are those established by Liberal constitutions

[coheneran]

throughout history tyrannical regimes have been horrible places to live and liberal democracies have been comparatively great. evidence.

Now isn't it time for a place that's comparatively greater than a liberal democracy?

[Jude]

of course it makes it more legitimate, the UN is the only body with the authority to legislate the behavior of nations

It's not legitimate if they don't accept it. The UN's authority rests on its being accepted by the nations it's trying to legislate.

I think you're kind of an idiot.

Hey you're the one repeatedly avoiding answering any of the questions I've posed.

throughout history tyrannical regimes have been horrible places to live and liberal democracies have been comparatively great.

Which has what to do with anything?


the only legitimate governments are those established by Liberal constitutions
Dammit how many times do I have to ask you to prove legitimacy isn't subjective?

At first you claimed "legitimate" meant "drawing its authority from the people" so I shut that down, then you made the claim that certain governments are "not in compliance with the law" which makes no sense since there is no universal law, and that legitimacy can only be had by having a liberal constitution which still makes no sense and you still have given no reason to think that legitimacy is anything but subjective.

[Reaganista]

It's not legitimate if they don't accept it. The UN's authority rests on its being accepted by the nations it's trying to legislate.
the UDHR was passed in compliance with UN procedure, it is perfectly legal

Hey you're the one repeatedly avoiding answering any of the questions I've posed.
i've avoided nothing

Which has what to do with anything?
logically proves that my argument is correct

Dammit how many times do I have to ask you to prove legitimacy isn't subjective?
I have


At first you claimed "legitimate" meant "drawing its authority from the people" so I shut that down, then you made the claim that certain governments are "not in compliance with the law" which makes no sense since there is no universal law, and that legitimacy can only be had by having a liberal constitution which still makes no sense and you still have given no reason to think that legitimacy is anything but subjective.
you didn't shut anything down, all you've done is argue that a word means something that it doesn't

[Jude]

the UDHR was passed in compliance with UN procedure, it is perfectly legal

Laws forcing women to wear burkas outside were passed in compliance with Taliban procedure, they were perfectly legal.

i've avoided nothing

You've continually used the word "legitimate" as if it represents some universal standard while I have pointed out that it is a very subjective word, among other things.

logically proves that my argument is correct

The fact that most people would rather live in a republican democracy than most other forms of government has nothing to do with proving that a republican democracy is "more logical" than anything else. I would have expected better knowledge of logic from you.

I have

No you never have. Quote me the post where you did.

you didn't shut anything down, all you've done is argue that a word means something that it doesn't
YOU were the one arguing that legitimate means something which dictionary.com does NOT define it as.

[PerpetualBurn]

ITT: Jude posts 7 definitions of a word and refuses to use any of them.

[Reaganista]

Laws forcing women to wear burkas outside were passed in compliance with Taliban procedure, they were perfectly legal.

and UN authority overrides that of individual nations. No nation has the right to violate the UDHR


You've continually used the word "legitimate" as if it represents some universal standard while I have pointed out that it is a very subjective word, among other things.
my usage actually meets the definitions several ways


The fact that most people would rather live in a republican democracy than most other forms of government has nothing to do with proving that a republican democracy is "more logical" than anything else. I would have expected better knowledge of logic from you.
actually it's the only way to prove it more logical.

it better meets the aims of the state, therefore it's a more logical state
very simple

No you never have. Quote me the post where you did.
i did it again in this one for you


YOU were the one arguing that legitimate means something which dictionary.com does NOT define it as.
no i actually said that it met several of them

[Jude]

ITT: Jude posts 7 definitions of a word and refuses to use any of them.
:confused:

and UN authority overrides that of individual nations. No nation has the right to violate the UDHR
The UN only effectively has authority where countries allow it to. Besides, the thing is vague as hell. "Everyone has the right to recognition before the law." What law? Not to mention, if you're going to get on countries for not following it, there are plenty of UN member states who aren't in one way or another. The US is pushing it.

my usage actually meets the definitions several ways

drawing its authority from the people

1. Being in compliance with the law; lawful: a legitimate business.

Some countries' laws say the government needs the consent of people. Others' don't.

2. Being in accordance with established or accepted patterns and standardsThese vary widely. Obviously any given government will be in accordance with somebody's standards and not other's.

3. Based on logical reasoning; reasonable:
Depending on your goals, a wide variety of governments may be reasonable.

You are assuming that "legitimate" and "democratic" are more or less synonomous. They aren't. This is rambling anyway. To get back to the original topic of this whole thing, you say that we don't have to treat the Iranian government as if their authority is legitimate which leaves open the question of why we treat numerous other dictatorships as if they are legitimate? And, of course, what makes them illegitimate but we've been down that road.

actually it's the only way to prove it more logical.
Please give me the step-by-step logical proof which illustrates this.

it better meets the aims of the state, therefore it's a more logical state
very simple
Depends on the aims of the state.

i did it again in this one for you
You didn't, you just made up your own definition of legitimacy and assume that any government which you don't extend your definition to should be invaded.

no i actually said that it met several of them
Which it does, except you were arguing that a government must draw its authority from "the people" to be legitimate.

[Reaganista]

The UN only effectively has authority where countries allow it to. Besides, the thing is vague as hell. "Everyone has the right to recognition before the law." What law? Not to mention, if you're going to get on countries for not following it, there are plenty of UN member states who aren't in one way or another. The US is pushing it.

Amerikan atrocities constantly violate the UN!!!!!!

Some countries' laws say the government needs the consent of people. Others' don't.
all countries are answerable to the UN

These vary widely. Obviously any given government will be in accordance with somebody's standards and not other's.
the UN establishes the standards that all countries are answerable to

Depending on your goals, a wide variety of governments may be reasonable.
the best government is always the most logical

You are assuming that "legitimate" and "democratic" are more or less synonomous. They aren't. This is rambling anyway. To get back to the original topic of this whole thing, you say that we don't have to treat the Iranian government as if their authority is legitimate which leaves open the question of why we treat numerous other dictatorships as if they are legitimate?
some of them have nukes

Please give me the step-by-step logical proof which illustrates this.
1. social contract
2. liberal democracies are historically better than dictatorships
3. conclusion

Depends on the aims of the state.
if the aim is to kill everybody or fall into anarchy then dictators are good at it

Which it does, except you were arguing that a government must draw its authority from "the people" to be legitimate.
it's laughable that you've grown up in the amerikan school system and still don't understand social contract

[Jude]

Amerikan atrocities constantly violate the UN!!!!!!

Ya. Plus say, China.

all countries are answerable to the UN

Yes but its authority is nothing without the consent of the states. Law is only effective when it's either accepted by everyone under it or well-enforced. Don't get me wrong I'm a big supporter of the UN, but you can't pretend it has legal power on the same scale that the US government does within the US, or any other government in its own country.

the UN establishes the standards that all countries are answerable to

Yes but these standards are not the final defintion of whether a government is "legitimate" or not.

the best government is always the most logical

Best is also extremely suggestive.

some of them have nukes

USSR had nukes and a dictatorship, we had no problem treating them as legitimate.

1. social contract
2. liberal democracies are historically better than dictatorships
3. conclusion
This is not a logical step by step process at all.


if the aim is to kill everybody or fall into anarchy then dictators are good at it

If the aim of the state is to employ everyone gainfully, keep them out of poverty and uphold total equality of civil rights to everyone then the US government isn't too good at it.

t's laughable that you've grown up in the amerikan school system and still don't understand social contract
I do understand social contract. I think it's a good basis for government. But that doesn't mean any government based on it should be able to manipulate other governments because they aren't based on it. The whole point of the world government is not to have some states pushed around by others just because the more powerful ones decided their form of government is better. Then you just have hegemony in the name of democracy.

it's laughable that you've grown up in the amerikan school system and still don't understand social contract[/QUOTE]

[Reaganista]

Ya. Plus say, China.

china is worker's paradise

Yes but its authority is nothing without the consent of the states. Law is only effective when it's either accepted by everyone under it or well-enforced. Don't get me wrong I'm a big supporter of the UN, but you can't pretend it has legal power on the same scale that the US government does within the US, or any other government in its own country.

there's a difference between de jure power and de facto power.

the UN has full de jure authority to pass something like the UDHR
they have have little de facto power to enforce it, however, but this is nothing but a tradegy

Yes but these standards are not the final defintion of whether a government is "legitimate" or not.
no their just in line with the things which makes a government legitimate

Best is also extremely suggestive.
yes suggestive of goodness

USSR had nukes and a dictatorship, we had no problem treating them as legitimate.
exactly. we have to treat nations with nukes as though they are legitimate.
that's the whole point of trying to stop iran from getting them

This is not a logical step by step process at all.
yes it is premise 1 + premise 2 = conclusion

If the aim of the state is to employ everyone gainfully, keep them out of poverty and uphold total equality of civil rights to everyone then the US government isn't too good at it.
good thing that's not the aim then

I do understand social contract. I think it's a good basis for government. But that doesn't mean any government based on it should be able to manipulate other governments because they aren't based on it. The whole point of the world government is not to have some states pushed around by others just because the more powerful ones decided their form of government is better. Then you just have hegemony in the name of democracy.
the whole point of world government is to bring freedom to every single living person

[Jude]

china is worker's paradise

Yup.


there's a difference between de jure power and de facto power.

the UN has full de jure authority to pass something like the UDHR
they have have little de facto power to enforce it, however, but this is nothing but a tradegy

I could form my own anti-UN where I got a bunch of countries to make a world governing body completely apart from the UN and make my own set of laws and declaration of human rights and all. I would be just as legit as them.

no their just in line with the things which makes a government legitimate

You still haven't provided any reason why your definition of legitimate is the one everyone should accept, but I won't ask again cause you just go in circles.

yes suggestive of goodness

**** I meant to say subjective.

exactly. we have to treat nations with nukes as though they are legitimate.
that's the whole point of trying to stop iran from getting them

......

So in effect, a government needs nukes to be recognized as legitimate?

yes it is premise 1 + premise 2 = conclusion

Neither the phrase "social contract" nor the phrase "liberal democracies are historically better than dictatorships" are logical premises.

good thing that's not the aim then

Yeah but it's a better aim than protecting the rights of capitalists to exploit isn't it?

That's meant for the old Tway btw.

the whole point of world government is to bring freedom to every single living person
And?

[Reaganista]

I could form my own anti-UN where I got a bunch of countries to make a world governing body completely apart from the UN and make my own set of laws and declaration of human rights and all. I would be just as legit as them.

no you wouldn't, you would be some jackass in his backyard ranting about world government

**** I meant to say subjective.
no it's not

So in effect, a government needs nukes to be recognized as legitimate?
an illegitimate government needs nukes to force other countries to recognize it, yes. are you new to the earth or something?

Neither the phrase "social contract" nor the phrase "liberal democracies are historically better than dictatorships" are logical premises.
yeah they are a premise is a falsifiable statement

Yeah but it's a better aim than protecting the rights of capitalists to exploit isn't it?
yeah I guess it would be a better aim

good thing that's not the aim then

That's meant for the old Tway btw.
there has only ever been one Tway.

And Tway has always been at war with oceania

And?
and agreements that protect the rights of tyrants don't serve that purpose

[Jude]

no you wouldn't, you would be some jackass in his backyard ranting about world government


How is that less legitimate than the UN? And I didn't say it was just me in this example, it was me and a bunch of other countries.

no it's not

Good is subjective. If you argue with this you are wrong.

an illegitimate government needs nukes to force other countries to recognize it, yes. are you new to the earth or something?

Lots of "illegitimate" governments are recognized that don't have nukes. And lots of "legitimate" governments use nukes to push people around who don't have them.

yeah they are a premise is a falsifiable statement
But as a logical proof that was useless because "social contract" is not a statement and "republics are historically better than dictatorships" first needs you to prove what "better" means using logic, and trying to do this gets you into a ridiculous quibbling philosophical debate even worse than this one so nevermind.


yeah I guess it would be a better aim

good thing that's not the aim then
Ok since you went there, if your aim is to increase production of your main export to the max, or make everyone comply with Sharia law, or maintain a very ordered and safe society at all costs, then a totalitarian or theocratic or communistic government would be the best...which apparently makes it legitimate right?

[Reaganista]

How is that less legitimate than the UN? And I didn't say it was just me in this example, it was me and a bunch of other countries.

then what would be the point?
you already have the UN

Good is subjective. If you argue with this you are wrong.
good is desirable

Lots of "illegitimate" governments are recognized that don't have nukes. And lots of "legitimate" governments use nukes to push people around who don't have them.
a keen observation

But as a logical proof that was useless because "social contract" is not a statement
yeah it is

and "republics are historically better than dictatorships" first needs you to
prove what "better" means using logic, and trying to do this gets you into a ridiculous quibbling philosophical debate even worse than this one so nevermind.
I already proved that they were better


Ok since you went there, if your aim is to increase production of your main export to the max, or make everyone comply with Sharia law, or maintain a very ordered and safe society at all costs, then a totalitarian or theocratic or communistic government would be the best...which apparently makes it legitimate right?
no none of those are the aim of the state
social contract

[Jude]

then what would be the point?
you already have the UN To argue against you.


good is desirable

Which is also undeniably subjective.

a keen observation
Yes


yeah it isNope.



no none of those are the aim of the state
social contract
Depends on your state. "The State" is not some ubiquitious concept, in practice.

[Reaganista]

To argue against you.

if all the nations of the UN got together in another organization they would still support the udhr

Which is also undeniably subjective.
not really

Yeah
NO!

Nope.
YES!

Depends on your state. "The State" is not some ubiquitious concept, in practice
until the UN is wasn't

[Jude]

if all the nations of the UN got together in another organization they would still support the udhr

:confused: Not if they didn't.

not really
Yes it is and you're wrong if you say it isn't.

NO!

Is too.

YES!
is not.

until the UN is wasn't:confused:

[Chrizzle fo' Shizzle]

It will not be a full-fledged invasion. End of discussion

If there is any conflict, it will be limited bombing runs exclusively on nuclear and military installations, with minimal collateral damage

[Reaganista]

Not if they didn't.

then they'd just repudiate it in the current UN

Yes it is and you're wrong if you say it isn't.
n

Is too.
n

is not.
y

confused
*it

[WhoDidTheElf]

Tactical nukes any one?

[Jude]

then they'd just repudiate it in the current UN


Yeah but I'm repudiating the current UN that's the whole point.

[Reaganista]

ok then go stand in your backyard yelling about it