ZOMBIE FORUMS

It's a stinking, shambling corpse grotesquely parodying life.
It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 6:45 am

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 22 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: My first Debate.
PostPosted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 4:46 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2003 4:24 pm
Posts: 1100
Location: Holy Forest of Unfounded Speculation
Up until now, I have never posted in the Debate Board, but I want to hear your opinions on an issue that's pretty close to me. Bush has begun planning for the post-Fidel Cuban government. The terms used means that nowhere is there plans for succession (I completelt forgot how to spell that.) but instead a transference to a more democratic system. The question is this, do you believe that Cuba and its people should decide for themselves the direction their government will take once Fidel dies? Or do you believe that the U.S. (or other world powers) should help (or interfere with, depending how you view it) the nation's upcoming shift in power? Please explain your reasons, I look forward to your awnsers.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 5:00 pm 
Offline
Addict

Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 5:00 pm
Posts: 3759
Location: your house, your living room, your sofa
The people of Cuba should decide. A genuine democracy can only be built upon the collective wills of an entire population. You have to be ready for democracy, willing to accept it and look forward to welcoming it.

Imposing a democracy that's necessity or implication has not been agreed with only ends in dissent and discontent.

God I loved second year politics - comparison of Russian and Spain as countries which each gained democracy after overthrowing a facist dictator and state. Only Spain was ready and wanted to and Russia had no real choice or clue of what other people's plan meant to them on a personal real life level. Believe me. Spain worked out better.

Of course I'm not saying they should refuse help given to them. It's just that most help if going to come with hidden motives etc etc etc.

Tricky situation, I don't really know.

That's why I'm not actually going into politics when the degree is done. Too many hypotheticals.

_________________
Where in the name of Deus Ex Machina did that T-Rex come from?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 5:47 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2004 1:36 am
Posts: 1512
In theory, a democratic Cuba would be better for the US.

_________________
I had that dream again
where I was lost
for good in outer space


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 9:56 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 1:34 am
Posts: 2715
Location: Podunk, MI
Ideally, sure- people choosing democratically in regards to their new government is great. However, I'm worried that it won't be simply people making a choice, but people being pushed into making a choice they don't want to make, but feel they have to for fear of retribution from an outside source.

I can't see much of a way out of this. Any ideas?

_________________
"Oh, look who it is / It's my supportive wife/ And she thinks she's going to squeal/ Hey where do you think you're going?/ Don't you walk away from me/ You put down that telephone /You're not calling anyone"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 11:06 pm 
Offline
PostWhorePornStar
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 13, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 10551
Location: Bris-Vegas Australia
I say the only way that Cuba can stay stable during the transition from Dictatorship to Democracy is if Fidel and his cronies get some kind of amnesty, a massive pay-out and are exiled to some obscure corner of the Island to live out their days.
The conditions for this being that they have to begin building a more democratic base for their government services and leaving a clear constitution with hard-coded chains of sucession built into it.

Then after Castro dies, they get to look after whatever patch of land they want as a seperate domestic state with no military outside of the police, till they're all dead, Cuba gets its own constitution and stability(an imposed constitution from America would never be popular if only because it was from outsiders) the current exiles in Florida might prove to be an issue because some will want to come back, some won't and some will have had all their property and such confiscated since leaving so those issues will have to be worked out well in advance.

Also the ones leaving America may be desperate to sell their property in America to finance their homecomming, this will affect property values in Florida which could cause political problems when the next presidential election swings around.

Actor.

_________________
"Why can't we go back to living like cavemen? I know it was a rough and ready existence - the men where always rough and the women were always ready! " - Santa.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: My first Debate.
PostPosted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 11:32 pm 
Offline
PostWhorePornStar
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2003 2:17 pm
Posts: 5983
Location: Around about there.
Ancient wrote:
The question is this, do you believe that Cuba and its people should decide for themselves the direction their government will take once Fidel dies? Or do you believe that the U.S. (or other world powers) should help (or interfere with, depending how you view it) the nation's upcoming shift in power?

Werd yo. I'm not a student of, or particularly knowledgable in Cuban history, but this was one of the major problems with Cuba after the US secured its independence from Spain at the end of the nineteenth century. In essence it became a vassal state of the US and much in the way of government policy (especially foreign and economic policy) had to be approved by some sort of US government body.

This is the kind of thing that needs to be avoided, except that I'm pessimistic about the ability of the US to remain unbiased since they still seem to consider Latin America to be their personal playground. Stupid Monroe Doctrine. So yeah, the Cubans should really decide their future on their own, if anything just to avoid being beholden to others.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 11:57 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2003 4:24 pm
Posts: 1100
Location: Holy Forest of Unfounded Speculation
I still won't give my persona opinion on all this, but I want to add a small bit of insider info for consideration. The ruling party of Cuba is basically a military government, all the people in power hold the rank of General and Fidel is not only El Presidente, but also El Comandante. The reason for this being that one of the ways a communist party keeps power over the people is to make it seem like their is always an enemy of the people, wether it be real or imagined. Anyways, there's this maneveur some other Latin American dictatorships have done during their final days that Fidel's Generals are instigating. Basically, every property, and I'm talking land, houses, cars, anything, reapropiated (stolen legally, basically) during the span of the Revolution (which is what Castro calls his reign, even though he only actually revolted against something for the first couple of years) will become fully legal, constitutionally. What does that mean? It means that after Castro dies the generals still keep everything. So of course they want Cuba to become a Democratic, Capitalist nation. With all their new property, they'll still hold major political sway, and be dirty stinking rich to boot. And by the by, there's nothing to be done about them keeping everything, it's perfectly legal and no new government can change it. But hey, what about the younger officers and soldiers? How do you think they'll handle being giped out of all those belongings, and having to find out that now they have to pay for things because it's no longer a military, communist dictatorship? No no no, they wont like that alllll. So the everyday soldier and low rank officer will want to remain communist. So we got the high ranking and older officers Capitalist, and the low ranking and private soldiers Communist.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 9:28 am 
Offline
Local
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2006 2:45 pm
Posts: 267
Location: Out in the Black
Also, who said democracy is such a good thing? Our democracy(and by "our" I mean residents of the states) has only been in effect for 250 years and by all accounts things are swirling the drain. Inflation, loss of rights, the whole fucking world hating it.

And there are a couple things inherently wrong with democracy, first and foremost is that it is Mob Rule. Decisions based upon the masses. And history tells us that masses of people are not known for making smart decisions.

The most drastic example would be Jesus. The head Roman guy (you can tell I'm not very religious) asked the mob who would they rather release; A mass murderer/rapist or a guy who claims to be the son of God, who's been running around the place doing good deeds and basically saying "Be good, ya'll."

The Senate is also mob rule, they have to vote on everything. Did you know that 86% of the senate don't even read the majority of hte bills they pass/deny? They don't read them!

Now all that said, I'd rather not live in any other place in history. This is a great time in America, where you can be a black man and walk into a white Neighborhood and not be lynched(at least in most states...) You have thousands of opportunities at hand (people who say they can't get a job are nuts, I've been fired from 3 in the last year.)

It's just a pet peeve of mine when people talk about introducing Democracy to anotherr culture like they're handing them the key to salvation. It's just a different system of government, and it doesn't look like it's any better than the rest.

'Sides Communism.

EDIT: Blah, always hear it refered to as that.


Last edited by Reason on Thu Jul 20, 2006 9:50 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 9:36 am 
Offline
PostWhorePornStar
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2003 2:17 pm
Posts: 5983
Location: Around about there.
Reason wrote:
Also, who said democracy is such a good thing? The first democracy in recorded history has only been in effect for 250 years and by all accounts things are swirling the drain.

You who the what now?
Not that I disagree with your comments about democracy not necessarily being a good thing, but plz learn history kthxbai.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 10:14 am 
Offline
Addict

Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 5:00 pm
Posts: 3759
Location: your house, your living room, your sofa
Reason wrote:
Also, who said democracy is such a good thing? The first democracy in recorded history has only been in effect for 250 years and by all accounts things are swirling the drain. Inflation, loss of rights, the whole fucking world hating it.


I agree with Vass wholeheartedly here. Learn history. Also, which democracy are you *actually* refering to here?

Reason wrote:
And there are a couple things inherently wrong with democracy, first and foremost is that it is Mob Rule. Decisions based upon the masses. And history tells us that masses of people are not known for making smart decisions.


And here was I thinking that the basic provisions of any theoretical democracy were there to make sure that mob rule are impossible. Mobrule, or Ochlocracry as it's know, differs from democracy in that when you have this you have no governmental frame work, no formal authority at all - not even a generalised policy of anarchy - and only the constantly fluctuating opnion and desires of the mob to direct society. Whereas I accept the fact that I am only theoretically splitting hair in accepted political philosophy I will point out that democracy, which has a series of checks and balances, a governmental structure (no matter what this is) and a deffinite process by which compromise in respect to the civil rights of (hypothetically) ever member of that democratic state is reached before action is taken. True it's rule by the majority but this does not make it synonomous with the idea of mob rule.

Of course my argument is weakened by the fact that outside of theory all democracies are on some leveled flawed because a system which truly represented every idea within it would not work, as choked with disagreement and paper work as it would be me. Never the less, that's the problem with politicacl theory and you just have to work around it to apply it.

Reason wrote:
The most drastic example would be Jesus. The head Roman guy (you can tell I'm not very religious) asked the mob who would they rather release; A mass murderer/rapist or a guy who claims to be the son of God, who's been running around the place doing good deeds and basically saying "Be good, ya'll."


I disagree with your citing of biblical texts you've previously disparaged in other threads. The bible itself, in most matters and certainly not excluding this one, is a set of stories used to teach people. True the 'head Roman guy' - Pontious Pilate for your information, not the head Roman Guy but probably the governor of Judea certainly did exist and evidence has be found to assert this. However there is no real historiacl proof at ALL save what is written in the bible - a source which we know to directly contradict well document Roman Historical sources on numerous occasions - the either this story or Jesus himself existed. You're using a parable as an example. It doesn't work given the nature of the source.

Reason wrote:
The Senate is also mob rule, they have to vote on everything. Did you know that 86% of the senate don't even read the majority of hte bills they pass/deny? They don't read them!


Which senate? Where? Ancient Rome? Are we still talking about that?

Reason wrote:
It's just a pet peeve of mine when people talk about introducing Democracy to anotherr culture like they're handing them the key to salvation. It's just a different system of government, and it doesn't look like it's any better than the rest.


I agree with this on a basic principle. Democracy is something your country has to want itself for it to work. That's the thing about democracy. When you enter into a system of governance which asks you to compromise yourself for the benefits of the masses then it's only going to work if you want to because you believe in the idea of the democracy.

It's something you have to work on. Look at Europe - we've been working on it for what seems like forever and we still can't even agree with the people next door to us, let alone across a very small Channel of water. I still believe that democracy is in most circumstances the best fit option we have right now. I'm not saying it's the correct one or the one that will work for the countries who do not have it yet but it's the only thing we've got that even gets us close to the idea of equality and global conciousness.

'
Reason wrote:
Sides Communism.


What does that even mean?

_________________
Where in the name of Deus Ex Machina did that T-Rex come from?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 10:58 am 
Offline
Local
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2006 2:45 pm
Posts: 267
Location: Out in the Black
Quote:
What does that even mean?


'sides = besides.

Democracy looks to be no better than the rest, besides communism. Because Commies kill puppies.

Quote:
And here was I thinking that the basic provisions of any theoretical democracy were there to make sure that mob rule are impossible. Mobrule, or Ochlocracry as it's know, differs from democracy in that when you have this you have no governmental frame work, no formal authority at all - not even a generalised policy of anarchy - and only the constantly fluctuating opnion and desires of the mob to direct society. Whereas I accept the fact that I am only theoretically splitting hair in accepted political philosophy I will point out that democracy, which has a series of checks and balances, a governmental structure (no matter what this is) and a deffinite process by which compromise in respect to the civil rights of (hypothetically) ever member of that democratic state is reached before action is taken. True it's rule by the majority but this does not make it synonomous with the idea of mob rule.

Of course my argument is weakened by the fact that outside of theory all democracies are on some leveled flawed because a system which truly represented every idea within it would not work, as choked with disagreement and paper work as it would be me. Never the less, that's the problem with politicacl theory and you just have to work around it to apply it.


I mean mob rule not as a pure form, but a democracy is still a mob. Even the President can't make a decision without his advisors chiming in to tell him how right/wrong he is.

Quote:
I disagree with your citing of biblical texts you've previously disparaged in other threads. The bible itself, in most matters and certainly not excluding this one, is a set of stories used to teach people. True the 'head Roman guy' - Pontious Pilate for your information, not the head Roman Guy but probably the governor of Judea certainly did exist and evidence has be found to assert this. However there is no real historiacl proof at ALL save what is written in the bible - a source which we know to directly contradict well document Roman Historical sources on numerous occasions - the either this story or Jesus himself existed. You're using a parable as an example. It doesn't work given the nature of the source.

Not to mention you lack of historical context and knowledge on the subject belies your naming of the situation as 'mob rule'


You're right in principal. I was going for shock value and something most people can assosiate with, even if they didn't believe the book or the religion, most people know the story behind Jesus' death (especially with the new movie out now).

If you want a more pragmatic example there's always the lynching of black people, soccer riots, American Idol... Albiet the first can be explained away as racism, but I think I've made my point.

Quote:
Which senate? Where? Ancient Rome? Are we still talking about that?


The U.S. Senate... Though I'm sure you're busting my balls.

Quote:
I agree with this on a basic principle. Democracy is something your country has to want itself for it to work. That's the thing about democracy. When you enter into a system of governance which asks you to compromise yourself for the benefits of the masses then it's only going to work if you want to because you believe in the idea of the democracy.

It's something you have to work on. Look at Europe - we've been working on it for what seems like forever and we still can't even agree with the people next door to us, let alone across a very small Channel of water. I still believe that democracy is in most circumstances the best fit option we have right now. I'm not saying it's the correct one or the one that will work for the countries who do not have it yet but it's the only thing we've got that even gets us close to the idea of equality and global conciousness.


Um, nothing to add.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 11:14 am 
Offline
Addict

Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 5:00 pm
Posts: 3759
Location: your house, your living room, your sofa
Quote:
'sides = besides.

Democracy looks to be no better than the rest, besides communism. Because Commies kill puppies.


Debate. Don't make ridiculous statements. Debate.

Quote:
I mean mob rule not as a pure form, but a democracy is still a mob. Even the President can't make a decision without his advisors chiming in to tell him how right/wrong he is.


His advisors are not a mob. Not only that but if every decision is entirely dictated by the will of the 'mob' then how do explain the presidential power of veto as used yesterday to stop the passing of a movement to supply American government funding to stem cell research.
Also, the two levels of your government which are put in place to stop mob rule. And the house of Lords in Biritain and the fact that democracy is NOT mob rule.

That's the point I'm making: democracy as a concept is not mob rule. Mob rule as a concept is not democracy. These are two seperate ideas and no matter how you protest the decisions made by people on mass I'd like to see you suggest a fairer way of governing a country from a central body. How do you suggest we make decisions? Do we appoint a King or Queen or a Dictator to make all decisions for us and then simply step back and allow them to do so no matter what he decides because the alternative of compromise according to populare belief is so much worse? Is that honestly going to be better?

Quote:
You're right in principal. I was going for shock value and something most people can assosiate with, even if they didn't believe the book or the religion, most people know the story behind Jesus' death (especially with the new movie out now).


Yes the STORY. It's not actually a provable instance of mob rule in practice. It's not historical fact it's a description of what is in most probability a fictional occurance.

Quote:
If you want a more pragmatic example there's always the lynching of black people, soccer riots, American Idol... Albiet the first can be explained away as racism, but I think I've made my point.


Yes, these are example of mob rule but making them does not make your point. These are instances of sponstaneous occuring situations where people give into the wills and influence of their compatriots. As examples they're fine but as proof that mob rule and democracy are the same thing they mean nothing.

The U.S. Senate... Though I'm sure you're busting my balls.[/quote]

You meantioned Ancient Rome, they had a senate. Also, I'm not from and neither are a number of the other member of this forum. Other countries exist with other government so please try make room in your arguments for a topic sentence or two which may introduce us to the concept you are espousing.

I'm not 'busting your balls'. You really need to get over the fact that you think I'm out persecute you. Yet again, you're posting in a debate topic and if I don't understand something you say I'm going to ask you for clarification. If I don't agree with something you say I'm going to tell you about it. As a matter of fact I'm going to do that in most threads because that's the way I am and everyone else is used to it so I suggest you get over your complex and move on.

_________________
Where in the name of Deus Ex Machina did that T-Rex come from?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 11:22 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2003 4:24 pm
Posts: 1100
Location: Holy Forest of Unfounded Speculation
I'm not quite sure, but I think it was F.D.R. who said "Democracy is the worst possible system of government, except for all the other ones that have been tried." and I agree with that whole-heartedly. Before Communism, Cuba was on an economic and technological level almost equal to the U.S., with our tiny size our economy was stronger than many european states. Staying in Communism is the worst possible outcome for us. But all the young military folk want it, and there's a lot of them, and the old military folk are going to have to pay civilians large amounts of money to fight for them if it comes down to a civil war. And then there's the Exiles. Do you have any idea how many of us there are all over the world? And Cubans are like the Jewish people in the respect that when one of us go to a country, we pave the way for the rest in a way that allows us to rise up from poverty quickly. In other words, we have money and property. Imagine, suddenly half the houses in South Florida, in East Australia (there's a large community there from an immigration plan the Aussies did where they got Cuban families) and in many other parts of the world suddenly on sale? And all that money pouring back into Cuba is going to jumpstart the economy, sure, but how about the land disputes? My family used to own a large amount of land that was "reapropiated". I have no hope of getting that back, but other families might not see it that way. In the end, the civilians will sway more to a Communist point of view to keep the influx of exiles to their level, instead of making what by now are considered "foreign Cubans" the leaders of the nation because the large amounts of wealth.

In short, I'm afraid the only way I could see this turning out well is if the U.S. sends some peace keeper forces while the Evil Evil EVIL generals do the right thing for the most EVIL possible reasons and make Cuba a Capitalist Democracy. I also think that land disputes be treated in U.N. courts, otherwise all the peace keeper forces in the world couldn't stop us from killing each other. Some reneissance age advisor whose name I can't remember said "If you kill a man's father, he'll mourn him for a month and move on. If you then deny him the inheritance from that father, he'll beging plotting your downfall." Nothing gets the masses more incited than messing with their land.

Much love


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 11:26 am 
Offline
Addict

Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 5:00 pm
Posts: 3759
Location: your house, your living room, your sofa
Is there alternative which would allow Cuba to as for democratic help to be send from the EU or a similar instituation outwith America to help in the transition from what they have now to Democracy or as close as they can get?

I really don't know as much about the situation as you do Ancient so I'm loathe to rush in saying that this is an option if it's not.

_________________
Where in the name of Deus Ex Machina did that T-Rex come from?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 11:36 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2003 4:24 pm
Posts: 1100
Location: Holy Forest of Unfounded Speculation
Don't worry about it Oni, I did this specifically because I wanted to hear the opinions of you people. And the U.S. considers Latin America it's backyard. It basically has the stance of "If anyone is going to interfere with the growth of these nations, it's going to be us.". So the only nudging we'll get is from the U.S., since it'll basically strongarm any other country out of it.

Much love


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 11:48 am 
Offline
Addict

Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 5:00 pm
Posts: 3759
Location: your house, your living room, your sofa
Hmm, the point I was getting at is if Cuba were to request aid from a foreign power of collective outside of US influence there may be a third way to go about solving problems.

However requesting diplomatic help is not an answer to the problem of the rift between members their establishment, army and people. The factions are still going to be there and will not be dealt with in the more final and aggressive step of military intervention on behalf of the US but I would be suspicious of the outcomes that that would supply.

Of course the assumption that anyone in power in Cuba would be willing to ask an outside power with help in light of a democratic transition is a massive one and would need significant grass roots support from all levels of society. And in a country where political freedom is compromised by the system of power in place that's going to be a huge problem.

But then so is any political manouevring - even the ideas you've already proposed. The truth is, like I've said before, is that for a whole country to change regimes without any form of revolution of violence the whole country or at least the majority of it needs to believe in the change.

And that's got to be hard to do on any comprehensive level you aren't really allowed to express the idea in a public forum.

_________________
Where in the name of Deus Ex Machina did that T-Rex come from?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 11:54 am 
Offline
Local
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2006 2:45 pm
Posts: 267
Location: Out in the Black
I disagree. I think a group of men trying to influence the decisions of the one man who has final say sounds a lot like group influence. I never said they were dictating his dicisions, and if they were, a group of men making his dicisions sounds a lot like mob rule.

And fine, I acknowledge that in theory, democracy is not mob rule. I'm not saying there is anything better at this point in time, I actually say that I'd rather be here (in the U.S.) than any other place in history.

And I don't have a better system in mind, I'm making hte point that democracy should not be viewed as some beacon of light burning away the darkness that represents all the evil in the world, as a good deal of my friends believe.

Quote:
I'm not 'busting your balls'. You really need to get over the fact that you think I'm out persecute you. Yet again, you're posting in a debate topic and if I don't understand something you say I'm going to ask you for clarification. If I don't agree with something you say I'm going to tell you about it. As a matter of fact I'm going to do that in most threads because that's the way I am and everyone else is used to it so I suggest you get over your complex and move on.


I'm not used to dealing with someone with no sense of humor. Now don't get your panties in a twist, I'm joking again. You are a type of person I'm not really used to dealing with (most of my friends and internetz people I talk to are the embodidment of sarcasm and fascitious-ness) is all and it seems that a bit of humor in a OMG SERIOUS DISCUSSION irks you a bit.

Anyways, I guess I'll try to not not take you seriously. Or... I dunno. Ignore your posts? FTW![/quote]


Last edited by Reason on Thu Jul 20, 2006 12:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 12:03 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2003 4:24 pm
Posts: 1100
Location: Holy Forest of Unfounded Speculation
onion wrote:
Hmm, the point I was getting at is if Cuba were to request aid from a foreign power of collective outside of US influence there may be a third way to go about solving problems.


But the thing is, there will be no clear faction to request the outside help. And I'm pretty sure none of the factions will want outside help anyways. And even if they did want outside help and somehow requested it, the U.S. would still say it's an inside matter and that the EU should stick their collective noses out of it.

Much love.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 12:05 pm 
Offline
Addict

Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 5:00 pm
Posts: 3759
Location: your house, your living room, your sofa
Let me address your last point first.

I'm not against frivolous comments. I spend most of my time making them. Usually they are about how best to eat abortions with green or setting people on fire or in the various drama threads. I don't however, make them in here which I treat as a forum for debating serious issuese seriously. With backed up facts and truths. Because I was under the impression that this was what this board is for. While the rules do not specifically exclide jokey posts I've noticed a trend for them to be moderated or ignored on the basis that they are not contributing to the debate. I'm also pretty sure that personal arguments/flames/etc are not allowed in debate threads by the rules of this board and discussing them here is de-railing the topic at hand.

Go read the sticky or whatever but I don't expect me to change a what seems to be the tradition of this board just because you're making no effort to fit in with it.

You second point - in conjunction with you I never claimed that democracy was the be all and end all of civilisation. I said in a previous post that I don't believe it is so. I just believe that right now it's the only theory we've got that comes close to working. It's ccomplicated system. It requires extreme hard work, concentration and the sacrifice of millions. It doesn't always work. It's an entirely western concept as it exists now. It's based entirely on the flawed view that human nature is inherantly good. Most times it flails itself into and Oligarchy rather than a Meritocracy and it falls victim to human weakness on a daily basis. I don't belive in it. But it's all we've got.

It is also not mob rule as defined by the definition of mob rule. I can see where you're coming from but it's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about defined terms of political science.

And Ancient, I know and I understand the problem. I just hope there is some third way out of this for Cuba and requestion diplmatic help may be it. However what you say is right and it's what I was trying to get at in my last post addressed to you. Without a governmental body to request the help there isn't a way to make the request to begin with.

But do remember that there enough UN and Eu countries with grudges against America who would consider backing Cubas right to self determing their style of government against them.

_________________
Where in the name of Deus Ex Machina did that T-Rex come from?


Last edited by onion on Thu Jul 20, 2006 12:12 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 12:08 pm 
Offline
Local
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2006 2:45 pm
Posts: 267
Location: Out in the Black
Hmm. Point.

I'll shut up.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 22 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 29 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group