• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Citing ‘Momentum Shift,’ Pentagon Wants to Deploy More Troops to Iraq

SmartCat said:
I suggest that you learn to distinguish between a democratic socialist and a Communist. Communism is a dying faith. Democratic socialism is becoming more popular, so you will be hearing more of it.

I also suggest that you stop calling politicians you disagree with cowards. It makes you seem like a crank.
Click to expand...

And defending a coward makes you a crank , what ever the hell that is . :roll:
 
eohrnberger said:
Seems that reality of the need has caught up with Obama. He should expended a little bit of effort and made the SoF deal with both Iraq and Afghanistan, and have never withdrawn the needed troops.
Click to expand...

The really sad thing is that some continue to live in a fantasyland. They can ignore things like the burnings and mass executions of people, and still insist that we should stay out and do nothing.

I guess they also would have said the same thing in WWII if they knew what the Germans were doing.
 
Oozlefinch said:
The really sad thing is that some continue to live in a fantasyland. They can ignore things like the burnings and mass executions of people, and still insist that we should stay out and do nothing.

I guess they also would have said the same thing in WWII if they knew what the Germans were doing.
Click to expand...

I think it's a case of . . . .

edmundburke377528.jpg


Now granted, there are many a varied responses from boots on the ground occupation on a permanent basis, all the way to doing little more than the occasional drone attacks.

The most effective to day hasn't been ignoring it. But then, neither have the methods that have previously worked, such as the example you call to fore of Germany and the Nazis.

Perhaps a possible solution to be considered is a complete physical, financial and informational isolation until this Islamic militant 'virus' burns itself out? How long can such a movement survive without these things? People, money, information? Land acquisition?
 
eohrnberger said:
I think it's a case of . . . .

edmundburke377528.jpg


Now granted, there are many a varied responses from boots on the ground occupation on a permanent basis, all the way to doing little more than the occasional drone attacks.

The most effective to day hasn't been ignoring it. But then, neither have the methods that have previously worked, such as the example you call to fore of Germany and the Nazis.

Perhaps a possible solution to be considered is a complete physical, financial and informational isolation until this Islamic militant 'virus' burns itself out? How long can such a movement survive without these things? People, money, information? Land acquisition?
Click to expand...

Well, for one thing I think we need to seriously rethink the very concept of "Promoting Democracy".

Now do not get me wrong, I like Democracy. However, I also readily admit it is not the prefect government for every nation. Especially when a nation has absolutely no history of having any kind of real "democratic process".

To me, the best solution probably would have been re-establishing the Hashemite Dynasty under a strong Constitutional Monarchy. This is a dynasty that traces it's lineage back to the Great-grandfather of Muhammad, and was not thrown out of Iraq because of unpopularity but by a military coup. This might well have given both sides a figurehead to rally around, and given the nation time to stabilize before factionalism tore it apart again.

Until the area learns to understand that a Democracy or Republic is more then simply another form of mob rule, it is unlikely that it could ever become a viable form of government.
 
Oozlefinch said:
Well, for one thing I think we need to seriously rethink the very concept of "Promoting Democracy".

Now do not get me wrong, I like Democracy. However, I also readily admit it is not the prefect government for every nation. Especially when a nation has absolutely no history of having any kind of real "democratic process".
Interesting to conclude that true root of Democracy need to come from within, and can't be forced from without, as it will be rejected, or at least so it would seem to be most often the case, but with some notable exceptions. Perhaps in those cases the general population was at a point as to be ready for Democracy.

Oozlefinch said:
To me, the best solution probably would have been re-establishing the Hashemite Dynasty under a strong Constitutional Monarchy. This is a dynasty that traces it's lineage back to the Great-grandfather of Muhammad, and was not thrown out of Iraq because of unpopularity but by a military coup. This might well have given both sides a figurehead to rally around, and given the nation time to stabilize before factionalism tore it apart again.

Until the area learns to understand that a Democracy or Republic is more then simply another form of mob rule, it is unlikely that it could ever become a viable form of government.
Click to expand...

Until it gets worse, much worse, the opportunity for Democracy might not find 'right' conditions to take root?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
eohrnberger said:
Interesting to conclude that true root of Democracy need to come from within, and can't be forced from without, as it will be rejected, or at least so it would seem to be most often the case, but with some notable exceptions. Perhaps in those cases the general population was at a point as to be ready for Democracy.

Until it gets worse, much worse, the opportunity for Democracy might not find 'right' conditions to take root?
Click to expand...

Look at the nations where "Democracy" is mostly known for as the keystone of their governments. England and the US.

Now the modern tradition started in England, of that I do not deny. But it was a long, slow, drawn-out process. Going over the centuries from the Divine RIght of Kings, through the Magna Carta. But this led to more advances, including the Bill of RIghts, and eventually the Parliament we all know of today.

Most do not even realize that in the original Parlaiment, the King ordered the Barons and other noblemen to appear before him, and he would dictate to them what he wanted. But a few centuries later, the rolls were reversed. After the Magna Carta, the King now had to answer to at least some degree to the Parliament. Then a century after that, the House of Commons gave the unentitled people a say in the Government.

The US followed much of the same system in their government. With an Executive (President), and a 2 house Congress (Senate and House of Representatives). It was not all that different then the Monarch - House of Lords - House of Commons system they had recently seperated from. We did much the same when we set up "Democracy" in Japan after WWII. We left the Monarch in place, putting in a Constitutional form of government with a body that was answerable to the people as oversight.

This is why I think the British model is a good one to follow. Leave in place a figurehead that the people can rally around and give them continuity, as their elected bodies grow into their new positions, and realize that Democracy does not mean "mob rule". Trying to thrust upon a people almost 1,000 years of political evolution in a single shot simply does not work. It failed in Germany after WWII, it failed almost everywhere it was ever tried unless there was already a foundation in place.
 
eohrnberger said:
Seems that reality of the need has caught up with Obama. He should expended a little bit of effort and made the SoF deal with both Iraq and Afghanistan, and have never withdrawn the needed troops.

Now, we, in typical Democratic led war operations, get to pay for the same ground multiple times, and, Obama's gutted the military, so they are less well prepared than ever to take on this mission.

Yea, this isn't going to end well.
Click to expand...

It isn't actually "cheaper" to fight wars "cheaply". Something politicians (and especially Democrats) repeatedly have to relearn.
 
cpwill said:
It isn't actually "cheaper" to fight wars "cheaply". Something politicians (and especially Democrats) repeatedly have to relearn.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Better to execute a Gulf War 1, rather than trying to do it on the cheap.
 
Oozlefinch said:
Look at the nations where "Democracy" is mostly known for as the keystone of their governments. England and the US.

Now the modern tradition started in England, of that I do not deny. But it was a long, slow, drawn-out process. Going over the centuries from the Divine RIght of Kings, through the Magna Carta. But this led to more advances, including the Bill of RIghts, and eventually the Parliament we all know of today.

Most do not even realize that in the original Parlaiment, the King ordered the Barons and other noblemen to appear before him, and he would dictate to them what he wanted. But a few centuries later, the rolls were reversed. After the Magna Carta, the King now had to answer to at least some degree to the Parliament. Then a century after that, the House of Commons gave the unentitled people a say in the Government.

The US followed much of the same system in their government. With an Executive (President), and a 2 house Congress (Senate and House of Representatives). It was not all that different then the Monarch - House of Lords - House of Commons system they had recently seperated from. We did much the same when we set up "Democracy" in Japan after WWII. We left the Monarch in place, putting in a Constitutional form of government with a body that was answerable to the people as oversight.

This is why I think the British model is a good one to follow. Leave in place a figurehead that the people can rally around and give them continuity, as their elected bodies grow into their new positions, and realize that Democracy does not mean "mob rule". Trying to thrust upon a people almost 1,000 years of political evolution in a single shot simply does not work. It failed in Germany after WWII, it failed almost everywhere it was ever tried unless there was already a foundation in place.
Click to expand...

Hmm. You say that it failed in Germany after WW II. Can you elaborate?

A quick reference seems to indicate steady progress from '49 on: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histo...est_Germany_.28Federal_Republic_of_Germany.29
 
Oozlefinch said:
Look at the nations where "Democracy" is mostly known for as the keystone of their governments. England and the US.

Now the modern tradition started in England, of that I do not deny. But it was a long, slow, drawn-out process. Going over the centuries from the Divine RIght of Kings, through the Magna Carta. But this led to more advances, including the Bill of RIghts, and eventually the Parliament we all know of today.

Most do not even realize that in the original Parlaiment, the King ordered the Barons and other noblemen to appear before him, and he would dictate to them what he wanted. But a few centuries later, the rolls were reversed. After the Magna Carta, the King now had to answer to at least some degree to the Parliament. Then a century after that, the House of Commons gave the unentitled people a say in the Government.

The US followed much of the same system in their government. With an Executive (President), and a 2 house Congress (Senate and House of Representatives). It was not all that different then the Monarch - House of Lords - House of Commons system they had recently seperated from. We did much the same when we set up "Democracy" in Japan after WWII. We left the Monarch in place, putting in a Constitutional form of government with a body that was answerable to the people as oversight.

This is why I think the British model is a good one to follow. Leave in place a figurehead that the people can rally around and give them continuity, as their elected bodies grow into their new positions, and realize that Democracy does not mean "mob rule". Trying to thrust upon a people almost 1,000 years of political evolution in a single shot simply does not work. It failed in Germany after WWII, it failed almost everywhere it was ever tried unless there was already a foundation in place.
Click to expand...




It is unfortunate that a reasonable discourse on the history of British common law would be so flawed. The founding fathers designed their scheme based on business models, with some homage paid to the concept of the Roman Senate. It has not worked very well as no other government has been structured along its lines. For the record the US system has not been followed by other governments as each has since chosen the parliamentary democracy, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, India, as well as defeated Itally, Japan and Germany in the new world and most of Europe now uses the parliamentary as a system whether they have a president or a monarch.

Neither Japan nor Germany followed the US example after world war two, after the consequences after the war, no one wanted any individual to have the power of their predecessors. In both, the president has extremely limited powers to your president, none of them can even move troops into a combat zone without parliamentary approval.

Long and short, the British common law system with two houses and a weak president/monarch is the standard system in democracy. Looking at the last eight years and the current folly, anyone would be out of their mind to follow the US system with a strong president and an ineffective congress, it is a virtual dictatorship.

The problem with the US is they think they have the best system of government, but then I look at the current primary contest and am inclined to agree
 
Last edited:
eohrnberger said:
Hmm. You say that it failed in Germany after WW II. Can you elaborate?
Click to expand...

Typo, that should have read "WWI". Good catch.

Fearandloathing said:
Neither Japan nor Germany followed the US example after world war two, after the consequences after the war, no one wanted any individual to have the power of their predecessors. In both, the president has extremely limited powers to your president, none of them can even move troops into a combat zone without parliamentary approval.

The problem with the US is they think they have the best system of government, but then I look at the current primary contest and am inclined to agree
Click to expand...

One thing I pretty much never do is state that there is such a thing as a "best form of government". Myself, I have no problem if a nation is a Democracy, a Republic, a Monarchy, an Empire, even a Dictatorship or Communist. Just so that a few basic things are done.

Stability, justice and freedom under the rule of law, fair and equal treatment of all citizens, and fair interactions with other nations.

This is why I have never been a big supporter of "Democracy" in a great many nations. And if you notice, I used the British model for what would be a better government, not that of the United States. The US might well have followed that pattern themselves instead of finding their own way. The only problem was that the very issue of redress that caused the Revolution in the first place so soured them on Parlaimentary rule that they pretty much wiped the board and tried a new way. But that did not work and did not even last a decade, where they wiped the slate once again and created a form that was closer to that of the British.

I would rather have seen a Dictatorship in the vein of Marshal Tito or Franco instead of the anarchy that Iraq descended into.
 
I think the destruction of ISIL should handled by the Saudi's as part of attoning for the sins of members of the royal family being complicit in 911 killing 3000 innocent US Citizens.

Besides they have the most to lose if popular will forces the US to turn its back to their defense. They better start damage control before Trump takes over.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom