US helicopter attacks Iraqi school killing 7 children

Post Reply New Topic

What country are you in? Do you live in Fantasyland?

If you were dragged from your home in the middle of dinner with your family and beaten in the street to teach you a "lesson", maybe you would not like dictators.

Do you even have a concept of physical pain? Have you ever been in a fight?

If you were more in tune with what another person could do TO YOU you would not be so gungho for dictators.

Do you even realize that in most of these damn Muslim countries, men can beat women in public for ANY PERCIEVED INFRACTION!! Do you agree with this? These are dictators, like you deify.

You do not have a clue about the real world. Get out from behind your computer and live a little. Go to your local pub and get into a fight. Understand how degrading a good beating can be. This kind of stuff happens all of the time in a dictatorship.

I know, I know, Rodney King and all of the police brutality in America. Yeah, so what, you are going to have bad apples no matter where you go. I got thrown in jail for no reason my last R n R but I was not beaten, just an overzealous cop who was an a**hole. It is done with, time to go on. s**t happens in the real world. You are calling for a system of government where you would not be typing what you are typing RIGHT NOW. You are questioning governement. In a f*****g dictatorship, THEY can knock down your door and take you ANYTIME.

SERIOUSLY YOU CANNOT POSSIBLY BE DEFENDING THIS.

And come on, America saving Stalin? That sonofabitch TOOK what he wanted.

You must have smoked too much pot during history class to have such a f****d up view of the world.

The United States entered the war in 1941. It had been providing material aid to both the Great Britain and the Soviet Union before that (something that the anti-communist Pope Pius XII said was justifiable). Why? Was it because the United States loved Stalin very much and wanted him to rule the world? I mean for what possible reason could the United States be giving (not wonderfully effective) arms, and (very effective) fuel to the Soviet Union at the very time that an a large army was on the verge of toppling the murderous Stalin?

Hmm...

Could it possibly, just maybe, that the Roosevelt administration had a problem with, I don't know, Adolf Hitler, who himself wasn't exactly a nice guy (something you yourself have mentioned). He also had already annexed or puppetted most of Europe at the time he broke his treaty with the Soviets. Before that time the Commonwealth was the only power in the world at war with the Axis pact (not yet including Japan). It's true that it's highly debatable (and pointless in personal opinion) whether Hitler or Stalin was worse (Hitler killed 25 million not including combat in 12 years, and Stalin perhaps 40 million in about 20-ish years, with them both responsible for the start of the war in Europe; but then again Hitler never got his full plan into operation). But look, when you have super evil monster number 1 and super evil monster number 2 facing off in the end you have to consider strategic considerations. Also, Japan, Hitler's ally attacked the US, and then Hitler foolishly declared war, which settled matters.

As for the end of the war, the Yalta agreement that split Europe apart. That was an awful agreement but sadly there wasn't too much that could be done. Now if you remove details such as high level Soviet spies inside Roosevelt's administration then perhaps the Soviets would have been less better prepared. Also, Roosvelt's health was very poor at this point, and it would appear that it was that rather then his attitude towards the Russians (which was already rapidly becoming colder) that made his efforts less successful. Still, in the end there was a massive Soviet army in the east and unless the Americans were willing to go to war against them there were practical limitations as to what could be achieved. As for saving Stalin, it is probable without US fuel, Stalin (although perhaps not Asiatic Russia) would have fallen, but that would not eliminate Hitler, and without eliminating Hitler you simply have a Europe dominated by the Nazis (at least temporarily).



The US government is larger then it once was certainly, and I am not a fan of President Bush's big government conservative policies (although I feel his proposed free-market reforms of Social Security would be a big fix). Income taxes are lower now then under previous administrations (they reached there how under FDR's administration). I would partially agree with you that some freedoms have been eroded by probably not in the same context. For example, I think Campaign Finance Reform was unconstitutional (I believe this was the largest error of the Bush presidency). Also, I feel that regulations make it much more difficult for people to create businesses, and enjoy their own lives, and property.



I do not agree whatsoever. Part of this is undoubtedly because I disagree with your political philosophy. My views would not be represented in a dictatorship. Instead, they would be repressed. Dictatorships do not allow for a true market of ideas because when the dictator is questioned it doesn't matter. His words are law. Dictatorships are largely not particularly successful as democratic societies economically, and they often have great difficulty on the question of succession. It is extremely difficult and fairly rare to see a dictatorship turn into a democracy.



Not all of them. I support the democracy because I believe it is the best available political process. It is the same reason I support free-market capitalism. However, I also support the electoral college rather awarding the presidency to who wins the popular vote (via a plurarity or in some kind of run off). I am also highly skeptical to the process of recalls, because I feel that voters could become prone to remove a politician simply because of something outside of his control. I don't care for people claiming to be "populists." My strong belief in the two-party system is actually part of my opposition for the concept of "anything goes" democracy. I believe having two major parties rather then several major parties and lots of minor parties results in moderation and stability, but at the same time allows for change to occur (the Republican and Democratic parties are more different now they have been since at least 1900, but the fact that most Republicans and mostDemocrats[/i] don't fit some kind of perfect match often irritates people. However, the same has been been the case throughout American history, and honestly the major British parties , with the exception of the Thatcher era, have been revolving around each other for decades (although I suppose in recent times the Liberal Democrats were always a bit more to the left).

In the end though, the system has worked. The United States has had one constitution, not many. It has had no coups. One major internal war, but even that didn't result in the internal strife afterwards that usually accompanied such activity.



Who is they? Me? Is they the system itself? Is they people who get outraged when you suggest that a dictatorship should be formed? If it's the latter I understand because as a general rule people in the United States don't want to be ruled by a dictator and found the idea grossly offensive, and a violation of the concepts on which the nation was founded, and hundreds of thousands have died for.

From the Declaration of Independence:



Note that the rights are "self evident."Also, governments are instituted "among Men," not "a man." Such governments "derive...their just powers from the consent of the governed." That doesn't happen in a dictatorship.

Calvin Coolidge, Speech on the Occasion of the One Hundred and Fiftieth Anniversary of the Declaration of Independence



(source)



This overly generalized statement is not correct. Even the statement "Baghdad is in anarchy" is not correct. The statement "there has been much violence in Iraq" would be correct, but words are important.



This is debatable. It is certainly making it better in some areas of Iraq, such as Anwar province, where violence has decreased sharply recently.



False. You aren't a big fan of democracy, would you be willing to put our presence their to vote of the Iraqis themselves? If they voted yes, then would you be accept U.S. forces remain in country?