Yet you keep taking them seriously enough to respond.
Afganistan 2007
- Thread starter Abaddon
- Start date
Ziggy Stardust
Absolutely Sane
Why don't you tell me how Hitler's party came to power in Germany. Then tell me how Saddam did. Then you will notice a slight difference.
Evie
Pronounced like Eevee
Both Germany and Japan had working, well-accepted electoral processes long before the war. The government was not FULLY democratic, but in both case, the people had wielded a share of government power before.
There WERE elections in Germany throughout the twenties and thirties - the last was in 1933, after which the Nazi basically controled elections; in the last three BEFORE Hitler became chancellor, the Nazi either came in second (in 1930) or first (both 1932 elections).
This is simply not the case in Iraq, where every last post-monarchy political leader to date took power via brute force (ie, military coups and/or US invasion).
There were no non-blatantly-rigged elections in Iraq before the invasion. By comparison, there were 22 free elections in Germany from 1871 to 1933, and 18 general elections in Japan before the great militarist surge of the thirties.
There WERE elections in Germany throughout the twenties and thirties - the last was in 1933, after which the Nazi basically controled elections; in the last three BEFORE Hitler became chancellor, the Nazi either came in second (in 1930) or first (both 1932 elections).
This is simply not the case in Iraq, where every last post-monarchy political leader to date took power via brute force (ie, military coups and/or US invasion).
There were no non-blatantly-rigged elections in Iraq before the invasion. By comparison, there were 22 free elections in Germany from 1871 to 1933, and 18 general elections in Japan before the great militarist surge of the thirties.
Merkinball
Deity
The Ba'athists came to power via a coup, driven behind Arab nationalism. Saddam came to power under Pan-Arabism as well, and used the Iran/Iraq war to forward himself. How much different is that than Hitler using Pan-Germanism and exploiting the situation of Post WWI Germany? Not a whole lot.
Really? The twenties huh? Why did they have those elections again? The Wiemar Republic was formed from outside political pressure to turn a military run government into a civil government. That pressure was from Woodrow Wilson. This was a parliamentary government that had been REFUSED for the last fifty years. In a sense, this was artificially foisted upon the German's from outside pressure to end WWI. And it only came about when it was clear the Germans had lost the war. There was all kinds of political turmoil during this period as well. It wasn't until 1923 that something sembling calm took hold, and that didn't last long as soon after Hitler had hit center stage.
What elections were there between 1871 and 1919? If they did indeed happen, they meant nothing as the government was run by royalty and the military until the end of WWI. Whatever Democratic process there was, was weak to say the least, as it took five years to settle, and promptly resulted in the rise of a dictatorship.
18 General elections for what? What did those accomplish? The real power was still seated with the Emperor up until the end of WWII. What did these 18 general elections accomplish. The only thing that could be construed as modeled after a western style of Democracy was the court system, which was still polluted, as all laws still came from the emperor. Even their parlaiment was hamstringed by the Emperor, and imperial. It wasn't at all in the shape of liberal democracy, it was still essentially whatever the Emperor wanted. The only civil rights the people had were those granted by the Emperor himself.
I don't feel sorry for them in the least. They went over there voluntarily, and the possibility getting your head chopped off is certainly part of an equation when visiting an Islamic country. Want to minimize your chances of getting kidnapped and dying? Stay away from those backward crap holes - there are plenty of civilized countries out there.
Desmond Hawkins
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2002
- Messages
- 9,922
What are you 13? Can you actually comprehend how horrible it is for these people's families?
Evie
Pronounced like Eevee
Germany and Japan were both parliamentary monarchies. (Thirteen of the twenty-two elections, incidentally, were before the first world war).
While they had an emperor, they also had an elected parliament (from the 1870s for Germany, a few years later for Japan) whose approval was necessary for any piece of proposed legislation to become law.
Any German history book worth its salt will note how Bismarck had to constantly fight the parliament to enact his reforms, and played the various political parties against one another to get the support he needed.
They were not by any stretch modern western democracy, (but then, was Victorian England really much better?), but they were far, far more democratic than anything Iraq has ever had.
While they had an emperor, they also had an elected parliament (from the 1870s for Germany, a few years later for Japan) whose approval was necessary for any piece of proposed legislation to become law.
Any German history book worth its salt will note how Bismarck had to constantly fight the parliament to enact his reforms, and played the various political parties against one another to get the support he needed.
They were not by any stretch modern western democracy, (but then, was Victorian England really much better?), but they were far, far more democratic than anything Iraq has ever had.
Care to explain how does that excuse ignorance of the missionaries? I have no compassion for naive fools - sorry. They knew where they were going, and nobody forced them to go there. I guess some people need a good beheading or two to accept that militant Islam is not that peaceful after all...
Desmond Hawkins
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2002
- Messages
- 9,922
So your empathy for other people extends as far as their always making "wise" decisions? What if you had a sibling or family member that did something seemingly noble, yet very stupid, like joining the military to fight in Iraq? What if they then got killed? Would you just say, "I don't care, it serves him right for being naive enough to fight in Bush's war, believing they could build a democracy from scratch with a foreign military. I lost all compassion for brother Jimmy when he joined the marines, and therefore think it serves him right to be a quadrapalaegic."?
It sounds to me like you're just trying to get attention by being controversial. If thats really what you believe then you should keep it to yourself, because no ones going to agree with you. They were being compassionate and doing a good thing, while knowingly putting themselves at risk, while its true that they could get hurt, you can get hurt simply by driving. You're saying that police officers and firemen don't deserve respect because there's some sort of danger involved in their job. And what does militant Islam have to do with them not deserving our compassion?
Desmond Hawkins
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2002
- Messages
- 9,922
@Sanctum. It is not that he is trying to be controversial. It is that he is 13.
Merkinball
Deity
Alright, you didn't answer my question. Of what consequence were these elections? What elections went through that were against the will of the King/Emperor. None. These were hardly like parlamaintary monarchies we have today where the royal family is simply a figurehead (the UK). In both cases the central power lied within the royal families.
You have it backwards. The Parlamaint in Japan couldn't do anything against the emperor's will. In Germany, when the parlamaint defied the will of Bismark or the Kings, they just circumvented it and did what they wanted anyway.
And when he didn't get his way politically, he manhandled his way to get what he and the royal families he worked for wanted.
It's not like there was any semblence of anything CLOSE to checks and balances. Coincidentally, Japan's reforms were modeled after Prussia because it would allow power to be centralised around the emperor. Democracies such as America's, or the UK's were seen as much too liberal and threatening. The powers at be in Japan did NOT want true Democracy.
No, he's an Objectivist, which just means that he has a belief system worthy of a 13 year old.
I must've missed the thread nominating you for the spokesperson of "everyone". It's a public forum - we post our opinions - you can agree with mine or you not, personally I couldn't care less.
Yes - there is a big difference. I'm sure there were plenty of places in Korea, or any other civilized country that could've used the missionaries help - and people, including myself would've been grateful. Instead they decided to go to the "Taliban" capital of the world - and since they are Christians and missionaries at that, they end up being #1 target. They get kidnapped, which now puts other people in danger (either those who'll have to try to save them, or those who will be kidnapped later if negotiations work).
Leave missionary/aid work in Islamic countries to Islamic missionaries, or men with guns - they tend to respect that more, as that's the only language they speak...
I'm 27 - can you stop your ad hominem rants now? Thanks.
Okay, maybe not everybody is going to disagree with you, but so far everyone has, and you replied to a short sentence that was posted 2 pages ago, with something that doesn't have anything to do with whats going on right now, which leads me to believe you're trying to be controversial just to stir people up.
I doubt they kidnapped them because of their religion, the fact that they held them hostage first probably means that it was to achieve their politcal agenda (terrorism), I'd bet that any aid workers over their could've landed themselves in the same situation, regardless of their religion. And saying that we should only help places that are secure is stupid, places that arn't secure are usually the places that need the most help, North Korea is one of few (or the only?) exception.
Actually, Germany became one of the most socially progressive states in Europe because von Bismarck allied with the more radical parties on key policies so that he could push his own diplomatic and military bills through the Reichstag. There's a reason that the Kaiser could call for a Burgfrieden and have people pay attention, whereas in Paris at the same time the prominent Socialist leader Jean Jaures was shot for being a Socialist during wartime.
Verbose
Deity
There's a proverb:
"You know others as you know yourself".
Considering that a guy like Usama bin-Laden is described by his followers as being corteous, considerate, soft-spoken and generous all the qualities they respect and appreciate in a man the sneaky suspicion presents itself that you unwittingly just described the sole reason for respect of way too many Americans, but of surprisingly few Arabs.
Evie
Pronounced like Eevee
NO ONE, Merkinball, has ever said Germany and Japan, at the time, had fully democratic government. No one.
What we said, what we keep saying, is that BOTH countries had pre-established democratic traditions. This is a FACT : both countries had a constitution determining who had what powers, which provided for the existence of an elected parliament with legislative powers.
Is that a full western democracy? Of course not! Is it basis to later build a democracy on? Yes, it is.
Does Iraq have any basis like that? No, it hasn't.
Trying to compare what was done in Germany and Japan with what was attempted in Iraq simply doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
What we said, what we keep saying, is that BOTH countries had pre-established democratic traditions. This is a FACT : both countries had a constitution determining who had what powers, which provided for the existence of an elected parliament with legislative powers.
Is that a full western democracy? Of course not! Is it basis to later build a democracy on? Yes, it is.
Does Iraq have any basis like that? No, it hasn't.
Trying to compare what was done in Germany and Japan with what was attempted in Iraq simply doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
Merkinball
Deity
Why? Technically speaking Iraq had a working constitution and democratic form of government created LONG before post-war Japan or Germany. If you really want to get technical, all of the benchmarks in creating a modern, liberalish Democracy in post-war Iraq are far ahead of either post-war Japan or Germany.
And since you guys can't get it through your heads that the royalty in Germany and the Emperor of Japan did what they wanted anyway, that their quasi-democracies were set up to preserve and centralize power to the emperor and the royalty, and that everything that was done by Parlaimant was done with the permission of the emperor and the German royalty, I'll pse a simple question.
What did Iraq really need that pre-existing Democratic shape and form? I mean, look at the voter turn out. Was there some kind of missing link in the education system that completely shut the books on learning about democracy and freedom? Are these concepts, in the information age, alien to all of Iraqi's? If anything they were fortunate in that they had a multitude of bodies of law and government to construct what they wanted and what they felt would work for them.
