PDA

View Full Version : Replies to stupid comments by poliricians worldwide...


machievelli
10-29-2006, 11:47 AM
To the President of Iran. the nation of Iran agreed to host an Islamic conference which will determine whether the holocaust actually occurred or not.

Showing the spirit of International amity, the Mississippi school board, which banned the book Uncle Tomís Cabin from libraries in the state back in 1999 on the grounds that slavery was never practiced in the United States, has called upon all of the other states that once comprised the Confederacy to have a conference to examine evidence that suggests that Mississippi might be right.

Mace MacLeod
10-29-2006, 11:58 AM
Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it?

Diego Varen
10-29-2006, 12:00 PM
Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it?

I heard that when I was learning about history.

Hallucination
10-29-2006, 12:38 PM
Wow... These people are dense... Damn poliricians!

RC-1162
10-29-2006, 03:09 PM
Poliricians are the morons of the present world, theres not much to be said. move along now.

Jeremia Skywalk
10-29-2006, 03:54 PM
Sounds like the whole friggin history of Latvia. Yeah, of course, we joined USSR just for the kicks of it and there were no military force or occupation involved at all. Americans and other big countries don't want to anger russians, so 'history' stays as it is (even though more than million people can tell synchronized stories about what realy happened.)

Very nice proff about that 'history is written by winners' stuff.

(I still think we would have won if proportion latvians:russians would be something closer to 1:1 and we would have had more than 2 guns on 3 people.)

Sorrz, i usualy don't go all patriotic, but this just sounded too familiar.

machievelli
10-29-2006, 04:08 PM
My second favorite is Averill Harriman as Ambassador to the United Nations in 1948, calling on the Jews and Arabs to stop fighting 'like Good Christians'.

HerbieZ
10-29-2006, 04:22 PM
WTH is a polirician. Sounds like really good engrish.

TSR
10-29-2006, 04:25 PM
I think he might have meant "politicians", but that may be just be me being naive;) . Its probably due to those poliricians being so influential these days.

@phision- Quiet you, easy typo :P

Phision
10-29-2006, 04:32 PM
i think you might mean "politicians", they are influential, theyve become less like leaders and more like tabloid news stars. nobody cares what policies that government decides to implement what everyone really wants to know nowadays is where tony blair went on holiday. oh unless theres a war on. then suddenly everyone suddenly becomes political correspondents for channel 4 news.

TSR
10-29-2006, 05:04 PM
what i dont get is why there is an uproar when someone is killed in this war. ffs, its war, not a "Lets go in there and take over, theyre not going to put up any resistance" situation. We're invading their country, of course they are going to fight back. And then they are portrayed as evil by this propoganda we call media, when we are the ones invading their way of life. Democracy can only be substained after it has been obtained, and the whole point of it is to have equal oppurtunities and a fair say in things. That would happen if the country had a general opinion of that being how they wanted. Its ironic how we are trying to improse democracy through war.

was that maybe a bit too offtopic?

*heads to senate chambers"

Phision
10-29-2006, 06:08 PM
was a bit off topic but still i agree with what your saying, the most ironic thing about Iraq is that we, and the americans, and the spanish who most people have forgotten backed the invasion, are trying to dictate democracy. thats the biggest oxymoron i have ever seen in my life (other than planned spontaneity). anyway to try and get this back on track...

"we must.stop.the terror. I call upon all nations to do everything they can to stop these terrorist killers....

now watch this drive."-George W Bush.

Mace MacLeod
10-29-2006, 07:24 PM
Sadly, in modern society politics rarely attracts the best people for the job and even more rarely brings out the best in whoever's there.

Phision
11-04-2006, 12:54 PM
this is true but surely there must be someone up to the task of leading a country without some scandal. pretty much every leader has had some kind of sleaze either in their term in office or out of it.

TSR
11-06-2006, 10:28 AM
Yes. They're called actors.

Phision
11-13-2006, 01:29 PM
LMAO the best president ive ever seen other than morgan freeman, (hes the best president/God actor) was the dude that played david palmer in 24. gonna start a thread on 24 so n e one who likes it check it out.

Totenkopf
11-13-2006, 02:18 PM
Its ironic how we are trying to improse democracy through war.


Ironic, perhaps, but then neither did Germany or Japan have any true, or at least lasting, experience with democractic style government before 1945. Perhaps the Arabs can adapt also. It remains to be seen whether western style govt can be "imposed" from top down, rather than rising from the bottom.

Phision
11-13-2006, 02:30 PM
the germans did have a democracy, complete democracy which they were obviously not ready for. in the years of the weimar republic Germany was completely democratic. which actually allowed Hitler and his nazi party to gain control within the reichstag (parliament). Hitler was able to actually destroy democracy from the inside out.

machievelli
11-13-2006, 03:47 PM
the germans did have a democracy, complete democracy which they were obviously not ready for. in the years of the weimar republic Germany was completely democratic. which actually allowed Hitler and his nazi party to gain control within the reichstag (parliament). Hitler was able to actually destroy democracy from the inside out.


H. Beam Piper in Space Vikings said it best. The problem with democracy is that it is so easily subverted from within. Both Hitler and Napoleon came to power in the same manner, using an electoral system to either vote them the title of emperor (Napoleon) of allowed the man powers in an emergency that allowed them to take full control as occured in Germany and Russia.

Oddly enough, the biggest problem Japan has is the constitution we wrote for them and forced the Diet to Ratify. Article 9 was so tightly written that when the US decided to help them rearm in the mid 50s, they couldn't even call it a military. They had to call it a Self Defense Force.

I think that was part of our problem in Iraq. We tried to get them to write their own constitution, then in the very first true election after it was ratified, we didn't want the person the people had chosen.

If the terrorists and insurgents would leave them alone for even a month, it would work out. As it is I can forsee it breaking into four separate nations, and that would be both better and worse than what we have now.

Totenkopf
11-13-2006, 03:55 PM
the germans did have a democracy, complete democracy which they were obviously not ready for. in the years of the weimar republic Germany was completely democratic. which actually allowed Hitler and his nazi party to gain control within the reichstag (parliament). Hitler was able to actually destroy democracy from the inside out.


That was why I said lasting. The Weimar government wasn't around long enough for Germany to get too attached to the concept of democratic style government.

machievelli
11-13-2006, 03:58 PM
That was why I said lasting. The Weimar government wasn't around long enough for Germany to get too attached to the concept of democratic style government.

But the Bonn government has survived for almost 60 years now.

Besides, unlike Russia, the Kaiser's government had the equivilant of a parliament with some power. The Duma (Russian form) could only suggest.

Phision
11-13-2006, 04:11 PM
But the Bonn government has survived for almost 60 years now.

Besides, unlike Russia, the Kaiser's government had the equivilant of a parliament with some power. The Duma (Russian form) could only suggest.

the Duma was weak because of the Tsars obstinate belief in divine right, because most of the tsars believed that God had personally chosen them to rule Russia they could not share power, if they did then they would a) be seen as a weak leader and b) they would anger God.

the funny thing is Germany was almost completely opposite to Russia, in that, Germany was not ready for democracy, and russia was so ready for democracy that it had 4 or 5 different revolutions, some within the same year, and yet both still ended up in dictatorship.

Darth InSidious
11-13-2006, 04:31 PM
Actually, the divine right thing was almost unique to Niklaus II. Certainly his parents weren't as obsessive.

The Weimar Republic was also about as stable as a jelly on a crashing X-Wing, and is surely a warning of the dangers of proportional representation.

Phision
11-13-2006, 04:49 PM
Actually, the divine right thing was almost unique to Niklaus II. Certainly his parents weren't as obsessive.

The Weimar Republic was also about as stable as a jelly on a crashing X-Wing, and is surely a warning of the dangers of proportional representation.

the weimar republic could have worked if it were not completely doomed by the allies after the first world war. Germanys problems after 1918 all boiled down to the harsh sanctions put upon them in the treaty of versailles, if the weimar republic did not have so much to deal with, for example hyperinflation, increasing public unrest and trying to convince everyone that what they were doing was for the good of the country, then it may have been able to succeed. however with these problems the weimar republic was seen as a weak government. looking back on it now, its funny how the democracy that we try to impose on people now is the kind of thing that we managed to help destroy in 1939 when hitler gained power.

although i agree with your point about proportional representation being dangerous many people wouldnt, the advantages of proportional representation and the disadvantages are all really a point of view, depending on how near to the wings of the spectrum you are. proportional representation can only really work effectively if there are absolutely no radical elements within the electoral system i.e. no Hitlers, mussolinis, etc. (lenin doesnt count here as he actually took power through force.)

JediMaster12
11-13-2006, 11:13 PM
My second favorite is Averill Harriman as Ambassador to the United Nations in 1948, calling on the Jews and Arabs to stop fighting 'like Good Christians'.
Eh? Now that is dumb. Why do people keep referring to Jews as if they are a separate race? They are not. Jew is a religious denotation. It has nothig to do with the parameters that define ethnicity such as geography and topography. That's as bad as Hitler's master 'Aryan' race when really Aryan is nothing more than a linguistic thing. People you got me :xp:

Phision
11-14-2006, 12:11 PM
Eh? Now that is dumb. Why do people keep referring to Jews as if they are a separate race? They are not. Jew is a religious denotation. It has nothig to do with the parameters that define ethnicity such as geography and topography. That's as bad as Hitler's master 'Aryan' race when really Aryan is nothing more than a linguistic thing. People you got me :xp:

i agree, hitler made the mistake of classing Jews as another race rather than a religion, and look what happened there!!!

Totenkopf
11-14-2006, 01:17 PM
But the Bonn government has survived for almost 60 years now.


Right, 60 years AFTER WW2. The Weimar government, which I was referring to, was before the second world war.

@phision--Well, by 1939, Hitler had already consolidated his power and had a pretty firm grip on Germany. He actually gained power in the early to mid 1930s.

JediMaster12
11-14-2006, 07:00 PM
Hitler's gain to power was brilliant in my opinion. Sure he was a madman but the strategies he used were...good. His book Mien Kampf outlines what he did. It was smart of him to latch onto a war hero like van Leudendorf (forgive spelling).

I think that was part of our problem in Iraq. We tried to get them to write their own constitution, then in the very first true election after it was ratified, we didn't want the person the people had chosen.

If the terrorists and insurgents would leave them alone for even a month, it would work out. As it is I can forsee it breaking into four separate nations, and that would be both better and worse than what we have now.
What can I say. Even though Iraq was secularly ruled by Saddaam, the imams, or religious leaders were in control. You cannot force or even encourage democracy on a people whose religious principles suggest that democracy is the devil's own invention. True that there are Muslims who are progressive and think democratically but they are still Muslim meaning that they believe that there is no god but Allah and Mohammed is his prophet. They are still governed by Islamic law which comes from the teachings of the Koran and the hadiths or the sayings of Mohammed.

Jae Onasi
11-14-2006, 07:11 PM
What can I say. Even though Iraq was secularly ruled by Saddaam, the imams, or religious leaders were in control.

Actually, Hussein was very much in control. Any religious leader who openly disagreed with him had the propensity to 'disappear' or meet with a very unfortunate 'accident.' Iran has been run by religious leaders, though Ahmadinejab is certainly making things quite interesting.

machievelli
11-15-2006, 11:01 AM
the funny thing is Germany was almost completely opposite to Russia, in that, Germany was not ready for democracy, and russia was so ready for democracy that it had 4 or 5 different revolutions, some within the same year, and yet both still ended up in dictatorship.

About fifteen years ago PBS did a special called 'Peter Ustinov's Russia. In one scene he was supposedly talking to I believe one of the Alexanders. The Tzar in Question made an intersting comment about the Russians. He said that 'The Russian people want freedom, but that desire is balanced by a need to be led. If they have too much freedom, the almost always merely give away that freedom to whomever will promise them the most stability.

After the Russian Revolution, the Kerenski government collapsed after less than six months because they couldn't fix the problem in that time. The Bolshevik government fixed it easily. They merely arrested and shot anyone who complained.

JediMaster12
11-15-2006, 02:26 PM
True Jae but Saddaam's reach didn't go deep to where the nomads are. Even then, Islam plays a significant role in the Middle East. Plus we still have talk about Sunni Muslim insurgents and Shia counterattacks. Sounds like Islam still a major player.

machievelli
11-15-2006, 02:53 PM
Sounds like Islam still a major player.

What most of us in the west fail to realize, is that Islam teaches that there can be no just government unless Islam is part of it.The very idea of our own conutry, where any religion is allowed to practice is shocking enough, but to determine what is a crime and a suitable punishment by vote is to them absurd.

However we are attempting to set up a western style democracy, and there is going to be resistance to that. Add in the fact that the Shi'a and Sunnis have hated each other since around 635, not to mention the more conservative and radical members among either group and you have an explosive mixture. As it is, when the insurgency began, there were three factions by my count. There are now at least seven.

JediMaster12
11-15-2006, 04:40 PM
So true mach. I know that the conservatives think the US as the devil's resting place. Just thinking about democracy in Iraq reminds me of other times the US has interferred in other world events. It seems to me that each country we touch spoils it. Look at how screwed up some of the Latin American countries are after our interference and that was capitalistic reasons.

machievelli
11-15-2006, 05:20 PM
So true mach. I know that the conservatives think the US as the devil's resting place. Just thinking about democracy in Iraq reminds me of other times the US has interferred in other world events. It seems to me that each country we touch spoils it. Look at how screwed up some of the Latin American countries are after our interference and that was capitalistic reasons.


We can't take all of the blame JM, Democracy has not caught on in either South America or Africa. In South America it's because any decent democracy interferes with religions and the Catholic church has done more to screw it up than we ever did. Every revolution in the last 150 years in Mexico has been because the Church threw it's support behind the rebels instead of the government. I admit a lackluster foreign policy didn't help. But everyone south of us has used those nasty Americans as the evil empire long before Cuba went Communist.

As for Africa, some of the nations (England and France) never allowed the natives any real authority, so they ended up as dictatorships. Belgium, which has been accused of the worst excesses, at least gave full medical and education options to their citizens, and had administrators who were black, local and trained to keep things running after the Colonials departed.

Then of course the 'disenfranchised' slaughtered the educated, and blamed it on 'quasi colonialism'.

As for conservatives, the American liberals are worse. When someone calls you a liar because you use a study by an internationally renowned organization (SIPRI) and it doesn't agree with an Op-ed written by a political hack, you really asee how stupid a lot of Americans are too.

Remember, I read more history than anything else.

JediMaster12
11-15-2006, 09:29 PM
You got a point there. El Salvador went through a civil war with the whole liberation theology movement with Oscar Romero. The guy was originally a conservative but he became liberal after a member of the clergy was murdered for his beliefs. The Church mainatained a conservative view since Catholicism was the unofficial leader of the governenment.

That bit you mentioned with England and France is true too. The best example I have has to do with South Africa and apartheid. In 1948 the Afrikaaners came into power and instituted it as law of the land. Pre-WW2 the English did the same thing but then we all know that British imperialism was the thing in those days.

Darth InSidious
11-16-2006, 03:28 PM
Right, 60 years AFTER WW2. The Weimar government, which I was referring to, was before the second world war.

@phision--Well, by 1939, Hitler had already consolidated his power and had a pretty firm grip on Germany. He actually gained power in the early to mid 1930s.
IIRC, he'd consolidated power by 1934/5.

@phision: Weimar would have fallen eventually anyway, IMO. Yes, it faced economic problems, but these were also related to the general global trends of the time. Also, you do not mention in your argument the effects of having elections every six months or so, and the problems of the proportional system, which meant it was impossible to have a clear electoral victory. Couple this with a senile president and the 'Red Peril' obsession, and Weimar, in my opinion, could not have survived for much longer than it did.