-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Should democracy exist in the Middle East?
- Thread starter SD-Ness
- Start date
- Status
Phoenix
Member
Raoul Duke said:
If you think that oil is the only think that causes globallism, you're sadly mistaken. Globalism is related to open markets and international trade - oil (or in particular energy) is just a major factor that determines the others. Also, what makes you think oil production will end in 10-15 years?
midnightguy
Member
democracy should not exist at all. democracy = tyranny.
the U.S. is supposed to be a REPUBLIC. all truly free nations should also be republics.
the U.S. is supposed to be a REPUBLIC. all truly free nations should also be republics.
Late Stage Marxist
Member
The thread should have ended with this post. :lolPedigree Chum said:
Actually, the first peak oil theory concerned only US peak production, and it referenced the early 70's. OMG it was right!ToxicAdam said:
Current projections put the peak somewhere between 2004-2008. We could have technically hit it and not know for years. It's the kind of thing we'll only know in hindsight.
And what technological advances are you talking about?(note: this is the fun part!)
Raoul Duke said:
Amazing how we hit our peak 35 years ago and are still the 11th largest oil producer in the world. I wonder why that is ...
Anyways, :snip:
Mr. Hubbert predicted in 1969 that world oil production would peak around 2000. Current predictions, based on his theories, now range from anywhere from 2005 to 2036. (He drafted this chart in 1956.)
SOURCES: HUBBERT'S PEAK BY KENNETH S. DEFFEYES (2005); NUCLEAR ENERGY AND THE FOSSIL FUELS BY M. KING HUBBERT (1956)
:snip:
So, instead of presenting a rational timeline .. you decide to be sensational. Whatever.
Ash Housewares
The Mountain Jew
I'm still waiting for this democracy fad to end, the people are the last people I would want dictating policy or determining representation, the people are idiots
WrathOfOtaibah
Banned
I really hope we find alternate energy. The US is the largest consumers of their oil and they tell us to fuck off. I agree with them. Their economy will be hit hard.
Plus I give it 10 years before Saddam 2 or another 1979 Iranian revolution will take place in Iraq and Lebanon. 20 years tops.
Plus I give it 10 years before Saddam 2 or another 1979 Iranian revolution will take place in Iraq and Lebanon. 20 years tops.
Do The Mario
Unconfirmed Member
Boogie said:
good call
Guileless
Temp Banned for Remedial Purposes
Oil is not going to disappear in 10-15 years. There are still billions of barrels of known reserves, and there is oil left in the ground from previous wells that we presently do not have the technology to extract in a cost-effective manner.
It will eventually get more and more expensive to extract and the price will gradually go up to the point where it becomes economically feasible to consider alterntive energy sources. This process will begin in our lifetimes, but it's not going to disappear in 10 years.
It will eventually get more and more expensive to extract and the price will gradually go up to the point where it becomes economically feasible to consider alterntive energy sources. This process will begin in our lifetimes, but it's not going to disappear in 10 years.
Are you trying to be ironic? You picked two monarchs out of the thousands throughout history, the vast majority of them terrible. Maybe there's something to be said about a "good" monarch, but where's the part where you make sure they're good before you let them rule? Oh, there's not one.
Alyssa Hu$tle
Member
whytemyke said:
Yes, let's, shall we?
Going on from what you started to say Whytemyke, you have raised a very good point here. The British did kill far more native Americans than the Americans ever did as did they to the native Aborigines of Australia. They were of course, they country in power at the time. Who was going to stop them? The UN?
They invaded these countries, and saved these poor, uneducated souls, these heathens, these barbaric creatures with their backward and heathen ways. The English taught them their ways, showed them civilised ways, and Christianity, and saved them from the hell they didnt even know they were in until the English saved them. Sure, many died, as you said the population of American Indians was cut by over 80% before 1970, but the salvation that the English brought was well worth the sacrifice.
Today, it is America that is the country in power at the time. And it is America who has invaded another country, for Gods sake, who was going to stop them? The UN?
They have invaded Iraq, and it is America who is now going to show these barbaric Arab creatures with their backward and heathen ways, how they have taken the wrong path. America will enforce their ways, show them the Glory that is, no longer Christianity, but glorious Democracy, and save these people from the hell they didnt even know they were in until the Americans saved them. Sure, many will die, but the salvation that the Americans will bring will be well worth the sacrifice.
To answer your question Should Western countries like the United States push to spread their form of government - the "democratic republic" - throughout the Middle East?
Hell fucking NO.
You asked for my opinion Zero. Thats it.
RonaldoSan
Member
I don't understand the obsession with systems, religion and what not. If you really think that one tops another then you don't have any perspective. You see it's all about needs. We as humans are apparently born with a huge greed to serve our needs. When all our vital needs are covered we make up new ones.
No system is tailor-fitted to serve each individuals needs. No system is perfect.
In real life people make up the systems and not the other way around. If the system serves the peoples needs then why would they trade it for another?
America should mind their own business as should everyone else.
No system is tailor-fitted to serve each individuals needs. No system is perfect.
In real life people make up the systems and not the other way around. If the system serves the peoples needs then why would they trade it for another?
America should mind their own business as should everyone else.
Phoenix
Member
Raoul Duke said:
Oil can be replaced by any form of energy production that requires resources. Until we go all natural solar, resources of a sort will be required for energy consumption. This energy will be purchased and sold on a global scale. Oil does not determine globalism, it is only one of the variables.
RonaldoSan
Member
I live under democracy. Nothing tops anything because the "top-factor" is determined by people. People are different and are therefor incapable of being the same. We can't even agree on the entertaintment we enjoy so how would it ever be possibe for us to agree on a system that dictates our lives? You would probably prefer to live under system x and I would prefer system y. Every system was designed by someone from that persons perspective. Is he right? Is the system right? Is something right because someone thinks so? The perfect system for you would be your own system. It all comes down to our needs as I spoke of earlier.Guileless said:
Guileless
Temp Banned for Remedial Purposes
We're not talking about whether you prefer Family Ties or Three's Company or what toppings to put on your frozen yogurt. We're talking about how to organize society. Human nature doesn't change. We're no different from the people in Iran, or North Korea, or even the ancient Babylonians. We just live in vastly better societies, which is attributable to our core values--democracy, free markets, and the rule of law.
Only someone who has lived in a contemporary Western democracy his whole life could be so blissfully ignorant about the reality of human history. Our lives are a fantasy world compared to everything that's come before us. You could use some perspective.
Only someone who has lived in a contemporary Western democracy his whole life could be so blissfully ignorant about the reality of human history. Our lives are a fantasy world compared to everything that's come before us. You could use some perspective.
Instigator
Banned
Guileless said:
:lol
It's fine and dandy to have a "prime directive" attitude on how other people run their countries, but do you really want to sit back and let certain countries continue their ass backwards ways of treating women like slaves and cutting people's hands off for stealing?
Do you really want to let North Korea continue the way it is, with its thousands of people starving to death? I'm not saying that we should instill democracy in these countries, but they should be reformed else you are going to see grave humanitarian disasters continue.
Do you really want to let North Korea continue the way it is, with its thousands of people starving to death? I'm not saying that we should instill democracy in these countries, but they should be reformed else you are going to see grave humanitarian disasters continue.
bob_arctor
Tough_Smooth
Guileless said:
I'd say the odds are better than us installing a coherent democracy in Iraq, which isn't saying much.
RonaldoSan
Member
You can grade all the systems in any way you want and you still won't find the "better" system. I'm not talking about what nations/systems has accomplished throughout history or whatever. Do you as a member of a system care any less what kind of system it is if you get all your needs fulfilled? You said it yourself human nature doesn't change. Then why does it matter what system we're under or what rules we obey? You think there would be less (by definition) bad things under this system than the next one? The bad things aren't the systems fault it's the peoples.Guileless said:
Instigator
Banned
You're just naive, Guileless.
You assume Western countries got where they are because of their values. As if democracy was a magic seed that makes money grow on trees. Democracy is mostly a useful tool, one of many, to buy stability which is vital to any prosperous nation. Furthermore, the West has been fortunate in the last few centuries. 3 continents to expand into and two others to use as their playthings. That is the real secret to Western prosperity.
Singapore is nowhere near a democracy, yet it is incredibly prosperous. The Chinese are traditionally entrepreneurial and they have a long history of having a meritocracy in their bureaucracy. As long as they give people prosperity, the authority of the state is not challenged. China seems to be following the same model though it is on shakier ground considering the millions of poor people left out of the economic boom.
You assume Western countries got where they are because of their values. As if democracy was a magic seed that makes money grow on trees. Democracy is mostly a useful tool, one of many, to buy stability which is vital to any prosperous nation. Furthermore, the West has been fortunate in the last few centuries. 3 continents to expand into and two others to use as their playthings. That is the real secret to Western prosperity.
Singapore is nowhere near a democracy, yet it is incredibly prosperous. The Chinese are traditionally entrepreneurial and they have a long history of having a meritocracy in their bureaucracy. As long as they give people prosperity, the authority of the state is not challenged. China seems to be following the same model though it is on shakier ground considering the millions of poor people left out of the economic boom.
Ash Housewares
The Mountain Jew
Instigator said:
The west is successful because the west didn't have shit, everybody else had it, so the west had to get off their asses and go get some of the pie otherwise their food would be terrible
RonaldoSan
Member
You really nailed my point there. In reality it has more to do with bad leaders than systems. I'm all for making things better. I just think we need to start with the people instead of the systems and what not.ronito said:
Not that I don't love being sensational, but current projections actually put the peak somewhere in between 2005 and 2007(source: The Long Emergency by James H. Kuntsler, 2005 Atlantic Monthly Press. Specific sources are Kenneth Deffeyes of Princeton and Colin J. Campbell, retired chief of research for Shell Oil. When Big Oil's own research dude is telling you peak is about to happen... peak is about to happen!).ToxicAdam said:
Also, no known combination of natural gas, coal and tar sands, shale oils, ethanol, nuclear fission, solar, wind, water, tidal power or methane hydrates will allow us to continue life in the wasteful manner we have been living(Long Emergency again). So, what is the new technology that is gonna save us? Wish power?
Phoenix
Member
Raoul Duke said:
If what you suggest is true, and somehow the people sitting on the oil fields are THAT stupid to keep pumping out cheap oil instead of gouging the world for money for the next 10-15 years, that the country wouldn't almost immediately move to a biodiesel fuel base (what Exxon and company are just going to go belly up in 15 years?), that countries the world over would not immediately invade the middle east to ensure growth and prosperity for their own people - exclusively, that more nuclear reactors wouldn't be popping up all over the place, that emergency federal funding would not go finding an alternative fuel source, etc.
Then in 10-15 years I can all but guarantee you that the technology that will save us (being the US) is
because what you are suggesting is the collapse of modern society altogether as modern society requires fuel in ever increasing quantities in order to survive, grow, and prosper.
Kabuki Waq
Member
I dont thing democracy is working in the middle east considering the majority of the people dont want the US to be there :lol
Raoul Duke said:
Campbell is one of the few persons held in high regard that is coming out on the "low end". Not saying he is wrong or right, but it is what it is.
Obviously, there is no "magic bullet" to save us from our dependency. But all those resources you have mentioned, will prolong the inevitable. Further advancements in all of those fields, along with government "carrots" for old industry to switch over will buy us time.
Changes will be made, and we will succeed. History has shown that we (humans) have adapted to every crisis that has been thrown at us and prospered.
Guileless
Temp Banned for Remedial Purposes
So what is your point, that the West is prosperous because it was "fortunate" to expand to other contintents? What does "fortunate" mean? Was Spain merely "fortunate" to send a small group of conquistadors to conquer the entire Aztec empire? Why didn't Montezuma attack and subjugate Madrid instead? He wasn't "fortunate" enough? Were the British "fortuante" to erect a global trading empire instead of, say, the Chinese? How does being "fortunate" explain Western dominance?Instigator said:
Free markets do make money grow on trees in a way. You lend money, the borrower uses that capital to create new wealth, and he pays back the lender with interest. More is created from less. That's the reason we are here talking about videogames in our leisure time instead of working sunup to sundown in subsistence farming.
What is your conception of how wealth is created? What Third World country did Bill Gates plunder for his vast fortune?
Phoenix
Member
Kabuki Waq said:
Their wanting the US to leave has nothing to do with them wanting to accept democracy. The fact that they have a democratically elected government now speaks worlds for their love of a democratic goverment. If they didn't want one, they wouldn't be participating in the process - or at least not electing leaders who have every intent on keeping the goverment and the process democratic.
Phoenix
Member
Raoul Duke said:
I see no logical reason to assume that the collapse of society is coming, nor any to accept the proposals put forth that the oil will dry up in 15 years. No reason to accept that at all. He would have to be the Nostradamus of the oil world because NOONE is making any moves to suggest that this will happen in the next 15 years.
Nevertheless, if you like war - you'll get WW3 on the day that the oil dries up.
Guileless
Temp Banned for Remedial Purposes
Do you not think that fascism causes more "bad things" than liberal democracy? Do you like due process, equal protection, and the Bill of Rights at all? Do you want somebody like Hitler or Pol Pot ruling over you by fiat? Don't you think a system that grants the leader absolute power will eventually end up being abused?RonaldoSan said:
Liberal democracy is the best system because it is the only one that deals effectively with human nature. Leaders can't rule forever, and all of the laws apply to them. There is a free press to ensure this continues. Do you not understand why this arrangement is vastly better than what goes on in North Korea? I mean come on man this is pretty basic stuff.
Guileless said:
Ever read any Machiavelli? It's in the rulers best interest to appease the masses, first of all, for that is where the power to revolt has always historically been. Not one person here can say which monarch was good universally or bad universally. It's all relative. But if you take a look at the will of the people as a whole who felt so disturbed with the route of their government to actually make an attempt to change it from a monarch, you'll see that there are very few intances in history where the masses have actually been truly disillusioned with the monarch. Even the American masses were more than ready to name Washington as King after the Revolution. You may have tried to pull some punditry on my opinion here, by taking out one piece of it and attacking it instead of addressing the whole, but even your small ramble about what I said doesn't hold water. You say that the 'vast majority' of them were terrible, but you don't have any proof, and any proof you could present is completely unsubstantiated. Are they terrible by YOUR point of view? Well of course. Napoleon was terrible by modern opinion. But was it terrible by the peoples standards? It doesn't seem so.
Alyssa DeJour said:
Hahaha, you can't be serious. So if I said that we could improve humanity as a whole if we agreed to wipe out 5 BILLION people from the Earth now, well, then by your argument you'd be for it? This isn't just sacrificing a few for the good of the whole. This is sacrificing the whole for the good of the few. You're fucking insane.
Guileless said:
Well lets be honest here. You can't take out the worst cases of fascism and compare them to the best cases of Liberal Democracy. That's like these people that want to compare an Islamic country to a secular country like America and say that Western religions are more benevolent. If you want to compare an Islamic state to a Christian state, lets compare the Taliban to England in the seventeenth century. You'll see that there aren't many differences. If you want to compare a brutal fascist to a democracy, then lets compare it to either Indonesia, Iran... or how about Burma? All of these countries today are the result of Liberal Democracy. Same with Pakistan. The Taliban was wrought through Liberal Democracy. Is hitler any worse or better than the Taliban?
And the leader getting absolute power? Tell me how that's different from the American Presidency since Truman, where he's been given more or less free reign on the discretion of military usage? It's poor logic to say that Fascism will automatically lead to bad things and democracy will automatically lead to good things. And if you're going to use Fascism, use it fairly. There haven't been many fasicsts put into power without the consent of the people through your liberal democracy.
Would I personally prefer a liberal democracy? Yes. But not a system like the US's. Why should 51% of the people have more or less complete rule over 49% of the people? Ideally, you want a system like Australia's or France's, with the genius that was the bicameral house, and a multiparty system with multiple runoffs for the executive office, and having nothing more than a plurality of the people for the legislature with an independent judiciary.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked