Isn't it ironic?

[Zamdrist]

Ironic that this 'war' if if could be called that is in part being executed so that freedoms of speech, press and religion can be practiced. Ironic because the critics of this war have these rights now only becuase war was at one time the last best option to make those freedoms a relality.

Oh yeah, and Democracy is very much a Eurasian concept no? A Greek concept...not an imported American invention.

Food for fodder

 

[Bob_Bytchin]

Ironic that this 'war' if if could be called that is in part being executed so that freedoms of speech, press and religion can be practiced. Ironic because the critics of this war have these rights now only becuase war was at one time the last best option to make those freedoms a relality.

Oh yeah, and Democracy is very much a Eurasian concept no? A Greek concept...not an imported American invention.

Food for fodder

As a vet, husband of an active duty wife, son of a Vietnam vet, grandson of two WWII vets, great-grandson of four WWI vets, and descendant of over 20 people involved in the Revolution, I feel qualified in saying that your point is well taken, but not entirely true.

Whether you have served in the military or not, you are entitled to the freedom of speech. I may not like your or the next persons opinions, but that doesn't mean you aren't entitled to them or not allowed to express them.

Unwavering, blind following of a president/government under any circumstances is not patriotism. Patriotism is the love of your country. The two are not inclusive. Love for your country can include hatred for your government/president. I think we did hear a lot of this with our last president.

 

[peachykeen]

I don't think it's technically 'irony'. Will have to think about it.

 

[Problem Child]

Democracy is surely rooted in Greek history, but I believe we started really practicing it a bit before the Europeans.

 

[Zamdrist]

Re: Re: Isn't it ironic?

As a vet, husband of an active duty wife, son of a Vietnam vet, grandson of two WWII vets, great-grandson of four WWI vets, and descendant of over 20 people involved in the Revolution, I feel qualified in saying that your point is well taken, but not entirely true.

I'm simply saying it's ironic and am not passing judgement on anyone's beliefs. In fact I believe it's neccessary people oppose our government and are vocal about it.

'Speak out' is inheriently patriotic I believe.

 

[Zamdrist]

Democracy is surely rooted in Greek history, but I believe we started really practicing it a bit before the Europeans.

Oh I disagree. I'm certainly no European history expert but I do believe a lot of European governments and parliments were based on the concepts Greeks created.

My only point there really is that Democracy is not some export like McDOnald's or something, that it's very relevant outside this country.

 

[Problem Child]

How is this war about freedom of speech again?

Is Saddam going to shut down the NY Times sometime soon? Assassinate Brian Lamb?

Excuse me for not seeing the connection here.


There are tons of countries in the world that don't have our constitutional rights. Where next?

 

[peachykeen]

i·ro·ny ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-n, r-)
n. pl. i·ro·nies

The use of words to express something different from and often opposite to their literal meaning.

An expression or utterance marked by a deliberate contrast between apparent and intended meaning.

A literary style employing such contrasts for humorous or rhetorical effect.

Incongruity between what might be expected and what actually occurs: “Hyde noted the irony of Ireland's copying the nation she most hated” (Richard Kain).

An occurrence, result, or circumstance notable for such incongruity.

Dramatic irony.

Socratic irony.



That's what websters.com has got to say. I suppose it might fit under this bit: "An occurrence, result, or circumstance notable for such incongruity." But I'm still not 100% convinced.

 

[Zamdrist]

How is this war about freedom of speech again?

Agreed, it's a periphial reasoning. The people are are under a distatorship that does not foster free speech, press or religion.

No, that's not the gist or main reason behind the war.

 

[sexy-girl]

Democracy is surely rooted in Greek history, but I believe we started really practicing it a bit before the Europeans.

some guy called oliver was killing another guy called charles in 1661 in england


zam i agree it would be a good thing if they could have freedom of speech and press in america after the war ... to have news coverage unedited to be able to wear t shirts with political slogans or to travel without fear of arrest no matter what the colour of your skin

 

[CoolidgEffect]

I remember in the last war we were fighting for freedom and liberating Kuwait, a totaliterian dictatorship. Is this similar?

 

[Byron In Exile]

some guy called oliver was killing another guy called charles in 1661 in england

In 1661, Cromwell's body was exhumed and hung at Tyburn. His head was then cut off and put on public display for nearly twenty years at Westminster Hall.

It's one thing to cut off the King's head; it's another to make sure you don't just end up with a replacement.

 

[Bob_Bytchin]

Re: Re: Re: Isn't it ironic?

I'm simply saying it's ironic and am not passing judgement on anyone's beliefs. In fact I believe it's neccessary people oppose our government and are vocal about it.

'Speak out' is inheriently patriotic I believe.

I second that

 

[sexy-girl]

oops i got wrong year the point is cromwell killed the king and saved parliament although he did try to get rid of it again

 

[Bob_Bytchin]

How is this war about freedom of speech again?

Is Saddam going to shut down the NY Times sometime soon? Assassinate Brian Lamb?

Excuse me for not seeing the connection here.


There are tons of countries in the world that don't have our constitutional rights. Where next?

There's a lot of people on different pages I think.

I have however heard my fill of people implying that freedom of speech can only be used in their style of patriotism. To oppose their thinking is unpatriotic...and if you are unpatriotic you shouldn't have the freedom of speech.

I realize this is very vague, but this is on purpose because it can fit both sides of the coin.

 

[Byron In Exile]

oops i got wrong year the point is cromwell killed the king and saved parliament although he did try to get rid of it again

That's true. My point was that the monarchy was restored in 1660.

I'm certainly no European history expert but I do believe a lot of European governments and parliments were based on the concepts Greeks created.

The government of the United States is the oldest that survives based on the idea that the power to govern derives entirely from the people themselves, not from any person or class based on hereditary entitlement.

 

[Zamdrist]

That's true. My point was that the monarchy was restored in 1660.The government of the United States is the oldest that survives based on the idea that the power to govern derives entirely from the people themselves, not from any person or class based on hereditary entitlement.

Oldest surviving yes...not the first and not just an American invention. The point being that it's not unrealistic to think others outside America would benefit from Democracy.

 

[Bob_Bytchin]

Oldest surviving yes...not the first and not just an American invention. The point being that it's not unrealistic to think others outside America would benefit from Democracy.

Democracy in a pure form would shake many countries to their foundations. If the seeds of democracy spread to countries neighboring Iraq, maybe it will bring about some needed changes.

But that's in a best-case scenario I think.

 

[Byron In Exile]

Oldest surviving yes...not the first and not just an American invention. The point being that it's not unrealistic to think others outside America would benefit from Democracy.

We may have to discuss the terminology at this point, because despite the way American politicians like to talk about "democracy," the United States is a Constitutional Republic based on democratic principles, not a "democracy."

What Americans invented is a system that is viable, and has proven itself to be so for over two centuries. This in contrast to abortive European attempts to shake off their Kings, as in England 1649-1660, or France 1789-1799. France finally lost its last emperor in 1871 thanks to the Prussians. Britain still has a House of "Lords."

On the other hand, I'm not aware of any purely democratic system that's been implemented on a large scale. There are simply too many issues in a modern state of any size for people to vote on everything.

That said, exporting systems of government is a hazardous business. Often, people on whom a foreign form of government is imposed will shake it off the first chance they get, particularly if it isn't comprehensible to their culture.

 

[Byron In Exile]

Democracy in a pure form would shake many countries to their foundations. If the seeds of democracy spread to countries neighboring Iraq, maybe it will bring about some needed changes.

But that's in a best-case scenario I think.

Frequently, such attempts simply devolve into elective dictatorships, or a religious government is elected which disallows heretics from holding public office, etc.

Without proper constitutional safeguards, and the understanding and will of the people to ensure they're enforced, "spreading the seeds of democracy" can be a lot like building sand castles on the beach at low tide.

 

[Zamdrist]

We may have to discuss the terminology at this point, because despite the way American politicians like to talk about "democracy," the United States is a Constitutional Republic based on democratic principles, not a "democracy."

Ok, ok...let's call them 'Democratic Principles'.

Is there any defense to support a concept where, in general, 'majority rules' and 'representation by the people for the people' are not fair?

Who would be against that who wasn't only wanting power for themselves only? Theocracy?

 

[Byron In Exile]

Ok, ok...let's call them 'Democratic Principles'.

Is there any defense to support a concept where, in general, 'majority rules' and 'representation by the people for the people' are not fair?

Sure. If "majority rule" doesn't recognize basic human rights, it's nothing but a Hussein-style dictatorship run by the proletariat.

Who would be against that who wasn't only wanting power for themselves only? Theocracy?

Theocracy is one possibility. There are such things as benevolent dictators; Napoleon III was a good example. An authoritarian form of government doesn't automatically entail the abuse of human rights. The problem is that it offers no protection against it.

But if the majority of a population subscribe to a religion or philosphy which doesn't recognize human rights, or is opposed to the idea that the people are entitled to govern themselves, then an attempt to institute a democratic government amongst those people is a futile endeavor. They would simply elect religious or other authoritarian-minded leaders that agreed with that view and turn their new government back into the old one.

 

[Byron In Exile]

They would simply elect religious or other authoritarian-minded leaders that agreed with that view and turn their new government back into the old one.

Not that there's anything wrong with that sort of thing... lol

 

[Nora]

Not that there's anything wrong with that sort of thing... lol

*swoons* This is why I stalk Byron. He makes politics so darned sexy!

 

[Byron In Exile]

*swoons* This is why I stalk Byron. He makes politics so darned sexy!

Hi Noras!

*ding!* Another political thread hijacked by fluff!

What doin'?