Sinke, on Aug 12 2006, 12:25 PM, said:
a1s said that majority of people don't understand the "broaded" name for War on Terrorism. Look at his post where he gave that definition.
a1s, on Aug 11 2006, 11:41 PM, said:
a) everyone but a select few "intelectuals", understands 100% correctly what this is all about
as you can see, I said the
exact oposite. The other thing I said is that people like short catchy slogans. not because they don't get the longer versions, but because it's easier to remeber and bring up in conversation.
If you still don't see the difeerence consider the following scenario: I ask you to multiply 36 by 782, now I'm sure we all attended school and can do this with a piece of paper and pencil. but we would rather use a calculator.
both things we can do. but one is simpler.
Sinke, on Aug 12 2006, 12:25 PM, said:
As you probably know, some of the leading minds of Antics claimed that democracy is the worst thing which could happen to the nation.
um... no, I don't remeber any of the antic men claiming this. I do remeber Churchill saying that "Democracy is the worst system of government,
except for the others".
Sinke, on Aug 12 2006, 12:25 PM, said:
As for democracy, are you suggesting that Americans are using it's spreading as an excuse to invade other countries (similar what Soviets were doing with communism? ) I must admit that I sense a little "ant-american" irony in your post, like you want to say that "they are doing what conquerors were doing for centuries, alas, nothing can be done even with exploiting their practices".
you might. I'm pro-Israeli, but not necesarily pro-american.
Sinke, on Aug 12 2006, 12:25 PM, said:
Quote
SinkeIf the Western Democracy is using terrorism to be the best system in the world, I find it quite contraversal.
A1s,
the use or the being?
Both.
please elaborate.
Sinke, on Aug 12 2006, 12:25 PM, said:
What I wanted to say is that America said it is in war with all organisations which have killed more than one person in public. To me that is funny, since literally every human being, not just countries, is fighting against killing more than one person in public. ( What I mean by "fighting" is that 90% of people in this world would report if he/she had information about terrorist movement. ) Thus, "War on terrorism" is corrupt in theory, since it makes a false distinction of American policies ( which all of the sudden are in war with something called "terrorism" ). From that point of view, US can also proclaim "War on murder", claiming it will destroy anybody who preforms murder. Murder is usually in all cultures considered sinful or unlawful.
well how about if I proclaim a campaign to eliminate crime in my neighbourhood, is that corrupt too, just because we didn't like crime anyway?
Sinke, on Aug 12 2006, 12:25 PM, said:
With all respect, I disagree here. This is a thousand-year-old critic of democracy- that a vote of uneducated peasant is the same as the vote of Socrates. Democratic elections in all the world became a circus where political parties are organizing fireworks, festivals, parties and concerts in order to rise sympathy of voters. Nations lack "democratic mind", they aren't aware of their position and role in democratic society. They, not so much because of lack of education- but much more because they don't have will to "live political", are just putting their votes to parties which usually all say the same- that they will bring prosperity,peace, justice and income.
I will repeat- that is the whole point. Surely you see that throughout time the most competent people (or their children) allways governed the nations. if they were bad enough at this, theuy would simply be removed (be it by palace intrigues, revolutions, or impeachment). Democracy serves two purposes- to pacify the masses (since it gives them a sence that in some way this is their own fault) and to simplify the above mentioned removal procedure (thus making the government more responsive to the needs of the nation, or more precisely it's it's buisiness elite)
To deal with the abovementioned problem that an uneducated peasant has as much vote as Sacortaes, you can put this "Socrates" on TV and let him give his political analisys to the nation, if he's worth his salt he'll make the "peasants" vote for whoever he needs them to vote for, if he's not he doesn't deserve the additional votes.