This topic is locked
And guess what's inside it
Posted 03 July 2013 - 08:20 PM
http://www.nytimes.c...wanted=all&_r=0
Egypt’s military on Wednesday deposed Mohamed Morsi, the nation’s first freely elected president, suspending the constitution, installing an interim government and insisting it was responding to the millions of Egyptians who had opposed Mr. Morsi’s Islamist agenda and his allies in the Muslim Brotherhood.
What...again?
The Purple Dinosaur.
Posted 03 July 2013 - 09:24 PM
So, let's review Absolutism/Monarchial/Colonial times versus "democratic" times:
Rule of the Pharaoh: Thousands of years of prosperity, creation of iconic wonders of the world that last to this very day.
Rule of the Romans: Prosperity, injunction of Roman idealisms and trade of culture from two separate corners of the then known world.
Rule of Hellenistic: Creation of Alexandria, a wonder-city of vibrant trade and a cooperative society of different cultures coming together to culminate a great example of Western and Eastern cultures cooperating.
Rule of the Ottomans/Khedivate: A time of modernisation, protection from Imperialism, and an uplift of the Egyptians to modern civilisation by way of a fast-track civilisation under Muhammad Ali and his descendents to ensure independence but still an equal standing with the European powers, and a nation stretching from the Ottoman province of Adana to the far reaches of the Sudan, as well as a suzureignty over the Hedjaz, Medina and Mecca, the centres of the world of Islam.
Rule of the British: Stabilisation, order, creation of the Suez Canal, and installation of the ideals of order.
That was basically the advent of Egypt to the creation of the modern-day Egyptian state, sans the times of Presidential dictatorship (e.g. after the ousting of the Egyptian king). Now, let's examine the last two years:
Rule of Democracy: Twelve months of chaos, looming military coup's, and fraudulent democratic elections by fraudulent democratic 'peoples' that use the military to oust their opponents when they don't get their way. Also, looming economic bankruptcy and little voice in the face of the chaos of the Islamic world, instead turning its back and hiding like a frightened puppy even though it has the population- and the historical right- to intervene as a mediatary as much as the Turks do.
Yeah, no, I'm sticking with my notion that the monarchist and absolutist and colonial times were twelve-thousand times better than this. This is just pathetic, and below the Egyptian standard of cultural strength and intelligence.
The guy who changes his obsesions way too often.
Posted 04 July 2013 - 11:04 PM
So, let's review Absolutism/Monarchial/Colonial times versus "democratic" times:
Rule of the Pharaoh: Thousands of years of prosperity, creation of iconic wonders of the world that last to this very day.
Rule of the Romans: Prosperity, injunction of Roman idealisms and trade of culture from two separate corners of the then known world.
Rule of Hellenistic: Creation of Alexandria, a wonder-city of vibrant trade and a cooperative society of different cultures coming together to culminate a great example of Western and Eastern cultures cooperating.
Rule of the Ottomans/Khedivate: A time of modernisation, protection from Imperialism, and an uplift of the Egyptians to modern civilisation by way of a fast-track civilisation under Muhammad Ali and his descendents to ensure independence but still an equal standing with the European powers, and a nation stretching from the Ottoman province of Adana to the far reaches of the Sudan, as well as a suzureignty over the Hedjaz, Medina and Mecca, the centres of the world of Islam.
Rule of the British: Stabilisation, order, creation of the Suez Canal, and installation of the ideals of order.
That was basically the advent of Egypt to the creation of the modern-day Egyptian state, sans the times of Presidential dictatorship (e.g. after the ousting of the Egyptian king). Now, let's examine the last two years:
Rule of Democracy: Twelve months of chaos, looming military coup's, and fraudulent democratic elections by fraudulent democratic 'peoples' that use the military to oust their opponents when they don't get their way. Also, looming economic bankruptcy and little voice in the face of the chaos of the Islamic world, instead turning its back and hiding like a frightened puppy even though it has the population- and the historical right- to intervene as a mediatary as much as the Turks do.
Yeah, no, I'm sticking with my notion that the monarchist and absolutist and colonial times were twelve-thousand times better than this. This is just pathetic, and below the Egyptian standard of cultural strength and intelligence.
Objectively speaking you have a point.
While Monarchy and Tirany (dont know if I spelled it right) are far more efficient systems they as not as moraly acceptable. We all know what pre-revolution France was like, an empovered mess.
Democracy in itself is the ideal system, were it not for the people. As George Carlin once stated polititians don`t suck, the public does. Today`s democracy is basicly what I like to call the Monarchy of the weak. A democracticly elected president has all the powers and rights as a run-of.the-mill dictator.
The difference being that the evil dictators rose to power with the power of their vision, army and ideals. Even if they were horrible people. The perfect example of this is Hitler. The man was a psycho in every respect (I hope it`s not a problem if I bash Hitler). His vision was horrible. But this sick and twisted man turned a country that was destroyed by the WWI into the Nazi war machine and nearly conquered Europe. He was a man who had a strong character and a vision. A horrible character and an awfull vision.
That is what the evil power hungry dictators are like. Now lets look at our nice and freely elected presidents. The way they gain power is by making promises and posters. The curious thing is also the level of power security. While a dictator knows he will remain in power for as long as he is alive or until there is a revolt a president does not have that advantage. Most countries have an election once every 4 or 5 years. And in that time the president will ussualy remain focused on how to keep the power rather than using it while the dictator knows he will remain and thus focuses more on keeping his promises and actually working.
And ultimately it all comes down to why work so hard to keep the power? Power in itself is something we all desire by nature. But more than power the polititians desire money, which consequently brings more power. They realise that if they loose their position they will ultimatly have to live a job and become somewhat ordinary citizens.
So what is the perfect goverment system? A system where the polititians get paid absolutely nothing. That way people who choose this line of work will do it for the country rather for their profit. They would get provisions but no fancy mansions. Second there should be no secrets. Who is the government to hide something from its own people? Everything should be on public area and no zones should be strictly off limits to the general population.
Friend: Striker, have a snickers
Striker: Why?
Friend: Because you turn into a rotten anarchist when your hungry.
Striker: Tnx (eats)
Friend: Better?
Striker: Better.
Well since I kinda went off topic I would just like to finish up by saying that they were probably better off before. These new democratic presidents wil not relinquish their power or money under any circumstance. Would any of you? Sadly they were deceived by the propaganda of democracy being spread by the west. Im from a western democratic country and I don`t feel in charge. Do you?
Thank you for reading my anarchistic rant.
OTP: NaruSaku; Favorite crack pairing: NaruIno
Runner-ups:AstridxHiccup (How to train your dragon),SusanxReed, WallyxKuki (Kids next door); AshxMisty; ThorxSif
Elite Teacher
Posted 05 July 2013 - 06:15 AM
So, let's review Absolutism/Monarchial/Colonial times versus "democratic" times:
Rule of the Pharaoh: Thousands of years of prosperity, creation of iconic wonders of the world that last to this very day.
Rule of the Romans: Prosperity, injunction of Roman idealisms and trade of culture from two separate corners of the then known world.
Rule of Hellenistic: Creation of Alexandria, a wonder-city of vibrant trade and a cooperative society of different cultures coming together to culminate a great example of Western and Eastern cultures cooperating.
Rule of the Ottomans/Khedivate: A time of modernisation, protection from Imperialism, and an uplift of the Egyptians to modern civilisation by way of a fast-track civilisation under Muhammad Ali and his descendents to ensure independence but still an equal standing with the European powers, and a nation stretching from the Ottoman province of Adana to the far reaches of the Sudan, as well as a suzureignty over the Hedjaz, Medina and Mecca, the centres of the world of Islam.
Rule of the British: Stabilisation, order, creation of the Suez Canal, and installation of the ideals of order.
That was basically the advent of Egypt to the creation of the modern-day Egyptian state, sans the times of Presidential dictatorship (e.g. after the ousting of the Egyptian king). Now, let's examine the last two years:
Rule of Democracy: Twelve months of chaos, looming military coup's, and fraudulent democratic elections by fraudulent democratic 'peoples' that use the military to oust their opponents when they don't get their way. Also, looming economic bankruptcy and little voice in the face of the chaos of the Islamic world, instead turning its back and hiding like a frightened puppy even though it has the population- and the historical right- to intervene as a mediatary as much as the Turks do.
Yeah, no, I'm sticking with my notion that the monarchist and absolutist and colonial times were twelve-thousand times better than this. This is just pathetic, and below the Egyptian standard of cultural strength and intelligence.
In defense of democracy I would like to note that while Morsi was elected democratically, the reason he was removed from power was because he was trying to revert Egypt back into a dictatorship.
To be honest I'm glad Morsi is gone, I never liked him and I though that the US would be at war with Egypt in a few years because while Mubarak wasn't the ideal leader, he was someone who we could work with. and it is my hope that Egypt elects someone who is more pro western ideals like the Shaw of Iran was, or at the very least gets someone like Mubarak who we could work with.
The Purple Dinosaur.
Posted 05 July 2013 - 02:42 PM
I like how everyone is hoping for a 'Pro-US' person, instead of a 'pro-Egypt'-first guy. Kinda tells you about the state of people these days.
The guy who changes his obsesions way too often.
Posted 05 July 2013 - 03:05 PM
I like how everyone is hoping for a 'Pro-US' person, instead of a 'pro-Egypt'-first guy. Kinda tells you about the state of people these days.
Honestly anyone who leads a country should kinda treat america like a distant cousin. Sure its there but you dont have to be its slave.
The era of the US world police is comming to an end since most people these days are tired of their bull, especially the Americans since the Snowden events. And by the time he`s done America will be far too busy trying to explain themselves to their own people, to bother countries like Bolivia.
OTP: NaruSaku; Favorite crack pairing: NaruIno
Runner-ups:AstridxHiccup (How to train your dragon),SusanxReed, WallyxKuki (Kids next door); AshxMisty; ThorxSif
Elite Teacher
Posted 05 July 2013 - 07:41 PM
I like how everyone is hoping for a 'Pro-US' person, instead of a 'pro-Egypt'-first guy. Kinda tells you about the state of people these days.
Well excuse me for hoping that in the future the U.S. and Egypt can be allies in a region where most nation are Anti-US.
Just because someone can be Pro-US doesn't mean that they can't be Pro-Egypt, look at the Shaw of Iran, he was a Allie of the US and he was without a doubt Pro-Iran, it was his personal mission to bring Iran into the 20th century because he knew that the people Iran would be better off living in a modern society than living in the stone age.
Also sorry about my double post, my computer was messing up on me 
.
The guy who changes his obsesions way too often.
Posted 05 July 2013 - 08:44 PM
Dont you think its better to live in a messed up system of your own creation than in a messed up system some dude with an armada of Abrams tanks and F-22 fighter jets forced apon you?
OTP: NaruSaku; Favorite crack pairing: NaruIno
Runner-ups:AstridxHiccup (How to train your dragon),SusanxReed, WallyxKuki (Kids next door); AshxMisty; ThorxSif
Elite Teacher
Posted 05 July 2013 - 10:47 PM
Dont you think its better to live in a messed up system of your own creation than in a messed up system some dude with an armada of Abrams tanks and F-22 fighter jets forced apon you?
First, so you are saying that Germany was better off under Adolf Hitler because he was democratically elected Chancellor of Germany back in 1933? because I believe the Jews would argue against it.
Second, I never said anything about military force being used in Egypt, yes the Egyptian military did preform a coup but they did not seize power, they quickly appointed the head of the Supreme Constitutional Court and it was declared that a special election will be held to elect a new leader, and like I said earlier, I'm hoping that the people of Egypt elect someone who we in the western world can call an ally, preferably someone like the Shaw of Iran who could keep other nations and Islamic extremests at bay, and help form some semblance of peace in the region.
The guy who changes his obsesions way too often.
Posted 05 July 2013 - 11:31 PM
First, so you are saying that Germany was better off under Adolf Hitler because he was democratically elected Chancellor of Germany back in 1933? because I believe the Jews would argue against it.
Second, I never said anything about military force being used in Egypt, yes the Egyptian military did preform a coup but they did not seize power, they quickly appointed the head of the Supreme Constitutional Court and it was declared that a special election will be held to elect a new leader, and like I said earlier, I'm hoping that the people of Egypt elect someone who we in the western world can call an ally, preferably someone like the Shaw of Iran who could keep other nations and Islamic extremests at bay, and help form some semblance of peace in the region.
You missed my point. I said that a man like Hitler can do more for his country than a weak man. Im not justifieing him in any way he was a horrible person. Im just saying that it takes strenght of character to do something big (like stop the world crisis).
I see I was to subtle with my hints so I will just tare off the bandage.
Edited by StrikerTheNoble, 05 July 2013 - 11:32 PM.
OTP: NaruSaku; Favorite crack pairing: NaruIno
Runner-ups:AstridxHiccup (How to train your dragon),SusanxReed, WallyxKuki (Kids next door); AshxMisty; ThorxSif
Elite Teacher
Posted 06 July 2013 - 01:18 AM
You missed my point. I said that a man like Hitler can do more for his country than a weak man. Im not justifieing him in any way he was a horrible person. Im just saying that it takes strenght of character to do something big (like stop the world crisis).
I see I was to subtle with my hints so I will just tare off the bandage.
Heavy Anti-USA Rant. Be warned
First of all the president is not the supreme leader of the United States, the United States Government is divided into three branches that have equal power, the Executive (the President), the Legislative (Congress) and the Judicial (the Supreme Cort), this is important because the President and the Supreme Cort can not create laws, that is the job of Congress or more specifically the House of Representatives, if a bill passes the House then it goes on to the Senate, who can pass it as is, change and pass it back to the house to approve changes, or they can simply not pass it at which point the bill dies right there, but if it passes the House and Senate then it goes to the President who can sign the bill into law or veto it and sent it back to congress who can amend the bill and pass it or if 66% of the House and 66% of the Senate agree to it they can over turn the President's veto and pass the bill into law, once a bill is signed into law the only way to repeal it would be for A): a bill to be passed through congress and signed into law that abolishes said law, or B): if it contradicts the Constitution of the United States then it can be brought before the Supreme Court of the United States, and if it is found to violate the Constitution then it is struck down and immediately removed from law. It was set up this way so that one branch of Government did not become too powerful.
Second, the United States is the First Nation to Abolish Slavery, while there were no slaves in Europe (manly because there was not enough room for farms large enough to warrant slaves), European nations still allowed Slavery in their colonies, England still allowed Slavery in India and Australia and I think in Canada too.
Third, about the cold war, tell me who was the aggressor in the Korean war, the Communist North who invaded South Korea, Vietnam was pretty much the same deal, North Vietnam invaded South Vietnam.
Four, about Snowden, I was actually in favor of him, though my support waned when he stated talking about the U.S. spying on Russia, because we spy on every nation, and every nation spies on us, it's nothing new. But I as a Libertarian and a Constitutionalist believe that what the NSA is doing is Unconstitutional.
And last, about the US minding our own business, you mean like we were doing prior to September 11th 2001?, we hadn't had troops in the Middle East in 20 years (unless you want to count the times Clinton bombed Iraq for manufacturing Weapons of Mass Destruction).
I'm not going to sit here and tell you that the US is a perfect nation, no nation is, but based on the fact that the US economy is the best in the world even during a depression, and the fact that someone at the poverty line in America is better off the 85% of the rest of the world. we must be doing something right over here
The Purple Dinosaur.
Posted 06 July 2013 - 02:47 AM
Slavery was abolished in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in the 1500's; at that time, the Commonwealth was a democratic monarchy of joint ethnicities. The British Empire abolished it in the 1830's, with a build-up process that lead all the way back to the roots of the "American" "Revolution". The British became interested in the movement to abolish slavery far before Brown even thought of attacking Harper's Ferry, Hell, even farther back than when he was born. Two of the main underlying causes of the 'revolution' was the threat of taxation by the home-country, from whence every single subject in the colonies were from, and the threat of the growing British abolishionist movement, which was seeing high-favour amongst socialites. The American Revolution was not over the idea that the British were 'steal money from the fair peoples of America', but that the 'Founding Fathers' were repulsed by the idea that they had to do their duty to their country by paying fair taxes so that the CRown could pay debts Britain incurred defending the colonies from the French in the French-Indian War. So, in short, you're wrong. America isn't a perfect nation, it isn't even a nation; it's a British nation captured by terrorists, for the purpose of slavery and disenfranchisement of others in favour of a corporeal elite. Is it so far-fetched that the world can see it on a different side of the coin? Face it; your so-called 'history' is nothing but a pack of lies by racist sociopaths who won only because it suited the French and Spanish to intervene. Without the French and Spanish kingdoms intervening to help the colonists, British ships and armed forces could have easily been brought over to stop the Sons of Liberty from terrorising the colonies, and setting up illegal junta's and lynches against taxmen.
I say this topic should be locked, before a flame-war occurs.
Edited by Kamina-Yoshi, 06 July 2013 - 02:50 AM.
Heaven and Earth Deity
Posted 06 July 2013 - 03:46 AM
I say this topic should be locked, before a flame-war occurs.
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users
