Thread: Strike against Syria

Originally Posted by carlmaloschneider

I think the whole world just needs to do more surfing and more dope smoking, basically...

Originally Posted by carlmaloschneider

Maybe EVERY country should be Sweden; neutral with lots of chocolate, nice mountains and interesting looking cows?

Carl, You may be on to something here
Would the cows become even more interesting after the dope smoking

Originally Posted by Vegita182

When the president starts bypassing the constitution and assumes all the power, he becomes a dictator, so it would be a dictatorship. The people's, it's never going to get better, my voice doesn't matter. Is the reason this car has started veering off the road.

Yeah? Are you serious? You'd call it that? At danger of being labelled a bore, today (believe it or not) I listened to another documentary (it's true, I jest you not) that suggested the POSITIVE of a dictatorship is that it can respond to events with rapidity; without needing to seek (or seem to seek) the consent of the masses. I believe there may have been a negative. Can't remember what it was; though I'm sure it was important............might have been not being able to quickly undo wrong decisions, by way of 'needing to stand by them'...

Food for thought, hey?

I'm not sure exactly why I'm still up at 11:35 PM, just waiting for more bait, really...Which sort of plays in to the 'food' thing too :-)

Originally Posted by Brenngun

Carl, You may be on to something here
Would the cows become even more interesting after the dope smoking

COULD do, esp if you ask the question 'Where do cows come from' which was a question my brother once asked when partaking, when we were maybe 19, holed up in a motel room in the Flinder's Ranges. Really, it's quite a valid question. As valid as 'where do wars come from?' and 'what should we do about them?'

The answer to the first is 'us' and the answer to the second is 'us'.

When I say - what should we do about them, answer 'us' - I mean we, the way we are, is a solution. It's a VALID solution at least; it's not plausibly implausible, is it? We are both the cause of wars and the solution, we just need to tip the balance...just a little nudge...

At 11:45 on a work day I'm thinking at 12:00 I'll say something really interesting (or likely just rubbish (and inflammatory at that)), but maybe that's just a feeling I alone have...Like all the others; just feelings I have.

Originally Posted by carlmaloschneider

I listened to another documentary (it's true, I jest you not) that suggested the POSITIVE of a dictatorship is that it can respond to events with rapidity; without needing to seek (or seem to seek) the consent of the masses.

What is implied here is that the one individual who is doing the decision making is blessed with godlike wisdom and has nothing but the people's interest in mind. And where exactly have we seen that before? Who ever the author of that documentary is, I think he needs his head examined. Absolute authority works well in benign situations like wine tastings where you can benefit from the expertise of an individual who can fully explain matters in the proper context and the most you risk is a difference of opinion or end up with a sour glass of wine. When it comes to government, I will take the smallest and less intrusive one I can find. After all, does anyone here really believe that their leaders are more equipped to deal with the affairs of government than they are? Does anyone feel that their leaders are more likely to exhibit the wisdom they would if they were in their shoes? This thread stands as a monument to the failures of governments. Who are these wise people we would yield that authority to? I can't think of one. Food for thought? Maybe. But I bet you'll puke it up.

Nope, nothing interesting at 12:00...The feeling must have been flatulence...

I think this is the video you were talking about.

Originally Posted by OCDshaver

...After all, does anyone here really believe that their leaders are more equipped to deal with the affairs of government than they are?...

No. Not at all. If I were King for a day...

I think it (the documentary) also said the WRONGS were harder to undo; but at times they acted with rapidity to make the right decision, without the encumbrance (and let's face it, ignorance) of many.

I don't fully 'get' world events. I just (deep inside) want to work a plot of land, milk interesting Swedish cows and go bouldering (on second thoughts surfing in Sweden is a bit iffy). Oh, and chocolate.

While I scream at the TV (and fellow road users) and try to pass on (with gusto) my wisdom, I'm a little negative about my fellow humans to make a right decision re: 'electing'.

So, clearly, I must be said dictator, or it's just not going to work...

Originally Posted by carlmaloschneider

I'm very interested in what it IS then? Do we need a new designator and what should that be?

The United States isn't a Democracy, but rather a Federal Republic, and a Constitutional Representative Democracy . Most citizens of the US wouldn't be able to tell you this, so if you didn't know before, don't feel bad. This basically means we have a large central Government, a Constitution and through a Democratic process elect officials to handle legislation, which is the only democratic part of our nation. The sad part is that while sometimes legislative matters may come to a vote the citizens can take part in, it is only to show the elected officials for their area the general consensus the people have. If the elected official doesn't agree with the majority vote of his or her constituents, they can certainly vote the opposite direction. That is not Democracy.

Truly, so many of the citizens in the US are ignorant to the realities of what our nation really is and how it works. The fact that they can think that we are a Democracy and then turn around and during our Pledge of Allegiance recite " I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS; one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." is absolutely astounding. There have been changes to the wording over time, but one thing that has remained constant is "...and to the Republic for which it stands..."

Our Constitution was instituted to limit just how powerful the Federal Government can be, and to enumerate and protect what our founding fathers believed were "natural rights" or "God given rights". The whole system, as it was originally designed, was a beautiful, beautiful thing. Unfortunately, at least in my opinion, we as a nation have become ignorant and complacent and lazy and allowed our Government to have too much power and control. Strictly speaking, the only real control they have is defined in our Constitution or if not explicitly stated there determined by our Supreme Court. All other power and control they have is given to them because the general populous perceives the Government to have it, either through ignorance, laziness, apathy or cowardice.

Vegita182 was correct in saying that should the President overstep what the Constitution enumerates he is allowed to do, he would be acting in a tyrannical and dictatorial manner.

Originally Posted by crouton976

The United States isn't a Democracy, but rather a Federal Republic, and a Constitutional Representative Democracy . Most citizens of the US wouldn't be able to tell you this, so if you didn't know before, don't feel bad. This basically means we have a large central Government, a Constitution and through a Democratic process elect officials to handle legislation, which is the only democratic part of our nation. The sad part is that while sometimes legislative matters may come to a vote the citizens can take part in, it is only to show the elected officials for their area the general consensus the people have. If the elected official doesn't agree with the majority vote of his or her constituents, they can certainly vote the opposite direction. That is not Democracy.

Truly, so many of the citizens in the US are ignorant to the realities of what our nation really is and how it works. The fact that they can think that we are a Democracy and then turn around and during our Pledge of Allegiance recite " I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS; one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." is absolutely astounding. There have been changes to the wording over time, but one thing that has remained constant is "...and to the Republic for which it stands..."

Our Constitution was instituted to limit just how powerful the Federal Government can be, and to enumerate and protect what our founding fathers believed were "natural rights" or "God given rights". The whole system, as it was originally designed, was a beautiful, beautiful thing. Unfortunately, at least in my opinion, we as a nation have become ignorant and complacent and lazy and allowed our Government to have too much power and control. Strictly speaking, the only real control they have is defined in our Constitution or if not explicitly stated there determined by our Supreme Court. All other power and control they have is given to them because the general populous perceives the Government to have it, either through ignorance, laziness, apathy or cowardice.

Vegita182 was correct in saying that should the President overstep what the Constitution enumerates he is allowed to do, he would be acting in a tyrannical and dictatorial manner.

Beautiful. I'd like to think I would have written a response like that if I wasn't at work typing on this infernal smart phone keyboard at a snail's pace.

There are definite benefits to a dictatorship. From a military and governmental standpoint it is much easier to get things done and decisions can be made and implemented quickly versus the cumbersome democratic process which allows everybody to have a vote, either they or through their chosen representative, like America. Just in case anybody was confused, we are a republic in the USA, which is a FORM of democracy, but not a true democracy. Maybe now in this age of technology, everybody could have a voting APP on their smartphone and get to vote on every single decision. Then we would be a true democracy. But I digress.

The downside to dictatorship is that the old adage of power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. If Adolph Hitler had been only slightly less of a dictator and listened to his more seasoned and experienced commanders it is quite possible that WWII would have had a very different ending.

I actually like the story of the word dictator. This is much abbreviated, but in general terms this is how it goes. In Roman times, there was a war. The Senators (those who speak) asked a man named Sulla to raise an army and fight. He did so and after victory he told the senators that Rome needed a standing professional army. They disagreed. Later they called on him a second time, and again he raised an army and won the war. Then, during his triumphal procession he didn’t stop at the forum steps, instead marching into the building with his army at his back and basically laying down the law as to what was going to happen. The members were incensed and said “You cannot tell us what to do! We are the Senators, the ones who speak for the people!”

Sulla gestured to his Soldiers and said “Since I have the army and you don’t, I am the Dictator (the ONLY one who gets to speak).”

As for Syria, I will say that I am 99% sure that I am the only person on this forum with any real knowledge of what is going on over there, having just completed a 6 month rotation to Jordan recently, and am being told I will be going back soon. Without going into any great detail which I can’t and won’t for several reasons, it is safe to say that President Assad is a bad man. He should probably be replaced. Having said that, there are many other bad people in the world in charge of countries (North Korea springs to mind). I will let people research on their own the reasons behind the current civil war and the history of the region, i.e. its relationships with Palestine, Israel, Jordan; the religious makeup of the country as well as its cultural demographics; the rise and influence of the neo-Baathist party (which we replaced and outlawed in Iraq) and the atrocities committed by the government. If he is removed from power, who would take his place? Would they be more or less friendly to our (the US and our allies) interests. Remember, at one time we wanted to stop the expansion of Shi’a influence brought on by the Ayatollah Khomeini’s reign in Iran and we backed a young man who was our staunch ally in the region with money and material named Sadaam Hussein.