Assassination attempt on Hillary Clinton in Israel

[chickened]

Are you assuming that 'freedom' equals 'democracy'? If your government happens to do what you want it to do, would you not see that as freedom? Democracy would create the risk of people with whom you disagree taking power. Would you then want democracy? What about a regime that allows anyone to seek the Presidency provided that he has millions of Dollars to fund his campaign? Is that democracy?

Democracy alone is mob rule. A democracy needs a bill of rights to it's citizens in order to be successful... without it democracy is worthless that is why it will not work in the middle east. Those rights need be like ours... God given and inalienable as stated in our Constitution. The middle east is not ready to give those rights except Israel they already have them.

 

[thaiturkey]

Democracy alone is mob rule. A democracy needs a bill of rights to it's citizens in order to be successful... without it democracy is worthless that is why it will not work in the middle east. Those rights need be like ours... God given and inalienable as stated in our Constitution. The middle east is not ready to give those rights except Israel they already have them.

Democracy is government by the will of the majority. A mob is not necessarily a majority. So, the two are not the same. The 'bill of rights' in some Muslim countries is sharia law and that has nothing to do with democracy. It's their decision and no-one else's.

'God', even if one believes in such a thing, gave no 'rights' although one might assume that humans are entitled to some for other reasons. Any rights that one might have are granted by the society in which one lives. The rights of Muslims in the Middle East are different from the rights of other creeds and philosophies elsewhere but who is to say which is the more valid? So far as Israel is concerned, one might be drawn to the conclusion that the rights of Israelis and Palestinians in the same land are not equal.

We each have our own beliefs and views, some of which may emanate from childhood conditioning, but the world might be a more peaceful place if we respected the culture of others a didn't try to impose our own on them for the sake of domination and commercial gain.

 

[Gigiintheforest]

Are you assuming that 'freedom' equals 'democracy'? If your government happens to do what you want it to do, would you not see that as freedom? Democracy would create the risk of people with whom you disagree taking power. Would you then want democracy? What about a regime that allows anyone to seek the Presidency provided that he has millions of Dollars to fund his campaign? Is that democracy?

Completely agree with this, thaiturkey. We need to clean up some of our own messes and really understand all facets of a situation before we make generalizations. You know, the whole "glass houses" thing...

 

[chickened]

Democracy is government by the will of the majority. A mob is not necessarily a majority. So, the two are not the same. The 'bill of rights' in some Muslim countries is sharia law and that has nothing to do with democracy. It's their decision and no-one else's.

'God', even if one believes in such a thing, gave no 'rights' although one might assume that humans are entitled to some for other reasons. Any rights that one might have are granted by the society in which one lives. The rights of Muslims in the Middle East are different from the rights of other creeds and philosophies elsewhere but who is to say which is the more valid? So far as Israel is concerned, one might be drawn to the conclusion that the rights of Israelis and Palestinians in the same land are not equal.

We each have our own beliefs and views, some of which may emanate from childhood conditioning, but the world might be a more peaceful place if we respected the culture of others a didn't try to impose our own on them for the sake of domination and commercial gain.

I don't think you are looking at the bigger picture here. Indigenous displacement has been occurring for a millennia and peace is not found in an external environment but in the heart of a man.

If a mob of minorities rule what is the difference? they both are in control.

If sharia law is the rule in muslim countries what does that say for the rights of non-muslims? Representative government may be better?

It does not really matter from where your rights emanate but that they are equal to all regardless of your religious beliefs. I prefer to not put my rights in the hands of men or society but a higher power. Men are subject to depravity and will revert back to a primal state when things go wrong... or to get their way.

Many people come to this knowledge as adults.

 

[Gigiintheforest]

Democracy is government by the will of the majority. A mob is not necessarily a majority. So, the two are not the same. The 'bill of rights' in some Muslim countries is sharia law and that has nothing to do with democracy. It's their decision and no-one else's.

'God', even if one believes in such a thing, gave no 'rights' although one might assume that humans are entitled to some for other reasons. Any rights that one might have are granted by the society in which one lives. The rights of Muslims in the Middle East are different from the rights of other creeds and philosophies elsewhere but who is to say which is the more valid? So far as Israel is concerned, one might be drawn to the conclusion that the rights of Israelis and Palestinians in the same land are not equal.

We each have our own beliefs and views, some of which may emanate from childhood conditioning, but the world might be a more peaceful place if we respected the culture of others a didn't try to impose our own on them for the sake of domination and commercial gain.

Again, I so agree with you.

 

[Q9]

Are you assuming that 'freedom' equals 'democracy'? If your government happens to do what you want it to do, would you not see that as freedom? Democracy would create the risk of people with whom you disagree taking power. Would you then want democracy? What about a regime that allows anyone to seek the Presidency provided that he has millions of Dollars to fund his campaign? Is that democracy?

No, actually, that was my mistake. I meant to put democracy, not freedom. I'd never equate the two intentionally. In fact, historically, there have been instances where people were freer under a king than under a "democratic" government. Take a look at modern England, then compare it to England under King George III. In many ways, they were more free under King George than they are now under rule by themselves. A republic or democracy always runs the risk of the people being clueless, but a monarchy always runs the risk of the monarch being clueless. Thus, the absolute necessity of a constitution that strictly defines the government's powers.

In the MidEast, quite frankly, democracy is a recipe for adding another radical Muslim dictator, not freedom. It's just not in their culture. In a way, actually, they really aren't culturally ready for freedom, but trying to impose it at gunpoint impedes progress towards it.

 

[KristyHall]

Take Iraq as an example. Was it quieter under Saddam Hussein than it is now? We might not like his methods but they seem to be more the norm than democracy in the Middle East. Let them get on with it. The victors will still sell the oil.

Surely you don't believe the propaganda that claims Western attacks on Middle Eastern and other Muslim countries are intended primarily to make a better country for their citizens. They're intended to oust dictators who are beyond their sell by date for the West and ensure that remote influence over oil and militarily strategic territories remains secure. It's a strategy that seems to be only partially successful. Even the gullible and malleable Thai government is unimpressed by NASA's claim that it would establish only a weather station at U-Tapao is the full story.

Vietnam veterans will remember that U-Tapao was used as a base for Agent Orange bombing runs during the Vietnam War.

When I hear people say things like how we should invade another country/territory via military action to spread our government/religious ideals, you know for their own good, a few terms come to mind.

Manifest destiny

Imoerialism

 

[KristyHall]

Imperialism is what I ment. I had other things to say but I lost my train of thought fighting with the editor. It is very difficult to type and edit on this site with my tablet.

 

[Q9]

When I hear people say things like how we should invade another country/territory via military action to spread our government/religious ideals, you know for their own good, a few terms come to mind.

Manifest destiny

Imoerialism

Agreed. Nothing is more certain to turn people away from an idea than to push it on them by force - a lesson that a lot of people need to take to heart. As Ron Paul put it, democracy is best spread by example, and we're not setting a good example.

 

[KristyHall]

Agreed. Nothing is more certain to turn people away from an idea than to push it on them by force - a lesson that a lot of people need to take to heart. As Ron Paul put it, democracy is best spread by example, and we're not setting a good example.

I do agree. There are many things about some other cultures i find reprehensible ( particularly ones that invoove opression of women, abuse, slavery, and other human rights issues), but it would be arrogant of me to come over with a gun and tell them to change. The change must come from within that culture. I am not saying that we shouldn't make contact with people, exchange ideas, and offer education, health care, and aid. We just need to be careful not to become opressors through such exchangne of ideas.