Guest eureka Posted August 2, 2004 Report Share Posted August 2, 2004 I think you made a big step there in that you agree that the conditions for democracy must come first, and that you do not deny various forms of democracy. The problem then becomes establishing the conditions for democracy. What are those conditions? A degree of stability is certainly one. A governing structure is another. However, we are still on the wrong track since the "Coalition: is only interested in pursuing the conditions for a democracy that is similar to ours. That is, imposing a market economy and a competitive economic system on a people whose every religious and social belief runs counter to that. We are a long wat from establishing conditions for anything other than continued violence and, possibly, civil wars, until we take into account the customs, history, and wishes of the Iraquis. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted August 5, 2004 Report Share Posted August 5, 2004 Just to clarify something from an earlier post: KrustyKidd wrote: Yes, I like the Canadian stlye better, however, if you are in the middle of a war zone and on the fly, the US one will do quite nicely until things get down to some sort of normalicy in a few years. Myself, I prefer it to say Communism or a theocracy, even a Monarchy. Well, Canada is a monarchy. How can you claim to like the Canadian system over the U.S. system, yet also say you prefer a U.S. republic over a monarchy? A little contradictory. Iraq was a monarchy until the king was assasinated in 1958. I've heard some debate on whether they will ever return to that system, but personally, I have my doubts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KrustyKidd Posted August 5, 2004 Author Report Share Posted August 5, 2004 How can you claim to like the Canadian system over the U.S. system, yet also say you prefer a U.S. republic over a monarchy? Canada is a Parliamentary system not a Monarchy. 1967 was the year it changed. In reality though, we are a proportionate-elected- representative-dictatorship. Meaning that once every four years you get the one opportuinty to be free for a few moments in the voting booth. The remainder of the time, you live under the boot of the party in power wether yu elected them or not. When people cite polls of Iraqis and how so many percent want this or that you have to remember, more than half of us don't like our government either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KrustyKidd Posted August 5, 2004 Author Report Share Posted August 5, 2004 However, we are still on the wrong track since the "Coalition: is only interested in pursuing the conditions for a democracy that is similar to ours. That is, imposing a market economy and a competitive economic system on a people whose every religious and social belief runs counter to that. Let's build the track first, then let the people that are running the railroad figure out exactly what they want to run on it. We are a long wat from establishing conditions for anything other than continued violence and, possibly, civil wars, until we take into account the customs, history, and wishes of the Iraquis. And you would just give up right? How is that getting anything closer to peace and self rule? Do you not think that security and the establishment of a voting system might be kind of benificial in order to allow Iraqis to determine what form of democratic government they want? I mean, you have to start somewhere, why is it so terrible to oigionate with the style the US uses and then allow them to formulate it into whatever style they want? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted August 6, 2004 Report Share Posted August 6, 2004 Canada is a Parliamentary system not a Monarchy. 1967 was the year it changed. Perhaps this isn't the thread to get into a debate on Canada's system of government, but.... Canada is a monarchy. Our constitution (still in effect, as far as I know) states: "The Executive Government and Authority of and over Canada is hereby declared to continue and be vested in the Queen." This is from the Constitution Act, signed by Elizabeth II and Trudeau in 1982.(http://www.solon.org/Constitutions/Canada/English/ca_1867.html Section III.9) We have a monarch bound by a constitution-- this makes us a constitutional monarchy. As for our voting system, the near-dicatorial powers of the government, and the unproportional representation that comes with it-- I couldn't agree more. However more than 1/2 the U.S. doesn't back George Bush either. I sure hope Iraqis will get a better handle on democracy than the majority of us in North America seem to have. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KrustyKidd Posted August 6, 2004 Author Report Share Posted August 6, 2004 Perhaps this isn't the thread to get into a debate on Canada's system of government, but.... Canada is a monarchy. Whatever you say it is. Though the king or queen may be regarded as the government's symbolic head, it is the Prime Minister who actually governs the country. CIA Factbook confederation with parliamentary democracy Here, want to get technical, I suppose we are really a theocracy. Whereas Canada is founded upon the principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted August 6, 2004 Report Share Posted August 6, 2004 Whatever you say it is. Well, its not me who says it. It's the constitution that makes Canada a kingdom. Though the king or queen may be regarded as the government's symbolic head, it is the Prime Minister who actually governs the country. Absolutely. The PM is our head of government. The Queen, and Governor General as her rep., are our heads of state. The PM governs. The Queen and GG hold executive power. I prefer this to the U.S. system where the head of gov. and head of state are the same person. confederation with parliamentary democracy Again, absolutely. Canada is a constitutional monarchy formed from a confederation of nation/provinces under a federal parliament. Whereas Canada is founded upon the principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law Well-- I guess that means we recognise the constituion is the law which, among many other things, makes the Queen the Queen of Canada; and that god is above us all, Elizabeth II included. Can we be a theocracy when no specific god is mentioned as the supreme power over Canada? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest eureka Posted August 6, 2004 Report Share Posted August 6, 2004 I agree, and have said that some degree of stability must be established. That, clearly, woulld involve elections and a governing structure. However, I cannot agree that it could "start" with an American style of "democracy." That style is offensive to the whole Muslim world and would bring a continuance of the mathem and anarchy for generations to come. America has been called the GReat Satan and that is how it is viewed now throughout Islam. The Great Satan means not the anithesis to God as so many seem to think. It means the Great Tempter: the force that would seduce Muslims from the beliefs and practises of their religion and customs with its promise of material goods and its "dog-eat-dog" idea of democracy. This is what is wrong with trying to force "democracy" as we see it. It cannot be. We can do no more thanbring peace and security and let them find their own way. Unfortunately, America will not let it happen until the realization that the world is not made for the exploitation of Halliburton and others. America's oligarchy with the compliance of its administration, do not want democracy in Iraq in spite of the preaching. It wants oil and opportunity for exploitation. Until that drag is removed, there is not the slightest chance of any form of democracy for Iraq. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KrustyKidd Posted August 6, 2004 Author Report Share Posted August 6, 2004 The PM governs. The Queen and GG hold executive power. Uncle! You win, we are a monarchy and the Queen is our head of state. Canada's Head of State supports Iraq war. Canada's Prime Minister does not. Queen Lizzie (To the troops) "May your mission be swift and decisive, your courage steady and true, and your conduct in the highest traditions of your service both in waging war and bringing peace." Jean (Pontificating on under what circumstances he would join the US in war) "A proof is a proof. What kind of a proof? It's a proof. A proof is a proof. And when you have a good proof, it's because it's proven." That pretty much sums it up. We stay out of a War because we have a democracy while the Queen waves tally ho! Still, you are technically correct and I was wrong, thanks for tuning me in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted August 6, 2004 Report Share Posted August 6, 2004 Uncle! You win, we are a monarchy and the Queen is our head of state. Sorry KrustyKidd-- I didn't mean to sound like I was trying to shout you down. I was just trying to make some facts clear. Canada's Head of State supports Iraq war. Canada's Prime Minister does not. I'm going to try and state some facts about this too. Firstly, Elizabeth II never 'supports' anything due to her own personal opinion. She is the symbol of the state, and therefore will always 'support' whatever the state wants. She does this normally by following the advice of her ministers-- the elected reps. of the populace. So-- contrary to what you wrote, Canada's head of state did not 'support' the Iraq war. The Queen of Canada's Governor General followed her Canadian ministers' advice and did not sign a declaration of war against Iraq. Britain's head of state did 'support' the Iraq war. The Queen of Great Britain followed her British ministers' advice and did sign a declaration of war against Iraq. New Zealand's head of state did not 'support' the Iraq war. The Queen of New Zealand's Governor General followed her New Zealand ministers' advice and did not sign a declaration of war against Iraq. Australia's head of state did 'support' the Iraq war. The Queen of Australia's Governor general followed her Australian ministers' advice and signed a declaration of war against Iraq. And so on. Thus, there was no contradiction by her wishing, as Queen of the UK, her British troops godspeed in Iraq while having her Canadian troops sit this one out. The woman may be the same, but the Crowns of which she is sovereign are not. Hope this tunes you in a little more. As for Jean Chretien-- nobody can ever be more tuned out than him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Blue Machine Posted August 6, 2004 Report Share Posted August 6, 2004 I think the US should install a new dicatator, one that they can control. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theloniusfleabag Posted August 8, 2004 Report Share Posted August 8, 2004 Dear Hugo, 'Benevolent dictators' are few and far between, but it comes down to who makes law. Is an Emperor or a monarch a 'dictator'? If so, and I believe it is, history is rife with both good and bad ones. Dear Big Blue Machine, I think the US should install a new dicatator, one that they can control.I suspect you are being facetious, for they have yet to find one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Blue Machine Posted August 9, 2004 Report Share Posted August 9, 2004 Its just a suggestion. If democracy doesn't work in Iraq, then the Americans should put in a new dictator. That's what I think. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugo Posted August 9, 2004 Report Share Posted August 9, 2004 'Benevolent dictators' are few and far between, but it comes down to who makes law. Is an Emperor or a monarch a 'dictator'? If so, and I believe it is, history is rife with both good and bad ones. That depends upon the powers of the emperor or monarch. If absolute, as in Tsarist Russia, then yes, invariably these men (and women) were tyrants. Perhaps you can name an absolute monarch who was nothing but kindness and benevolence, but I don't think you can. Even the 'great' monarchs had the blood of innocents on their hands. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted August 10, 2004 Report Share Posted August 10, 2004 Is an Emperor or a monarch a 'dictator'? It depends on the set up of the government. In most monarchies these days the king or queen is bound by a constitution. This is the case in Canada where the Queen's powers are laid out in the constitution (both in written form and convention). She is only the Queen of Canada because the Canadian constitution makes her. Should the king or queen abuse these powers then the government can remove the monarch. The Emperor of Japan is in a similar situation, though the constitution Japan 'adopted' after the end of WWII reduced the emperor's powers to basicly nothing. So, a constitutional monarch or emperor cannot automatically be seen as a 'dictator'. However, an absolute monarch, which I believe Morocco has, has no limit to their powers, and so could be compared to a dictator. Iraq had a monarch before, and there is no reason why they could not set up a new constitutional monarchy. I believe there are still decendents of the assasinated king out there somewhere.... But, as I said before, I doubt the U.S. would let that happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theloniusfleabag Posted August 10, 2004 Report Share Posted August 10, 2004 Dear g-bambino, Thanks for you input, I have not spent a lot of time looking into the nuances of 'constitutional monarchies'. Interesting, though, that Iraq was 'formally' formerly a democracy. Saddam Hussein was the democractically elected leader of Iraq. The elections were a farce, of course, with Saddam claiming not only 100% of the votes, but also 100% voter turnout. However, the US cannot claim it was 'instituting democracy' as a new idea to Iraq. They should have said 'fair elections' instead. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest eureka Posted August 10, 2004 Report Share Posted August 10, 2004 Interestingly, there is a movement to restore the monarchy to Iraq. The heir to the throne is one who has been taking a part in the talks for the reconstrucion of Iraq though lately, of course, circumstances have put any new institutional set-up om the back burner. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Blue Machine Posted August 19, 2004 Report Share Posted August 19, 2004 Iraq's first prime minister will probably be killed by one of those terrorists. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.