Jump to content

Is Democracy the solution to all problems?


Abu

Recommended Posts

That's what they want you to think. Unfortunately, US motives for intervening in other countries are far less noble than that.

Sure our motives might be far less nobler then that but what u need to understand that we have helped stabilized Iraq, we might have went in with an ulterior motive but we still ended up doing some good

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure our motives might be far less nobler then that but what u need to understand that we have helped stabilized Iraq, we might have went in with an ulterior motive but we still ended up doing some good

List me all the good that you did do, opposed to the mountain of bad.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Philippe Arni
You didn't stabilize Iraq. You virtually destroyed it.

Exactly right my friend... Iraq was at least stable when Saddam Hussein was there... You did not need to fear entering a bus and feeling that it was about to blow up... YES he killed a huge amount of innocent people, but like I said the country will never be what it has been before, the country Iraq cannot be split up otherwise countries such as Iran and Turkey will claim some land and it will create more problems. Therefore, be careful (talking about ppl who are in favour of the war) with what you say....... Dn't get brainwashed by republicans... Read your HISTORY correctly! And you will understand the truth about the Iraq war.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure our motives might be far less nobler then that but what u need to understand that we have helped stabilized Iraq, we might have went in with an ulterior motive but we still ended up doing some good

I completely agree with Aboo.

The bad outcomes of this war outweigh the "noble" outcomes.

A survey has shown that 82–87% of the Iraqi population was opposed to U.S. occupation and wanted U.S. troops to leave.

If the U.S troops indeed stabilized Iraq then shouldn't the local people wish for your army to stay?

Link to post
Share on other sites

With the US forcing "Democracy" down everyone's throat, I'm forced to think, is democracy really the solution to everyone's problems? Actually, is it the solution for every country? A few case studies:

1. Iraq: Under Saddam Hussein's "Dictatorship", the country was actually running, there were relatively no suicide bombs, and the economy was actually stable.

2. Pakistan: Under the new democratic rule, the economy has tumbled down, bombings are on the rise. The economy has deprecated because they've allowed for a corrupt democratic government to me elected.

3. Afghanistan: Yes, this is an exception to the rule, the Afghans do have a better quality of life under Hamid Karzai but then again he is an American puppet.

4. Singapore, all the PMs are from the same family, which technically doesn't make it a democracy. It's a flourishing country.

Anyway by my observation, democracy works, yes, in the West. That does NOT mean that democracy must be forced upon everyone.

Thoughts?

No i do not think that democracy is the answer to all problems

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

The whole idea of robots is frankly absurd.

Ever watched Terminator? And even if you program them to keep in maximum population, it takes one ****ed up hacker to change the way robots think, and you might just have a large number of people at a life threatening risk.

Link to post
Share on other sites

cuz that's better than Hitler, Stalin, and more of Carrot Top. Right.

But seriously, YES I have seen the Terminator. Great action movie, but c'mon- let's away with the Frankenstein syndrome. The Skynet was created as an AI defense system not as the governing machine itself.

For sake of clarity, I say it should be based roughly on Asimov's 3 laws, but modified obviously to fit the protocol. So to Not harm humans, or by inaction cause harm. However, when there are two or more humans involved, the machine should use necessary force to stop such opposition between them. By necessary force I mean to stop the attacker, let's say from attacking, but not kill or seriously (as in permanently) damage the person.

and YES. I do mean Carrot Top is among the worst! Ever seen that guy without his bag of tricks? Dear Lord!

Link to post
Share on other sites

What if the robot decided that capitalism was evil because by having a class difference, some humans were harmed? But, say the resistance to a robot-enforced communist system was great, and many robots hurt many humans, and other robots saw this and decided to stop the robots from hurting the humans, and thus we have a three way war between two factions of robots and human guerillas?

The idea is simply absurd to program morals in to machines and hope that they can make sense of it. We'd be better off with an absolute dictator.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...