Thread: Who will you vote for?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I like Ron Paul's views, that I know of, aside from his foreign policy views. But I think that what we are doing in the Middle East right now is our most important issue. I also think that the future of the world will be much better if we stay long enough to allow Iraq and Afghanistan to be stable democracies. I really believe that if we left right now, we we would look like punks to the Middle East and would be in far more danger and would end up having to go right back to fight a much more difficult fight.

Bin Laden has said that his confidence in declaring war on us and pulling the 9/11 attacks came from our withdrawals from Vietnam and Somalia. That is exactly why he called us a "paper tiger". He excited a lot of recruits with that talk. I think that looking like we are wussing out of this big world stage event would add so much confidence to Islamofascism that the mess would only get much bigger, no matter where our military goes or does not go.

And you may be exactly right. Therein lies a point of uncertainty that I'm not afraid to admit. On the other hand, our occupation may add just as much fuel to their fight. Is it any mystery that the underdog usually fights the hardest? In that region of the world, we are seen as the oppressors - the occupiers. That, I think, is one of the biggest galvanizing factors in any resistance, which is what the radical-islamists (I really don't like the term islamo-fascists) feel they are fighting. If theses guys have any sense at all - and they have proven themselves as intelligent, in the militant sense - their fight has nothing to do with the goal of completely overthrowing us, or "killing us all." I am, to this day, not sold on the idea that they are simply "killing us for our way of life." I believe that that is a factor, yes, but I think that idea is being thrown around as a more propaganda than realism. I could be wrong, sure, but I'm just not sold on it.

While we are over there, they have nothing to lose. They are being imposed upon (from what I believe is their perspective) and that will simply cause them to fight and recruit all the more fiercely. The longer our forces are over there, the longer we are diverted from the threats - born of their very resistance - that are being expanded on, in other regions. Our not "wussing out" is also being interpreted by much of the world as our "throwing our weight around," and the further the world's view of our actions slip into the negative, the easier they will be able to recruit for their cause.

It works both ways. The ambiguity lies in which of these are actually the concepts that will play out, over time. So I do see logic in both sides of speculation.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

So now you want to say that it's all about an oil conspiracy and therefore could not possibly result in a future of Afghani and Iraqi freedom?

Are you putting words in my mouth? Or better yet are you LYING?!

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

It works both ways. The ambiguity lies in which of these are actually the concepts that will play out, over time. So I do see logic in both sides of speculation.

You are talking about a very real factor. A perspective on this comes down to which of the two factors one thinks is stronger than the other one.

I see the terrorists as being like rioters, to use an analogy. They just "riot" with guns and bombs and are trying to get their hands on WMD's, and they riot by targetting masses of innocent people for death. This riot could be seen analogously as like several types of riots in one. The rioters are pissed because their baseball team lost the championships tournament, because Guns "N" Roses did not finish their concert, and because the city's police keep beating up the people they arrest and finally really crossed the line by beating up a large group of people who were already rioting because of their baseball team and Guns 'N' Roses, and the police insist they were acting in self-defense. So now the cops are at the riot scene to deal with the baseball and concert riot factors, and to deal with the factor of a group of rioters' being beaten up, and now also because there are even more rioters because even more cops have shown up and are seen as behaving unjustly over all of the first stuff that was happening.

At this point, people can say that it was the police support for the baseball team (non-Islam) and Guns 'N' Roses (Israel) that got the rioters hating the cops (the United States). But the cops can say they had to show up and that they have dealt with the situation the best way they know how. People can also say that the big riot lunacy, part of which involved the bombing of a police precinct, really started after the cops got involved and beat up rioters, and therefore the cops should just leave the riot scene and everything would be fine. The argument the cops will use is that there was a problem with the rioters before the cops ever got involved, that they had to get involved for the good of the city, and that leaving now would not take away the other reasons they are so hated. Rioters and outsiders will say that the police presence is really pissing people off and bringing in more rioters, and that would be true. However, the police would say that even though that is the case, if they just leave the riot scene, it will be seen as a police defeat and that people will really go berzerk and have the biggest riot in history, one that will take place without police presence where the rioters will declare attacks on police precincts all over the city as well as the rest of the city.

My stance is that the cops will be letting the biggest riot nightmare of all time happen if they just leave. Their presence is attracting more pissed off rioters, but their withdrawal will bring about all out Hell in the city. Cops should never leave a riot scene once they have shown up at it, even if their presence is attracting more rioters.

Originally Posted by jaasum

Are you putting words in my mouth? Or better yet are you LYING?!

There was a question mark at the end of my sentence. I was asking. What is your answer?

Ron Paul does seem like the little guy in this election. I hear he doesn’t have nearly enough funds as Clinton or Giuliani. maybe that sense of a simpler America will appeal to voters.

From Universal Mind
I think a factor that really makes the difference in whether a person becomes a terrorist is growing up under severe poverty and oppression. A person who is willing to die just to kill a bunch of innocent people and make Allah so happy that the sick murderer gets to bang a bunch of virgins is a factor that comes from trememdous hopelessness and despair. They hate life and have nothing to live for, so the idea of dying a "heroic" and "holy" death becomes very attractive to them. That is why I think the creation of true democracy will lead to widespread prosperity, positivity, and fun that will affect the masses and will eventually soak up the terrorism factor like a big sponge. That is one of the number one philosophies of the war on terror, and I think it makes sense. But also remember that we are not just trying to scare those who are already terrorists. We are there to kill them. And after they die, they don't reproduce. So we are killing the terrorists and preventing the conceptions of their potential future offspring while planting seeds that will grow into the end of the poverty and despair factor that breeds the terrorism tendency all over the region. Once Iraq and Afghanistan become independent democracies and later very successful and powerful democracies, I think they will start working on the rest of the Middle East. That is why I think what we are doing in the Middle East right now very well might turn out to be the beginning of the most important thing that has ever happened.

This is where I diverge with your views, Universal Mind. I do not believe that Democracy guarantees prosperity at all. Instead, Democracy only provides the best chance for a prosperous outcome, and it could be one in a million given the utter lack of economic potential in certain countries. Prosperity is gained by economy, and if a certain region has too few resources, it has only a tiny chance of prosperity, regardless of its government.

In the case of a country like Iraq, with oil as its sole resource, it is necessary to nationalize the industry, or else the only prosperous people would be those who worked for the private oil companies. In a case like this, Iraq's most prosperous form is a welfare state, but the lack of Sunni representation in the government guarantees that oil revenue will not be distributed evenly until the rift is corrected, which would take decades at least, decades of economic poverty and despair, the seeds of terrorism. When oil becomes uneconomical for the western world, within a few decades, Iraq's oil will be worthless economically. Whether sectarian violence would increase or decrease after a withdrawal is anyone's guess
(and there are good reasons to believe it would decrease), but global terrorism would continue to rise as long as the US remained.

Until we leave, we will be doing the same job that Saddam Hussein was doing: tamping down violent revolts in his country amidst an unfair distribution of oil profits.

Originally Posted by R.D.735

This is where I diverge with your views, Universal Mind. I do not believe that Democracy guarantees prosperity at all. Instead, Democracy only provides the best chance for a prosperous outcome, and it could be one in a million given the utter lack of economic potential in certain countries. Prosperity is gained by economy, and if a certain region has too few resources, it has only a tiny chance of prosperity, regardless of its government.

In the case of a country like Iraq, with oil as its sole resource, it is necessary to nationalize the industry, or else the only prosperous people would be those who worked for the private oil companies. In a case like this, Iraq's most prosperous form is a welfare state, but the lack of Sunni representation in the government guarantees that oil revenue will not be distributed evenly until the rift is corrected, which would take decades at least, decades of economic poverty and despair, the seeds of terrorism. When oil becomes uneconomical for the western world, within a few decades, Iraq's oil will be worthless economically. Whether sectarian violence would increase or decrease after a withdrawal is anyone's guess
(and there are good reasons to believe it would decrease), but global terrorism would continue to rise as long as the US remained.

Until we leave, we will be doing the same job that Saddam Hussein was doing: tamping down violent revolts in his country amidst an unfair distribution of oil profits.

I agree that democracy only provides the best chance of economic prosperity, but I think any form of it will be much better than what has been in that region. There are different ways democracy can be used, and some forms bring more prosperity than others. Low taxes are one of the key factors.

There are going to be issues regarding how the oil in Iraq and Afghanistan will be used, and that oil will end up being irrelevant in upcoming decades. However, a country does not have to originally possess the resources that are the center of its trade. Businesses can buy resources from other countries and market them in their own countries as well as other ones. Exxon and Texaco are American countries, but they get most of their oil from the Middle East. A lot of American made products are sold in European countries by European companies. Bananas don't grow in the United States, but bananas from Honduras are sold to American companies who sell the bananas here. There are tons of examples of that sort of thing. A company does not have to limit itself to products made from resources in its own country. Plus, natural resources are not the only type of business resource. People can make movies, music, toys, computer software, technological devices, and zillions of other things. I think Iraq and Afghanistan both have excellent shots at allowing business to grow, even without a good supply of natural resources in those countries, which will allow the countries to prosper. When that happens, the suicide bomber mentality will really start to calm down.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3lkKyaj1GF4

In order to get something and resell it, something must be traded first. A person may trade five dollars for an apple, then sell it for six. Provided that some original asset existed, the person may "generate" additional assets. Iraq has such an original asset.

Running an entire country's economy in this way is doomed to failure, however. If one relies on heavily marking up the items one sells, there will be a large incentive for your customers to shop factory-direct, which is easy in a world where items may be shipped globally relatively cheaply. Another country's economy could easily depend much less on such mark-ups, and could easily eviscerate this service economy with lower mark-ups. Other trade conditions may have equally deleterious effects.

In order to maintain economic stability, creating prosperity and eliminating the desperation that drives terrorism, such a country requires at least some portion of its economy to be based on production and self-sufficiency.

Originally Posted by R.D.735

In order to get something and resell it, something must be traded first. A person may trade five dollars for an apple, then sell it for six. Provided that some original asset existed, the person may "generate" additional assets. Iraq has such an original asset.

Running an entire country's economy in this way is doomed to failure, however. If one relies on heavily marking up the items one sells, there will be a large incentive for your customers to shop factory-direct, which is easy in a world where items may be shipped globally relatively cheaply. Another country's economy could easily depend much less on such mark-ups, and could easily eviscerate this service economy with lower mark-ups. Other trade conditions may have equally deleterious effects.

In order to maintain economic stability, creating prosperity and eliminating the desperation that drives terrorism, such a country requires at least some portion of its economy to be based on production and self-sufficiency.

That theory suggests that there would be a limit to the markups, but not that business cannot grow, especially when you consider the long list of unnatural resources that any country can use. If you stripped the United States of all of our natural resources, I can guarantee you that we would still be the wealthiest nation in the world. Are most of our business products natural resources any way? It is not our natural resources that do the trick for us. It is our economic system.

Thats an odd way of thinking seeing as how our debt proves we are one of the poorest countries in the world. We are like the wild guy living off a credit cards. He has a huge house, fancy cars and is 200,000 dollars in debt. Sure it looks good but you can only fool yourself for so long.

Originally Posted by Alric

Thats an odd way of thinking seeing as how our debt proves we are one of the poorest countries in the world. We are like the wild guy living off a credit cards. He has a huge house, fancy cars and is 200,000 dollars in debt. Sure it looks good but you can only fool yourself for so long.

It's not like other countries are going to make us suddenly give it up all at once and be third world. We have a fortune. The fact that we owe a fortune does not mean we do not have a fortune.

Besides, I was talking about capitalism in general, particularly in terms of how it will affect the future of Iraq. What do you think about that?

America is oft-considered the wealthiest nation because of the average wealth of its citizens, though the American government carries massive debt. Around half of this debt is owed to foreign entities. Though this is a burden on the government and not economically sound, America's citizens are, for now, still very wealthy, if you don't count the country's debt as the collective debt of its citizens.

From Universal Mind
That theory suggests that there would be a limit to the markups, but not that business cannot grow, especially when you consider the long list of unnatural resources that any country can use. If you stripped the United States of all of our natural resources, I can guarantee you that we would still be the wealthiest nation in the world. Are most of our business products natural resources any way? It is not our natural resources that do the trick for us. It is our economic system.

What are our non-natural resources? We certainly do possess great amounts of intellectual capital--technology, software, educated citizenry, etc--and have been successful because of it. Does this invalidate the postulate that assets must be leveraged for greater gain, and that stable assets are most important?

Does Iraq have any non-natural assets? Are they at risk of destabilizing events?

No, most of our debt is owed to the federal reserve.

Originally Posted by R.D.735

What are our non-natural resources? We certainly do possess great amounts of intellectual capital--technology, software, educated citizenry, etc--and have been successful because of it.

I am talking about the types of resources you mentioned. Once the snowball gets rolling, which is easy to make happen, it keeps rolling and keeps getting bigger.

Originally Posted by R.D.735

Does this invalidate the postulate that assets must be leveraged for greater gain, and that stable assets are most important?

The leveraging is an advantage, but I have seen plenty of businesses do very well without such advantages.

Originally Posted by R.D.735

Does Iraq have any non-natural assets? Are they at risk of destabilizing events?

I am not sure what all they have now, but with the right economic system, they can trade with other countries and create their own technologies.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I don't think he is in league with Al Qaeda. I just think he agrees with them about what American foreign policy should be and says things that inadvertently work as an advertisement for their cause. He says exactly what they want said to the public, and I have yet to hear him say a single thing bad about them. Can you find such a video? If Al Qaeda could vote in the United States, they would unanimously vote for Ron Paul.

Where do you get any of your information? In his latest video, Bin Laden says that the entire point was to increase U.S. debt by unprecedented war spending.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I agree with Ron Paul on domestic issues, as far as I know, but he is so far out of this solar system with his foreign policy views that there is no way I would vote for him. Harry Browne was the Libertarian candidate for president in 1996 and 2000. He was almost superhuman when it came to understanding and offering solutions to problems. I thought he was the greatest candidate of all time, until I came across his foreign policy views. He was on a talk show saying we should not go into Iraq. The host said that the Hussein regime was trying to find a way to make nuclear weapons, and Browne's response was, "The United States has nuclear weapons." That mentality made him so dangerous that there was no way I could support him. Foreign policy is way too important of an area for a candidate to be wrong.

The U.N. had already established that Iraq had no nuclear weapons. You are acting like it was already proven that he had them.

Ron Paul, while I disgree with him on several unmentionable issues, is the best candidate because he listens to reason and the U.S. constitution. For instance, he doesnt believe abortion is a morally responsible choice, but he would make the legislation of it more of a local issue, supporting community choice when it comes to a very unclear and somewhat ambiguous moral dilemma.

Any candidate that openly supports reducing the concentration of power in Washington also supports the removal of a massive apparatus that is radically corrupt.

Redistribution of power from federal to local = freedom

From Universal Mind
The leveraging is an advantage, but I have seen plenty of businesses do very well without such advantages.

I would like to hear more about this. Do they become successful without assets to trade, or do they become successful by creating new assets? How is that accomplished? Examples?

From Universal Mind
I am not sure what all they have now, but with the right economic system, they can trade with other countries and create their own technologies.

Superb idea. Now, how does one ensure that the people we liberate choose the economic system that is best for them? As far as I know, even America has trouble managing its own economy, let alone the question of what is best for a foreign nation. Is it enough to appoint a government of our choosing for the people we liberate and let them figure out the economics by themselves? Do we provide economic aid to such a country indefinitely until they are prosperous? Should we provide aid to all democratic nations that are not prosperous, or only those we have invaded?

Originally Posted by R.D.735

I would like to hear more about this. Do they become successful without assets to trade, or do they become successful by creating new assets? How is that accomplished? Examples?

There are already businesses in Iraq. Businesses were there even under the horribly oppressive Hussein regime. With a free market and the ability to trade with the already prosperous nations of the world, a person takes a little bit of money he has made off his business and buys resources from other nations if necessary, like bananas from Honduras, computer software from the U.S., compact discs from American and British recording companies, etc. Then he sells those products for his already existing business. As a result of his business expansion, he makes more money. Then he takes that money and expands his business even more. The process continues. Sooner or later, some of such people become tycoons. The snowball keeps getting bigger and bigger in many cases. As their businesses expand, they hire more and more people, who thereby make more money and also can climb the company ladders and make even more money. Then they have more money to spend and, as a result, buy more, which helps other businesses, who as a result expand more. The process keeps going. That is why low taxes allow economies do so well. Israel is next door to Iraq, and their business scene rocks. How did they do it?

Originally Posted by R.D.735

Superb idea. Now, how does one ensure that the people we liberate choose the economic system that is best for them? As far as I know, even America has trouble managing its own economy, let alone the question of what is best for a foreign nation. Is it enough to appoint a government of our choosing for the people we liberate and let them figure out the economics by themselves? Do we provide economic aid to such a country indefinitely until they are prosperous? Should we provide aid to all democratic nations that are not prosperous, or only those we have invaded?

With democracy comes a good economic system, some better than others. A population will only allow so much socialism when they are in charge of their own government. Some democracies have horrible economic systems compared to the United States, but they are still excellent compared to what was in Iraq and Afghanistan and other totalitarian states where the economy has large chains on its legs. I have a strong belief that Iraq and Afghanistan can be at least as well off as even the poorest of democracies in Europe. That mere accomplishment would make such a difference in the suicide bomber mentality that that alone would make the current wars worth it for thousands and thousands of years and probably the rest of the time humans live on Earth.

Originally Posted by memeticverb

Where do you get any of your information? In his latest video, Bin Laden says that the entire point was to increase U.S. debt by unprecedented war spending.

Bin Laden said he attacked the United States partly because of our presence in the Middle East. He wanted us to leave. In his letter, he calls for us to leave the Middle East. He does not invite us to remain in the Middle East and fight a war. He expresses a completely different desire. In the Zarqawi death videos, the victims always were forced to plead to the United States to leave the Middle East. Nobody ever pleaded with the United States to fight insurgents. We know Al Qaeda was pissing fire that we overthrew the Taliban and the Hussein regime. They thought we would retreat right away, like we did in Somalia and eventually did in Vietnam. Bin Laden said that in a video and said that that is why he labelled us a "paper tiger". Things did not go like they planned.

Originally Posted by memeticverb

The U.N. had already established that Iraq had no nuclear weapons. You are acting like it was already proven that he had them.

Where did I say anything even remotely like that? Seriously. Where did I ever suggest that the Hussein regime had nuclear weapons? They were working on them. That is what I said.

I know you see the danger in an enemy suicide bomber supporting government having nuclear weapons. It doesn't take too much imagination to see the horrific problem that would exist there. The Hussein regime was physically working on nuclear weapons at one time, and Israel had to bomb the factory. What we were dealing with was serious stuff, to make a vast understatement.

By the way, the U.N. also was one of our sources saying that the Hussein regime had other WMD's. And many of the types of weapons the U.N. said the Hussein regime did not have are weapons we found in Iraq soon after the invasion.

But like I said, I agree with Ron Paul on probably everything else. I am almost 100% libertarian on domestic issues.

So, given some pre-existing but finite asset base, economic prosperity arises by the trading of those assets for some other asset, which is then sold at a mark-up to generate a profit. Just like Wal-Mart. I agree entirely that this is possible. But is it feasible for an entire country to be prosperous in this way?

Foreign trade relations could create massive economic effects, easily provoking wars. Given that foreign countries are usually competitors, there is a high risk of conflict breaking out. And in the aftermath of war, we are back to square one of the prosperity game.

From Universal Mind
With democracy comes a good economic system, some better than others. A population will only allow so much socialism when they are in charge of their own government. Some democracies have horrible economic systems compared to the United States, but they are still excellent compared to what was in Iraq and Afghanistan and other totalitarian states where the economy has large chains on its legs.

It is agreed that these economies had large chains on their legs. Perhaps they were self-imposed, but is it not true that Iraq struggled through decades of economic sanctions, imposed by democratic nations? An interesting fact, indeed. Economies are vulnerable to foreign influence.

Compare those economic flops with a nation like China. China is hardly a democracy, yet its economic system is booming. China is a far greater economic power than most democracies. Does a country's mode of government really decide its economic system? Does it really determine the country's prosperity, or simply the evenness of its prosperity?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

We have a fortune. The fact that we owe a fortune does not mean we do not have a fortune.

Umm yes it does. If you owe a fortune it means exactly that, that you don't have a fortune. Now while saying the people of the country and the government are different is a good point, theres two major flaws in this case. The first being that the average american is also in debt, and so are not wealthy either. And secondly the US dollar is backed by the faith in the us government to cover it. If the government goes bankrupt, everyone holding their wealth in dollars is going to be greatly impacted by it, and theres a good chance they may lose it all.

Originally Posted by R.D.735

Foreign trade relations could create massive economic effects, easily provoking wars. Given that foreign countries are usually competitors, there is a high risk of conflict breaking out. And in the aftermath of war, we are back to square one of the prosperity game.

Wars are not fought over mere economic competition. Economic competitors have reasons to trade with each other and do not try to make each other surrender militarily so the other one will stop trading with other nations. Democracies are almost always allies. Even when they are not, they don't feel the need to go to war with each other. Every war I can think of involved a fight against a lack of freedom.

Originally Posted by R.D.735

It is agreed that these economies had large chains on their legs. Perhaps they were self-imposed, but is it not true that Iraq struggled through decades of economic sanctions, imposed by democratic nations? An interesting fact, indeed. Economies are vulnerable to foreign influence.

Sanctions did hurt Iraq, but it was mainly the dictator that hurt Iraq. Countries with better systems would be able to withstand such sanctions far better.

Originally Posted by R.D.735

Compare those economic flops with a nation like China. China is hardly a democracy, yet its economic system is booming. China is a far greater economic power than most democracies. Does a country's mode of government really decide its economic system? Does it really determine the country's prosperity, or simply the evenness of its prosperity?

China has become much more capitalistic, and that has made a big difference for them. Capitalism inevitably comes about to some extent with democracy, but that is not the only way it can develop.

Originally Posted by Alric

Umm yes it does. If you owe a fortune it means exactly that, that you don't have a fortune. Now while saying the people of the country and the government are different is a good point, theres two major flaws in this case. The first being that the average american is also in debt, and so are not wealthy either. And secondly the US dollar is backed by the faith in the us government to cover it. If the government goes bankrupt, everyone holding their wealth in dollars is going to be greatly impacted by it, and theres a good chance they may lose it all.

If we are not bankrupt now, we never will be. Even if the average American is in debt, it is generally to other Americans, so that cancels itself out. If you have a million dollars in a chest in your room and spend that money all the time, but it is money you owe me, you are still rich. Plus, you can be in debt and not have more debt than what you possess. IF the average American is in debt, that does not mean the average American has a negative net worth, and even if they do, it does not mean they are not in possession of a lot of money. And our GDP, which is a per year statistic, is trillions of dollars greater than our entire accumulated national debt. The United States is the wealthiest nation in the world. That is a fact.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/a...ow/1717334.cms

I'll vote for the guy who appeals most strongly to my religious views. Choice of tie will be considered secondly to that.

Thats wrong on so many levels I don't even know where to start. If you have a million dollars and you owe a million dollars your networth is 0. Meaning you a dirt poor. If I continue to spend money that I borrowed I just fall further into debt. Your basicly assuming the person should be a thief and a con artist. As the only way you can become rich off of that is if you tell the person to screw off and you never pay them back. Which is basicly what people do every time they file for bankruptcy, which is far to common in this country.

Having a lot of money in your pocket doesn't make you rich. Thats what all the people with credit cards think. They just charge it and worry about it later. They don't have the money to pay off what they owe but they think they are rich. Its just not true however.

Your comment on how someone can still have a lot of money even with a negitive networth only proves this. If you have a negitive networth it means you could sell every single thing you own and it would still not be enough to cover what you owe. To me that is poor.

From Universal Mind
Wars are not fought over mere economic competition. Economic competitors have reasons to trade with each other and do not try to make each other surrender militarily so the other one will stop trading with other nations. Democracies are almost always allies. Even when they are not, they don't feel the need to go to war with each other. Every war I can think of involved a fight against a lack of freedom.

WWI, the Iraq-Iran war, Gulf War I, the Mexican-American War, the War of 1812, the 6-day War, and the Crusades, just to name a few, were fought primarily for economic reasons. Wars are by and large triggered by countries trying to seize assets. To say that few wars have ever been fought that were not wars against tyranny ignores the conditions that usually trigger war--economic conditions--as well as the countless examples of tyrannies that go to war with each other, not to be free, but to seize power, and that power is almost always economic power, control over resources.

Are democracies more or less prone to war? One must keep in mind that numerous democracies are even today a relatively new phenomenon, as only a few decades ago, there were less than a dozen democracies across the world. Considering America, we find that war has been constant since the 1950's. Other democratic governments have not seen war in decades; some have never seen war at all. Israel is embroiled in constant war with the Palestinians over lands Israel seized after the Six-day War. The data set is small and mixed, so far, and in my view there is little basis to say that democracies are more or less prone to wars of aggression than other governments. Thousands of years of tyrannical governments is a lot of data, and a few decades with a few democracies is not enough to debate upon.

Since it is agreed that good economic systems can form without democratic governments, what can be, with certainty, said of the relationship between democracy and prosperity? What can be said of the policy of installing democratic governments militarily?

I should have said "democracies that have had time to develop". Democracies go through a suck phase while they are still undeveloped. But they end up being great. Japan is an excellent example of that. Look at what kind of country they have become since the end of WWII, when we changed their constitution.

Economic interests very often are considerations that are straws which break the camel's back, but they alone do not incite democracies to go to war. The war examples you listed were wars in which at least one side was tyrranical. Mexican-American War involved U.S. tyrrany when we were still in our Wild West phase and had not developed yet into the civilized country we are today. The same can be said of the Civil War. The South/Confederacy, where I live and am not afraid to live now but would have been back then, was a force of evil in the mid-1800's. Iraq is a democracy now, but I don't trust them yet. It will take a while before they get to the civilized state that prevents unjustifiable war incitement. The same is true of Afghanistan. However, the world is way past the industrial revolution, and the necessary advancement in those countries will not take as long as it did the U.S.

Are you the least bit worried that the United States will take over Canada for their oil, or that England will invade France to own their resources, or that Japan will declare war on Australia? Nothing like that will ever happen. They are all democracies that have had time to advance substantially. Such countries do not go to war with governments that are not tyrranical. But Iraq and Afghanistan will still be countries to worry about for a while, though not for too much longer.

Originally Posted by Alric

Thats wrong on so many levels I don't even know where to start. If you have a million dollars and you owe a million dollars your networth is 0. Meaning you a dirt poor. If I continue to spend money that I borrowed I just fall further into debt. Your basicly assuming the person should be a thief and a con artist. As the only way you can become rich off of that is if you tell the person to screw off and you never pay them back. Which is basicly what people do every time they file for bankruptcy, which is far to common in this country.

No, people are not thieves and con artists just for being in debt. Also, by your reasoning, Pablo Escobar owed tons of money to the government of Columbia and others because, in his case, it was illegally obtained and in many cases stolen, therefore he was not rich. Do you want to argue that Pablo Escobar was not rich? He had so much money he trained a military that nearly took over Columbia. But I was speaking hypothetically any way. The more important point is that even our one year GDP is trillions of dollars greater than our entire national debt. We are the wealthiest country in the world. Did you see the link? I can get many more of you need me to.