|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 536 responses total. |
jmsaul
|
|
response 495 of 536:
| 
Dec 20 05:55 UTC 2003 |
Re #486: The ones who wrote the position paper about preventing the growth
of regional superpowers.
|
twenex
|
|
response 496 of 536:
|
Dec 20 12:32 UTC 2003 |
Yes, but a hefty proportion of those who speak Indo-European languages
in its home area are Caucasian, excluding immigrants from countries
where non-Indo-European languages are spoken, and thos in the Indian
sub-continent, and Iran. There are also still many many rural places
in Africa where, although the whites speak Indo-European languages and
many middle class native Africans do, the rural indigenous
populatrions do not speak it at all, let alone natively.
This is possibly also true of some isolated places in Australia.
|
scott
|
|
response 497 of 536:
|
Dec 20 14:14 UTC 2003 |
Re 493: Excellent news. I hope that Pres. Bush won't kick out the inspectors
the way he did in Iraq...
|
gelinas
|
|
response 498 of 536:
|
Dec 20 14:42 UTC 2003 |
(There are many dark-skinned Caucasians in India. Iran, too, I think.)
|
twenex
|
|
response 499 of 536:
|
Dec 20 14:58 UTC 2003 |
My understanding is that "Caucasian" does not include dark-skinned
Indo-Europeans. If it does, then you can delete "and those...Iran" in
my response above.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 500 of 536:
|
Dec 20 15:05 UTC 2003 |
And my understanding is that it does, on theory that the migrants from the
Caucusus Mountains adapted to the more-intense rays of the sun in other
climes.
|
keesan
|
|
response 501 of 536:
|
Dec 20 15:08 UTC 2003 |
Or interbred with the native people that they conquered, such as Dravidians.
|
willcome
|
|
response 502 of 536:
|
Dec 20 22:40 UTC 2003 |
Re. 487: The Vatican isn't nation-state in the traditional sense. You've
yet to provide a single example of an undemocratic nation-state with a
Caucasian majority.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 503 of 536:
|
Dec 20 23:24 UTC 2003 |
Belarus.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 504 of 536:
|
Dec 20 23:25 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 505 of 536:
|
Dec 20 23:26 UTC 2003 |
Or, if you prefer, Monaco.
|
twenex
|
|
response 506 of 536:
|
Dec 20 23:38 UTC 2003 |
Andorra (upto the late nineties). Luxembourg/Liechtenstein (one of the
two, can't remember which). Most of South America until the 90s.
Britain, if you believe democracy can't exist independently of
republicanism (in the wide sense, not the American political sense).
|
gelinas
|
|
response 507 of 536:
|
Dec 20 23:46 UTC 2003 |
(Liechtenstein is a hereditary constitutional monarchy on a democratic and
parliamentary basis. Luxembourg is a constitutional monarchy.)
|
twenex
|
|
response 508 of 536:
|
Dec 20 23:51 UTC 2003 |
/scratches chin.
I'm sure I'd heard that one of the two was about to become a mediaeval
style mnonarchy again, on the basis that if it wasn't, the monarch
would leave and go live in Austria. Mustn't have happened.
|
willcome
|
|
response 509 of 536:
|
Dec 21 01:19 UTC 2003 |
Re. 503 & 505: Both of those states are democratic by any measure.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 510 of 536:
|
Dec 21 02:41 UTC 2003 |
Perhaps I'm confusing Belarus with another ex-Soviet Republic. I was
under the impression they had a Communist-remnant government that had
cancelled scheduled elections when they seemed inconvenient.
Is the People's Republic of China a democracy according to your rules?
Not that it fits your other criterion, but I just want to know whether
it's worth playing your definition-of-democracy game.
|
willcome
|
|
response 511 of 536:
|
Dec 21 02:51 UTC 2003 |
Yes, Rand, you're probably confusing it with South Africa or another primitive
state, like China, which, of course, is not a democracy.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 512 of 536:
|
Dec 21 06:45 UTC 2003 |
Is it not a democracy because it's not predominantly "Caucasian"
or is it not a democracy because its "elected" leadership is
installed in a sham process and not really by the will of the
people?
Because if the latter is your objection, maybe we should revisit
Belarus' qualifications, or some of the other ex-Soviet republics'.
|
twenex
|
|
response 513 of 536:
|
Dec 21 15:00 UTC 2003 |
Re: Libya - even if the war in Iraq did scare Qddafi, the war is still
illegal. And the end still does not justify the means.
Beyond that, this raises a few questions. We know now that Libya has
weapons of mass destruction. We know now that they are going to
dismantle them. What we don't know is (a) Why the Coalition dfidn't
attempt to invade Libya in order to force it to ive up its WMD; (b)
Whether there was collusion between the Coalition of the Warmongering
and Libya to announce that Libya was going to dismantle its WMD after
the invasion of Iraq; (c) if neither (a) nor (b) is true, why didn't
Western intelligence know about Libya's WMD?
|
willcome
|
|
response 514 of 536:
|
Dec 21 15:20 UTC 2003 |
Re. 512: It's not a democracy because it's racist: do you know anything
about the way China treats its minorities? Racism excludes democracy.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 515 of 536:
|
Dec 21 15:34 UTC 2003 |
Apparently, the US, Britain and Libya have been negotiating for nine months.
The difference between Iraq and Libya is that Qaddafyi negotiated.
|
johnnie
|
|
response 516 of 536:
|
Dec 21 16:50 UTC 2003 |
re 514--by that standard, then, the USA is not a democracy.
|
twenex
|
|
response 517 of 536:
|
Dec 21 17:12 UTC 2003 |
Just what I was thinking would be alleged.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 518 of 536:
|
Dec 21 17:51 UTC 2003 |
I count it as a "democracy" if the government has representative
legislative bodies elected by the public in free election free of
harassment or intimidation (much less violence) and the heads of
government are chosen by the public or by representatives of the public,
with the same conditions. This does not exclude, of course, "racism", or
other undesirable conditions. The quality of a democracy in regards to
individual freedoms of access to social structures is not in itself a
necessary property of a democracy, but it should possible to advocate it
freely.
|
willcome
|
|
response 519 of 536:
|
Dec 22 00:39 UTC 2003 |
514: no. The US does not have systemic racism and, indeed, has systemic kerbs
to racism.
518: systemic racism makes it impossible to have a fair electoral system for
all races, including the ones which are undemocratic.
|
