Spring RTS Engine

Gota wrote:A democracy has much lower chances of going to war than a dictatorship.
And you cant make peace with dictators.

How do you come to that conclusion (especially the first part)? Especially the USA probably are the leading nation in warfare and igniting wars. Especially when talking of the middle east where all the states which all the fuzz is about now (Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq) became that way thanks to the USA. The USA and the Cold War to stay correct...

So by principle a democracy needn't be "better" than a dictatorship on this matter - it always depends on the personalities and the people. You might be right that a dictatorship is easier to handle when it comes to what needs to be done to get the total control (especially in terms of what the people think about what happens)...

Dictatorships are extremely prone to corruption. Democracies are prone to it as well, but the spread of corruption is limited to some extent.

You know the reason america has a 2nd amendment? In case congress fails to follow the first one.

And a dictatorship is -~never~- taken down by a civil revolution.

Forboding Angel wrote:Dictatorships are extremely prone to corruption. Democracies are prone to it as well, but the spread of corruption is limited to some extent.

Yeah but could you list any case where corruption etc. lead to leading the entire country into war (and I'm not talking of e.g. the US or any external country heavily funding and supporting that)?

That's the best way but sometimes its not enough or not fast enough.
Not to mention that in many modern dictatorships people are not allowed to get to some information and hence don't have the same equal opportunity to get informed better and get more perspectives.
Look at africa.
The EU and US elite have nothing to gain from peace in Africa hence they do nothing to stop millions from being slaughtered.
The correct thing to do would have been to invade sudden! and save millions of civilians.

Forboding Angel wrote:Yeah, nice try. Palestine isn't a country or even a unified "group", so how could it be a democracy?

It's a de facto state that has control over some (admittedly small) areas. It also holds elections. Just read the wikipedia links.

You realize that in 99% of the cases, the "Elections" aren't really "Elections", right?

The Hamas victory in palestine/gaza whatever you call it was monitored by numerous western organizations and they concluded that the elections were democratic.

Problem is That under a democracy Hamas would be an illegal party.
It's great if you have elections but not great if in the first election you vote for an undemocratic group.

How does democracy as a system illegalize Hamas? That does not follow from any comparison of the two.

neddiedrow wrote:How does democracy as a system illegalize Hamas? That does not follow from any comparison of the two.

I don't understand how banning parties is democratic but then again lol israel

apparently hamas has been banned from the next elections by presidential decree anyway

neddiedrow wrote:How does democracy as a system illegalize Hamas? That does not follow from any comparison of the two.

IN the same way that parties are legalized in a democracy if they want to destroy it or if they are crying about doing undemocratic actions.

tombom wrote:

neddiedrow wrote:How does democracy as a system illegalize Hamas? That does not follow from any comparison of the two.

I don't understand how banning parties is democratic but then again lol israel

apparently hamas has been banned from the next elections by presidential decree anyway

I told you you are not iformed enough.
Hamas cannot be elected in israeli election.
It is not an israeli party.
It is a "party" in the gaza strip and palestinian authorities.
It not much of a party as it is just a bunch of people with a lot of guns that preach hate in mosks while wasting all the foreign aid they get.

the party in Israel that is associated with arab voters in Israel was banned because it's leaders were making crazy statements about destroying Israel while visiting enemy countries to which entrance was prohibited.
The arab parties in Israel are very extreme and are being funded by the international muslim brotherhood.
Go read about who those are...

Gota wrote:I told you you are not iformed enough.
Hamas cannot be elected in israeli election.
It is not an israeli party.
It is a "party" in the gaza strip and palestinian authorities.

obviously they can't, i'm not stupid. i was referring to the palestinian elections.

You realize that in 99% of the cases, the "Elections" aren't really "Elections", right?

Confirmed. Worldwide, 99% of elections aren't really elections.

Reasons why Obama was a reasonable choice:
http://www.dailykostv.com/w/002235/

Short version: he managed to get himself elected on a platform of "let's stop being assholes" in a country full of uneducated hicks that would just as soon see their neighbor die to preventable disease because they can't afford health care, especially if they're not white.

Caydr wrote:Reasons why Obama was a reasonable choice:
http://www.dailykostv.com/w/002235/

Short version: he managed to get himself elected on a platform of "let's stop being assholes" in a country full of uneducated hicks that would just as soon see their neighbor die to preventable disease because they can't afford health care, especially if they're not white.

WoW
WTF is that?
Isn't that a news network?
I hope Israeli news never look like that...
That was pure propoganda.
Where is the journalistic integrity?At least try to be objective.
I hope that's some show or whatever and msnbc has a similar show with a host that introduces criticism in exactly the opposite direction.
If there isn't than that network is a disgrace.

SpikedHelmet wrote:

You realize that in 99% of the cases, the "Elections" aren't really "Elections", right?

Confirmed. Worldwide, 99% of elections aren't really elections.

I meant in the middle east, smartass