Correction on the Tomahawk missiles; those were the first shots fired in the war, but the first to explode were that of AH-64Ds using Hellfire missiles.
He bases his assumptions on that Iraq is/was a democratic country. But what I am lacking, in order to find this video relevant and fact-based, is his proof on how Iraq is/was a democracy. So long as he does not come with any evidence and relevant examples, his presentation does not hold.
thats the only problem i have here... i have the same sentiment toward DPT but I argue more on democracy can never truly be achieved to nondemocratic countries and leave them vulnerable to war by trying to do so.
Winning elections with an artificially created majority, (as during the war in 1948), and then sustaining that majority by means of ethnic, "cleansing" , (which cannot happen without a few massacres along the way) ever since, is not a democratic way to win elections. Furthermore, such massacres, have to have been racially motivated, for them to have been aimed at those who are the wrong kind of Semites, to fit the aims of zionism. Therefore, to people who believe genocide is a crime, those acts are acts of genocide. And genocide isn't compatible with democracy. Furthermore, as israel needs such an artificially created majority and genocide to exist, then no one has a right for it to exist, or to defend it
2 possibilities: One, the democratic peace theory might have been used to further specific interests of certain groups, and not for peace at all. (Alternately, a reason why realists never want to see the US go to war since Vietnam is that going to war barely serves core national interests.) Without such liberal theory, the elite might have a harder chance rationalizing the invasion. Second, the theory may have been an ends-yet of course, the theory's causal logic is flawed and it fails to answer hostilities between democracies (as presented in this video). We should not be surprised that the IMPRUDENT spread of democracy and universalization of specific values (which happened in the Arab Spring and the post-9/11 US interventions) has created power vacuums-a breeding ground for terrorism. The United States must change its grand strategy to one that is less interventionist. Every time it gets involved, it makes things worse. It's batting 0 to 6 for the US since 9/11...why be involved again for something that does not support that national interest? Order before justice.
Correction on the Tomahawk missiles; those were the first shots fired in the war, but the first to explode were that of AH-64Ds using Hellfire missiles.
Iraq and Israel may be hostile to each other, but they are not at war with each other
He bases his assumptions on that Iraq is/was a democratic country. But what I am lacking, in order to find this video relevant and fact-based, is his proof on how Iraq is/was a democracy. So long as he does not come with any evidence and relevant examples, his presentation does not hold.
thats the only problem i have here... i have the same sentiment toward DPT but I argue more on democracy can never truly be achieved to nondemocratic countries and leave them vulnerable to war by trying to do so.
Connor, excellent TedTalk.
Winning elections with an artificially created majority, (as during the war in 1948), and then sustaining that majority by means of ethnic, "cleansing" , (which cannot happen without a few massacres along the way) ever since, is not a democratic way to win elections.
Furthermore, such massacres, have to have been racially motivated, for them to have been aimed at those who are the wrong kind of Semites, to fit the aims of zionism. Therefore, to people who believe genocide is a crime, those acts are acts of genocide. And genocide isn't compatible with democracy.
Furthermore, as israel needs such an artificially created majority and genocide to exist, then no one has a right for it to exist, or to defend it
2 possibilities: One, the democratic peace theory might have been used to further specific interests of certain groups, and not for peace at all. (Alternately, a reason why realists never want to see the US go to war since Vietnam is that going to war barely serves core national interests.) Without such liberal theory, the elite might have a harder chance rationalizing the invasion. Second, the theory may have been an ends-yet of course, the theory's causal logic is flawed and it fails to answer hostilities between democracies (as presented in this video). We should not be surprised that the IMPRUDENT spread of democracy and universalization of specific values (which happened in the Arab Spring and the post-9/11 US interventions) has created power vacuums-a breeding ground for terrorism. The United States must change its grand strategy to one that is less interventionist. Every time it gets involved, it makes things worse. It's batting 0 to 6 for the US since 9/11...why be involved again for something that does not support that national interest?
Order before justice.
Sorry but by the time you gave this presentation. Iraq was considered an Anocracy and not a democracy.
he sounds like rdj kinda
Wrong! You understand nothing about Iraq an Israel