Bush takes large lead on Kerry: latest polls

[gdoll]

Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan+Sep 6 2004, 10:15 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Displaced Flames fan @ Sep 6 2004, 10:15 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Yup, that is correct. And what is the proper response to terrorism? Invading a country that had nothing to do with the terrorist attack on America, or going after the terrorist threat itself? Don't answer that. You'll only paint yourself into a further corner.

I'm not in a corner Lanny.

The US and it's allies have been going after the terroist threat itself...all over the world. To date, 3/4 of the known Al-Qaeda leadership have been captured or killed.

Iraq may not have been involved in the attack on the US, but it was harboring a terrorist who killed a US citizen in a terrorist act and it's 'unanimously elected' leader was funding terroist attacks on our allies.

Said leader was also known to be in posession of copious amounts of really bad stuff and did not account for it's whereabouts or it's destruction when prodded to do so umpteen times by International Law that you hold so dear...yet the law was not enforced. Ever.

That's enough for me...it might not be for you...that's fine. [/b][/quote]
The US and it's allies have been going after the terroist threat itself...all over the world. To date, 3/4 of the known Al-Qaeda leadership have been captured or killed.

Wow - a regurgitation of the speech from last week...where's Bin Laden and why didn't Bush mention him in his speech?


Said leader was also known to be in posession of copious amounts of really bad stuff and did not account for it's whereabouts or it's destruction when prodded to do so umpteen times by International Law that you hold so dear...yet the law was not enforced. Ever.

Interesting - the UN inspectors (Hans Blix et al) did not have definitive prrof that any of the "said" weapons were there, hence their request to continue on a program of sanctions and inspections. I believe someone named Scott Ritter said the same thing. Also, if the stmt above is incorrect, I guess the majority of the member nations of the UN were wrong?

[Lurch]

Lastly, having lost a formerly useful puppet, the Bill Maher Method would have the USA replacing him with a right wing dictator and give him the muscle to wipe out their enemies in his midst.

I've never been clear on what constitutes a right wing versus a left wing dictator - political leanings lose meaning to me in the absence of politics. As for being the right way to go, it would depend on your goal. I would imagine dictators would be far more successful in rooting out terrorism than fledgling US sponsored 'democracies' - I can't help but think of Rummy's quote that Iraq wouldn't elect a guy like Osama once they were 'educated'. Seems to me that the current US method is a brilliant way to manufacture terrorists for the foreseeable future by installing secular democracies that will be unable to hold any real power if they go along with what the US wants. In other words, I don't think a true democracy in Iraq would be palatable to US interests if the election was really democratic b/c I don't think the majority of Iraqi's are pro-US. The US really have put themselves between a rock and a hard place in this one.

For example, what does the US do if a hard-line cleric runs for office and wins in a landslide? Do they stay, clean up the mess they made, spend billions and politely accept their pfo letter? I think there is a potentially mistaken belief in the US gov't that people in Iraq really do want a western style society - what if they really do want something like Taliban-lite?

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by Cowperson@Sep 7 2004, 12:11 PM
Maybe the answer is the Bill Maher Method - hire other people to kill them.

Sponsor right wing dictatorships that co-operate with your geo-political aims and allow them to brutally suppress their people.

That's what Maher said in a recent interview the USA should get back to doing. That way they wouldn't have to invade places. They could keep out of other people's affairs by keeping dictators in power.

Kind of keeps your hands clean. No muss, no fuss.

Yeah but the problem with that is it already happened, and look where we are today.

They have cozied up with some pretty unsavory, oppressive characters over there and it didn't stop terrorism. The Shah of Iran was not a good guy. Neither was Saddam. I wouldn't want to live in Saudi Arabia under that bunch and we know terrorists come from there. The "pay someone else to do it" idea was the beginning of Osama and all his friends as well, wasn't it?

I'm not smart enough to have a solution to this mighty complex problem, but that doesn't seem like a good one. Forget all the moral objections or whatever I might have, I just don't think it works (worked).

[Cowperson]

I've never been clear on what constitutes a right wing versus a left wing dictator - political leanings lose meaning to me in the absence of politics.

Let's call him Mr Friendly Dress-up then.

I would imagine dictators would be far more successful in rooting out terrorism than fledgling US sponsored 'democracies'

I think its becoming fairly apparent that even a democracy in Iraq will require a fairly brutal and intrusive secret police - dare I say "Turkey" - to make it function long haul. It won't be your momma's democracy for a while.

I can't help but think of Rummy's quote that Iraq wouldn't elect a guy like Osama once they were 'educated'. Seems to me that the current US method is a brilliant way to manufacture terrorists for the foreseeable future by installing secular democracies that will be unable to hold any real power if they go along with what the US wants. In other words, I don't think a true democracy in Iraq would be palatable to US interests if the election was really democratic b/c I don't think the majority of Iraqi's are pro-US.

Think so?

A poll earlier in the year in Saudi Arabia found most admiring Osama Bin Laden but only 8% saying he would be fit to run the country. In Iraq earlier in the year, a majority again had a favourable opinion of Mucky Al Sadr but only 5% said he should be running the country.

Iraqi's might be a little more pragmatic than you're giving them credit for. You're selling them short, essentially saying the lunatic fringe comprises the majority.

Unlike yourself, I think the average person in an average faraway place probably puts his family, home and their safety at the forefront of his electoral concerns just like anyone else in Des Moines. Who would best deliver that? Al-Sadr and his crew? I doubt if he'd get a lot of votes frankly outside of his local nutbar crowd.

You can also see in Iran that open and free elections, if they had been allowed earlier this year, would have resulted in the continued erosion of the religious power base there, hence the banning of candidates pre-disposed to that platform.

In any event, we're going to get an early preview in Afghanistan where the campaign has kicked off in a big way:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/3632286.stm

If I understand correctly, in spite of violence and intimidation, voter registration is around the 90% area.

The USA has said it would leave Iraq if any government asked them to. Oddly enough, I believe they would since they're probably dying to get out and that would be an oddly legitimate way of doing so with heads held high.

However, we all know that any democractically elected government - even in fair elections - won't do that for the reason you cited, the crazies would take over since they're the biggest bullies left. No government would survive until the institutions are strong enough around it.

The only thing you can do is toss the democracy ball out there and see what happens. Roll the dice on it. I doubt the result would be as unsatisfactory as you're describing.

And if it is?

Then you know for sure whom your enemy are. It makes it a lot easier to pick targets.

That's why I'm a little puzzled as to why the anti-war crowd is writing off Iraq and Afghanistan as failed enterprises. A year and a half into it doesn't really tell us what its going to be like five ten, fifteen and 20 years from now. Its still early in the game if you ask me.

Give the people a say via the vote. See what happens. Evaluate where you stand afterwards.

Cowperson

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally posted by Lurch@Sep 7 2004, 07:23 PM
In other words, I don't think a true democracy in Iraq would be palatable to US interests if the election was really democratic b/c I don't think the majority of Iraqi's are pro-US. The US really have put themselves between a rock and a hard place in this one.

For example, what does the US do if a hard-line cleric runs for office and wins in a landslide? Do they stay, clean up the mess they made, spend billions and politely accept their pfo letter? I think there is a potentially mistaken belief in the US gov't that people in Iraq really do want a western style society - what if they really do want something like Taliban-lite?

And that is very hard for an American to understand. They find it hard to believe that anyone would want to live under a system other than the one they live under. I still get the old "you must be happy to not have to live in a socialist country like Canada" line from quite a few people. If they only knew how good Canada was and how good Canadians have it, they would be beating down the doors to move up there.

But this is a concept foreign (pardon the pun) to them because they are so focused on America (some call it self-absorbed, but I think its more to do with the way they are deluged with pro-American media and ONLY news on America) and think it is the only place in the world where freedom reigns supreme. They are shocked to hear that other countries have more freedoms and more guaranteed advantages toward having a chance at a fair and healthy life.

Americans (Westerners in general really) have a very hard time trying to undrstand the Muslim way of thinking. Because we have this huge seperation between church and state, and our clergy have very little role in the daily lives we lead, it is difficult to come to grips with the idea of religion having such a controlling factor in our day-to-day lives and being so dedicated to your beliefs. This is a religion where you pray seven times a day and dedicate your life to following. Most Westerners don't pray seven times a week (not including time at the track or on the rug in the boss' office) and go to church on only religious holidays. So to understand that the religious leader should also be the leader of the country, well that just doesn't make sense to those in the West. Based on the upbringing of these people, it is very likely that a Cleric will indeed be selected to lead in an open election. This would not align itself with what the US wants, hence them not push for a true democracy.

This is also why the House of Saud wants to keep bin Laden out of the country. There are many fundamentalists in Saudia Arabia that would follow the vision of bin Laden and push for the creation of the Middle Easter caliph like Mohammed had build 1400 years ago. bin Laden could very easily find himself thrust into that religious leadership that could ouster the House of Saud. For this reason the Sauds do everything they can to keep him out of the country and continue to cooperate with the Americans. If bin Laden ever got a foot hold in Saudia Arabia it would be a massive problem that the US would have problems dealing with. Unification of the tribes of Islam is the last thing anyone in the world needs at the moment. If people think they are tough to deal with now, imagine what it would be like dealing with a religious zealot (one worse than George Bush) in power with a following of drones to do his will. Saddam Hussein is a p*ssycat in comparison.

[troutman]

There was a thought-provoking essay in this book about how some countries are not ready for democracy, and must evolve to that point through a period of dictatorship:

The Coming Anarchy: Shattering the Dreams of the Post Cold War
by Robert D. Kaplan (Author)

The anecdotes drawn from his travels challenge assumptions that ideals of democracy give peoples a better deal than shades of extant authoritarianism. This contrarianism propels Kaplan into sympathetic essays on such exponents of the realist viewpoint as Henry Kissinger and, going back 220 years, Edward Gibbon. Controversial but acute analysis of near-term Third World trends.

In "Was Democracy Just a Moment?" Kaplan offers a fierce indictment of American plans to export democracy abroad, in places where it can't succeed.

http://www.humanistsofutah.org/1998/WasDem...scGrp_4-98.html

http://www02.homepage.villanova.edu/farhan...anDemocracy.pdf

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by troutman@Sep 7 2004, 07:57 PM
There was a thought-provoking essay in this book about how some countries are not ready for democracy, and must evolve to that point through a period of dictatorship:

The Coming Anarchy: Shattering the Dreams of the Post Cold War
by Robert D. Kaplan (Author)

The anecdotes drawn from his travels challenge assumptions that ideals of democracy give peoples a better deal than shades of extant authoritarianism. This contrarianism propels Kaplan into sympathetic essays on such exponents of the realist viewpoint as Henry Kissinger and, going back 220 years, Edward Gibbon. Controversial but acute analysis of near-term Third World trends.

It goes to the riddle of whether or not Americans or Canadians, to pick two examples, should actually "respect" cultures that appear to be immature by our standards.

Is a functioning democracy the sign of a culture that's mature?

And is a culture that can't function as a democracy one that should be admired or even respected?

Are we doing such cultures a favour by going in, blowing them to smithereens and giving them a chance to shed centuries of cultural and religious oppression?

I know you guys will have fun with that!!

Cowperson

[RougeUnderoos]

I have this nifty little book beside my desk here called "The Economist Pocket World in Figures"-- 2003 Edition".

It has all sorts of interesting facts, one of which being that Iraq has an adult literacy rate of %55.9. I'm no mathemagician, but that also means that they have an illiteracy rate of %44.1.

Holy Crap.

That ranks them 29th worst in the world.

[troutman]

Originally posted by Cowperson+Sep 7 2004, 08:03 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Cowperson @ Sep 7 2004, 08:03 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-troutman@Sep 7 2004, 07:57 PM
There was a thought-provoking essay in this book about how some countries are not ready for democracy, and must evolve to that point through a period of dictatorship:

The Coming Anarchy: Shattering the Dreams of the Post Cold War
by Robert D. Kaplan (Author)

The anecdotes drawn from his travels challenge assumptions that ideals of democracy give peoples a better deal than shades of extant authoritarianism. This contrarianism propels Kaplan into sympathetic essays on such exponents of the realist viewpoint as Henry Kissinger and, going back 220 years, Edward Gibbon. Controversial but acute analysis of near-term Third World trends.

It goes to the riddle of whether or not Americans or Canadians, to pick two examples, should actually "respect" cultures that appear to be immature by our standards.

Is a functioning democracy the sign of a culture that's mature?

And is a culture that can't function as a democracy one that should be admired or even respected?

Are we doing such cultures a favour by going in, blowing them to smithereens and giving them a chance to shed centuries of cultural and religious oppression?

I know you guys will have fun with that!!

Cowperson [/b][/quote]
Kaplan says: "Democracy is a fraud in many poor countries outside this narrow band: Africans want a better life and instead have been given the right to vote".

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos@Sep 7 2004, 08:03 PM
I have this nifty little book beside my desk here called "The Economist Pocket World in Figures"-- 2003 Edition".

It has all sorts of interesting facts, one of which being that Iraq has an adult literacy rate of %55.9. I'm no mathemagician, but that also means that they have an illiteracy rate of %44.1.

Holy Crap.

That ranks them 29th worst in the world.

It is interesting to look at those figures.

Now compare it to the main Muslin based nations of the world

then split it into male vs female

Then you'll have a case

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Is a functioning democracy the sign of a culture that's mature?

No, not at all. None of the great cultures that man has seen have been democracies. Democracy is a relatively new concept, one that itself is still developing. For the most part people have lived under some form of authortarian rule and survived just fine. Just like ants, or bees, some people are best being workers, other drones, others soldiers and others leaders.

And is a culture that can't function as a democracy one that should be admired or even respected?

All cultures should be respected. It is not our right to judge the other until we have walked a mile in their shoes and truly understand their way of life. It is our duty to accept the customs and rules of the other culture when we visit it, and not expect that culture to adopt its ways to suit us.

Are we doing such cultures a favour by going in, blowing them to smithereens and giving them a chance to shed centuries of cultural and religious oppression?

Cultural and religious oppression in whose view? To people in the Middle East we are the ones who have it all wrong. We are the ones living in the under-developed culture, one which has yet to find the spiritual awakening that Muslims have. The only favor we can do to these cultures is to leave them alone and let them develop in the way they wish. Frankly, we should follow the Prime Directive from Star Trek.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by CaptainCrunch+Sep 7 2004, 02:14 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (CaptainCrunch @ Sep 7 2004, 02:14 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-RougeUnderoos@Sep 7 2004, 08:03 PM
I have this nifty little book beside my desk here called "The Economist Pocket World in Figures"-- 2003 Edition".

It has all sorts of interesting facts, one of which being that Iraq has an adult literacy rate of %55.9. I'm no mathemagician, but that also means that they have an illiteracy rate of %44.1.

Holy Crap.

That ranks them 29th worst in the world.

It is interesting to look at those figures.

Now compare it to the main Muslin based nations of the world

then split it into male vs female

Then you'll have a case [/b][/quote]
A case for what? It was just an interesting fact I thought.

The list only goes to 30. Yemen, Afghanistan and Pakistan are worse off than Iraq. Countries in the area (Iran, Syria, Jordan, Saudi...) aren't on the list so they have better literacy rates. Book doesn't have male v. female stats. Most of the 30 are in Africa.

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by Lanny_MacDonald@Sep 7 2004, 08:16 PM
Is a functioning democracy the sign of a culture that's mature?

No, not at all. None of the great cultures that man has seen have been democracies. Democracy is a relatively new concept, one that itself is still developing. For the most part people have lived under some form of authortarian rule and survived just fine. Just like ants, or bees, some people are best being workers, other drones, others soldiers and others leaders.

And is a culture that can't function as a democracy one that should be admired or even respected?

All cultures should be respected. It is not our right to judge the other until we have walked a mile in their shoes and truly understand their way of life. It is our duty to accept the customs and rules of the other culture when we visit it, and not expect that culture to adopt its ways to suit us.

Are we doing such cultures a favour by going in, blowing them to smithereens and giving them a chance to shed centuries of cultural and religious oppression?

Cultural and religious oppression in whose view? To people in the Middle East we are the ones who have it all wrong. We are the ones living in the under-developed culture, one which has yet to find the spiritual awakening that Muslims have. The only favor we can do to these cultures is to leave them alone and let them develop in the way they wish. Frankly, we should follow the Prime Directive from Star Trek.

None of the great cultures that man has seen have been democracies.

You sound like a snobby Montrealer talking about Calgary with a comment like that. In other words, you seem to dismiss the modern in favour of the ancient.

As an example, wouldn't it be fair to say the greatest cultural phenomenon in the history of mankind is probably the good ole USA? Just an observation.

Secondly, wouldn't it be fair to say that the nations that offer their citizens the greatest prosperity and freedom also happen to be democracies in one form or another?

I would agree that prosperity and freedom aren't necessarily hand-in-hand concepts but would add the caveat that prosperity also has some requirement for the natural resources of the country where freedom might be offered.

Cowperson

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos+Sep 7 2004, 08:23 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (RougeUnderoos @ Sep 7 2004, 08:23 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

It is interesting to look at those figures.

Now compare it to the main Muslin based nations of the world

then split it into male vs female

Then you'll have a case

A case for what? It was just an interesting fact I thought.

The list only goes to 30. Yemen, Afghanistan and Pakistan are worse off than Iraq. Countries in the area (Iran, Syria, Jordan, Saudi...) aren't on the list so they have better literacy rates. Book doesn't have male v. female stats. Most of the 30 are in Africa. [/b][/quote]
I think it would be interesting to see how a theocratic based system of rule impacts literacy. simple as that, and also how a theocratic based system impacts the education of the sexes, simple as that

sorry for the confusion

[Lanny_MacDonald]

As an example, wouldn't it be fair to say the greatest cultural phenomenon in the history of mankind is probably the good ole USA? Just an observation.

No, I would definitely not say that. I don't think the good ol' USA has proven jack, especially from a cultural standpoint. They have done a lot as a nation, but their contribution to mankind will be debateable for generations to come. Culturally speaking they haven't given much to mankind at all. What great gifts to man will the American Empire be credited for? Americans have been phenominal at taking an idea and running with it, but they have hardly been the cradle of invention like they claim to be. All of the great inventions that they like to talk about giving birth to have in reality been brought to America from elsewhere. I'm not sure what great cultural achievements the Americans can really claim? The best I can think of is some forms of music. Jazz, blues and rock were all given birth in America. They get high marks for that. But all those marks are washed away with the birth of rap and hip hop! What other great cultural gifts can America be credited for?

Secondly, wouldn't it be fair to say that the nations that offer their citizens the greatest prosperity and freedom also happen to be democracies in one form or another?

What is prosperity and what is freedom? That is in the eye of the beholder. A man in the Congo may be considered prosperous because he has five cows. To him he may be exceptionally free because he does not know the stresses of what we percieve every day life. Because a person lives in a huge house and has lots of money, are they really prosperous? Are they really free? Are the trappings that come along with wealth (our perceived prosperity) freedom? Its all relative. Personally I think the most prosperous and free people on earth live in the Cook Islands and Micronesia. They may not have much money compared to us, but they have the best life style imaginable and are happy as a culture. They care for each other and have community. Maybe Tuvalu is indeed the greatest nation on the planet!

[troutman]

What other great cultural gifts can America be credited for?

Surely you jest.

As a start check out American Treasures of the Library of Congress (and the galleries for Memory, Reason and Imagination):

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/treasures/

Meet amazing Americans:

http://www.americaslibrary.gov/cgi-bin/page.cgi/aa

Great Engineering Acheivements of the 20th Century:

http://www.greatachievements.org/

Smithsonian:

http://www.si.edu/

The Metropolitan Museum of Art:

http://www.metmuseum.org/home.asp

NASA:

http://www.nasa.gov/home/index.html

[Lurch]

What other great cultural gifts can America be credited for?

Really, don't you think the truth lies halfway between? America has some great inventions/people/ideals/etc, but in reality the majority in your links are important only to North Americans. On the other hand, to suggest that America has done nothing of import stretches the point well beyond realistic, though I would argue at a cultural level they haven't done much in the last 40 years. Pop culture simply doesn't strike me as something that will be around in 300 years such as Mozart, Beethoven, Dickens, Joyce, etc. Clearly, we'll never know, but there is a reason 80's American music/TV/movies/books is most forgotten already, especially among people that weren't there at the time.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by Lanny_MacDonald@Sep 7 2004, 08:16 PM


No, not at all. None of the great cultures that man has seen have been democracies. Democracy is a relatively new concept, one that itself is still developing. For the most part people have lived under some form of authortarian rule and survived just fine. Just like ants, or bees, some people are best being workers, other drones, others soldiers and others leaders.

Relatively new concept?

What the hell was that thing in ancient Greece then?

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Troutman, I said what did the Americans actually CONTRIBUTE, not mass produce after liberating someone else's idea. America WAS great at manufacturing, but even that has gone by the wayside. Let me show you what America say they have invented, and who was really responsible.

1. Electrification... While the kids tale of Franklin flying a kite in a lightning storm is charming it was hardly scientific proof of anything other than flying a kite in an elctrical storm is stupid. Galavani and Volta (Italians) were the first ones who really experimented with electricity, developing theories behind it and developing the first useful application when Volta made the first battery.

2. The Automobile... No, Henry Ford did not invent the automobile, no matter how many Americans try and tell you this. He was the first to mass produce the automobile. Germany takes credit for building the first automible and inventing the technologies required to make the work. Nicolas Otto invented the first gas engine which spurned Gottlieb Daimler to build the first car engine and allowed Carl Benz to build the first fully functional automobile.

3. The Airplane... Americans do get credit for building the first fully functional airplane that got off the ground. While much of the technology was "borrowed" from the Europeans, it was two groups of Americans that made it work. Ironically the Wright brothers were the ones to get the credit only after another group ran into airfoil problems and were left to hear about the Wright brother's success. This other group was later creditted with inventing the first "flight delay", now very popular with today's travelers.

4. Television... This was a British invention, believe it or not. Edwin Belin patented the concept of transmitting photographs by wire as well as fibre optics and radar, building the first device that performed this function.

5. Telephone... We Canadians know this one. It was a Scottish inventor, working in Canada, that invented the telephone.

6. Telecommunications... An Italian, Tesla, was the first to transmit data through the air, but it was a fellow Italian, Marconi, that built the first working wireless device. He beat Tesla only because Tesla destroyed his own laboratory during an electricty experiment. The experiment so terrified the young Italian inventor that he soiled his pants. But the day was not completely lost, when cleaning out his pants he discovered the first of his famous the Tesla Coils.

7. The Computer... No, Bill Gates doesn't get credit for this. It was Englishman Charles Babbage that got credit for the invention of the compueter with the development of his Analytical Engine. The first modern computer was invented by Englishman Alan Turing which was used for code breaking during WWII.

8. Nuclear Science... I think we all know that the Americans were the first build the nuclear bomb, but they were only capable of doing so after "liberating" several German scientists. The first scientists to actually make discoveries that lead to this new technology were Enrico Fermi (Italian), Lise Meitner (Austrian), Otta Hann and Fritz Strausmann (Germans). These four individuals laid the ground work for what we know as the weapons programs of today.

9. Rocketry... The Chinese invented the first rockets and used them as weapons as far back as the 12th century. Issac Newton gets credit for explaining how rockets would work, especially in the vacuum of space. But it was Russian Konstatin Tsiolkovsky who published and experimented with the first liquid fuel rockets, 13 years before American Robert Goddard began playing with the technology.

America took many of these ideas and ran with them, making products that we North Americans are very familiar with and are lead to believe the Americans invented, but they did not create them. They gave the world mass production, and I hardly think mass production is much of a "cultural" contribution.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan@Sep 7 2004, 11:18 PM
Relatively new concept?

What the hell was that thing in ancient Greece then?

I dunno Cow, was Greece a successful democracy? Do we really know if Greece was indeed a democracy, or just published as a democracy? And if Grecian democracy was so great, why did it not survive and why was it not adopted around the known world? I'm not sure Greece was a democracy as we know it today? I would think it was more like the Roman form of government (appointed aristocrats who voted on issues) than what we believe democrasy is today. I'd have to leave that to the scholars who know Ancient Greece a little better than me.