I'm Tired: A Soldiers View From The Front

I suppoese it really depends on the definition of democracy you use, ours is not a pure democracy where we vote on every aspect of every issue, but we are a democracy under this definition:

Main Entry: de·moc·ra·cyFunction: noun
Pronunciation: di-'mä-kr&-se
Inflected Form(s): plural -cies
Etymology: Middle French democratie, from Late Latin democratia, from Greek demokratia, from demos + -kratia -cracy
1 a : government by the people ; especially : rule of the majority b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections
2 : a political unit that has a democratic government
3 capitalized : the principles and policies of the Democratic party in the U·S.
4 : the common people especially when constituting the source of political authority
5 : the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges

Main Entry: pure democracy
Function: noun
: democracy in which the power is exercised directly by the people rather than through representatives


Types of Governments
Governments can be classified into several types. Some of the more common types of governments are:

1. Democracy
The word "democracy" literally means "rule by the people." In a democracy, the people govern.

2. Republic
A literal democracy is impossible in a political system containing more than a few people. All "democracies" are really republics. In a republic, the people elect representatives to make and enforce laws.

3. Monarchy
A monarchy consists of rule by a king or queen. Sometimes a king is called an "emperor," especially if there is a large empire, such as China before 1911. There are no large monarchies today. The United Kingdom, which has a queen, is really a republic because the queen has virtually no political power.

4. Aristocracy
An aristocracy is rule by the aristocrats. Aristocrats are typically wealthy, educated people. Many monarchies have really been ruled by aristocrats. Today, typically, the term "aristocracy" is used negatively to accuse a republic of being dominated by rich people, such as saying, "The United States has become an aristocracy."

5. Dictatorship
A dictatorship consists of rule by one person or a group of people. Very few dictators admit they are dictators; they almost always claim to be leaders of democracies. The dictator may be one person, such as Castro in Cuba or Hitler in Germany, or a group of people, such as the Communist Party in China.

6. Democratic Republic
Usually, a "democratic republic" is not democratic and is not a republic. A government that officially calls itself a "democratic republic" is usually a dictatorship. Communist dictatorships have been especially prone to use this term. For example, the official name of North Vietnam was "The Democratic Republic of Vietnam." China uses a variant, "The People's Republic of China."

 

There vote would not matter any less in a true majority election, it just would not be given more weight than the vote of any other person as it is now.

Which is really more fair to all?

 

You left out this one:

 

The difference in lifestyles between rural America and Urban/Suburban settings are drastic and one would have to wonder if they are capable of remaining part of the same union given the strength of the federal government. That is why the founding fathers placed a high priority on state's rights. Many of the value issues that federal legislators have legislated or debated should be handled on a a state by state basis.

 

Did you watch the spelling bee as well?

 

They did place a high value on the right of states, but that was only in order to get the states to remain together long enough to form a true government. They allowed the states to violate all of the "rights" granted under the Constitution, which was later rectified.

The lifestyle of ANY minority can be viewed as being drastically different from the majority, but you cannot have an effective government divided into essentially 50 (or more) separate countries. The states violated the civil rights of citizens well into the last century and would still do so today if they were able to do so.

 

And there is a basic difference between democracy and a republic: In a democracy the majority rules, with no protections for the rights of the minority. In a republic, the minority is protected by the tyranny of the majority, according to rule of law.

 

You have a reference to this? It seems you are adding to the defintion much more than those using the definition of democracy. The reference would seem to include a constitutional restriction which is not a requirement for a republic nor does it prevent the tyranny of the majority as can be attested by those who were kept as slaves for so long and who were denied their rights as citizens by the states for another century or so.

 

Political Science 101 in college pretty much summed it up for most of us. I'm sure you've heard that explanation before. We are a constitutional republic, not a democracy.

 

Sorry, I was just responding to what you wrote concerning the differences between a democracy and republic..

The fact the usage of the term democracy is defined as it is makes this semantical discussion more acedemic than real, but that is common here at times.

 

This discussion reminds me of an old high school teacher I had at South Johnston...Mr. Bonds, 9th grade Civics class. He would always tell us that we lived in a Republic, not a democracy, that he served 20 years in the military protecting the Republic, not the Democracy.

What I remember most is his saying, "The song is called "Battle Hymn of the Republic, not the "Battle Hymn of the Democracy". :-D


Funny how over 30 years later, that sticks in my mind!!

 

Response to earlier comment

Sorry to be responding to an old comment, but I have not had time to spend on the computer lately, and even less time to check message boards and only just now saw the following response to one of my earlier comments from Hught:

I do know what propaganda means. I also know that "propagandist" is not generally used as a complimentary description. I guess all preachers and teachers would be called propagandists under some definitions of the term. I said I thought that to call a soldier that served in Iraq and wanted to tell their story a propagandist was an insult. Some posting here evidently don't think it is an insulting term. We just disagree on that. I can think of many other words I would use to describe those risking their lives for their country and that is just not one of them. Hopefully we can agree to disagree on that one.

Someone telling their own story, from their personal experience, does not necessarily a propagandist make. Many people telling their personal experiences just want the truth to be known. I have heard from quite a few people serving in Iraq (some directly and some indirectly). Most of them have no political agenda, unless you consider wanting to see America victorious a political agenda. Some are not affiliated with any political party, some are Democrats and some are Republicans. A few have emailed me (and in some cases their loved ones, who have shared their messages with me) saying they want people to know about the good things they are accomplishing. They see US television news reports over there in the chow hall and other common areas. They have internet access and see what is being reported back home. Many of them tell me that what they see on the news is not what they are seeing in person and that they don't believe the whole story is being told.

I see one point of view portrayed in the media on a daily basis. Less frequently I see stories reported that resemble those I hear from the people I know who are actually there. I don't generally spend my time and effort to post links to NBC, ABC, CBS, NYT, AP and other media outlets that are already known to everyone. Sometimes I do, but for the most part I assume most who care to follow the war are already reading those sources. I posted a bunch of links to milblogs -- a few from Democrats, some from moms and wives with no political agenda, and some from soldiers and Marines that do want to participate in the political discussion and have a political point of view. If you read the milblogs you will see plenty of criticism of the U.S. government, along with stories of successes. All of the milblogs I linked were pretty well known to those in the military, but not necessarily to those in the general public. If that makes me a propagandist, then that is okay with me. Most of those serving in Iraq and Afghanistan who are sharing their experiences through milblogs just want the truth to be known and want some of the successes they are seeing and participating in to be told, along with the failures, which are already well publicized. I don't think that makes them propagandists. If me passing on their first hand accounts makes me one, so be it. I think their voices deserve to be heard, too.

I apologize for taking a while to respond to comments. I have even less time than usual to spend online so I am only able to check in every now and then.

 

Dee Dee Dee

Allow me to be the "Hugger" at the end of this race :lol:

 

It is like the term "ignorant" which is often not taken correctly either. The use of internet postings can be difficult to understand the complete meaning as we are not allowed the verbal and visual cues that help determine the complete meaning imparted. It is true that both these terms are sometimes used in an incorrect context you should not always assume that is the case in every use.

 

You can't stop Rock and Roll!!!:mrgreen: :mrgreen:

 

Sure you can. Just flip the switch to the "Off" position.

 

No clif that is killing the power. But ROCK AND ROLL lives on foreva!!!