James

[quote] I'll just clear this up right now. This is a common misconception. Remember this, everyone: America is NOT a Democracy. It is a Democratic Republic. Therefore, while we have many traits of Democratic states, we are, first and foremost, a Republic. (Not that this affects the discussion much, I agree that any political system can be horribly corrupted by the right[?] people.)[/quote] [color=#606060]Yeah, to be specific, the US is a Republic. That has nothing to do with democracy, lol. If you?re a Democratic Republic you are [i]still[/i] a Democracy. It is a misconception to think that the two are completely different. Being a Republic has more to do with the function of your government and how your federal and state systems share powers ? you can be a Republic or a Monarchy and still be a Democracy. Your system is still fundamentally a pluralist democracy; it is still a representative form of government.[/color] [quote] I do think that representative governments are ideal, but just to reinforce an idea you mention later on, it's important that governments must differ according to their circumstances. My fuel for my arguments stem mostly from the idea that so many countries want what some other country has for a government, but may not take into consideration what's best for them. And the idea that a lot of American citizens think their form of government is superior, lol.[/quote] [color=#606060]Well yeah, I would agree with this in principle. You can not always literally translate one form of government and place it on another country. However, ?democracy? in terms of how we are using it here, means ?representative government?. This provides a massive scope for uniqueness. For example, Australia is a democracy just like America. And yet our government does work differently on a functional level. We have a Prime Minister and a Governor General, each with their own constitutionally-afforded powers ? in this sense, we differ greatly from your Presidential system. However, we are both still countries that have systems centered around representative government. I think that concept is pretty universal, no matter which specific systems are used.[/color] [quote] Capitalism and democracy aren't mutually exclusive, yes, but I think having a capitalistic economy contributes greatly to building a liberal democracy. You have wealthy, middle-class people who will want some say in government, but it's just one factor among many. I think it can be argued to an extent the capitalistic state of the major power cities in China will eventually, some time in the future, lead to some sort of political revolution. If a middle class is forming, that is. I really don't know much about China, though. I think the same can be applied to a lot of other countries, because it's just a universal theme in history.[/quote] [color=#606060]I think that in China specifically, the introduction of a capitalist system will eventually lead to political reform. I think it has to, especially as China seeks to become a member of various international monetary bodies.[/color] [quote] I agree with your point that corrupt democratic governments reflects badly on the abusers, but I think that what raises the chances of a radical abuser is the hasty implementation of democracy. I know it's sort of moot to argue that letting a country develop on its own will ensure safety, because the US went through turbulent times trying to institute its own government, but influencing and pushing other countries to adopt it isn't healthy.[/quote] [color=#606060]I think the overall point is that you can?t set an arbitrary time frame on developing a democracy, especially when a country already has a history of democracy (Iraq). It?s already been taking years and so far the signs are good; the participation rate in elections is historically high and there haven?t been any serious problems with Iraqi institutions. There is still a lot of work to be done, but the core functional stuff has been ready and running for a while now. As for the US influence, I think you will find that Iraq as a country wanted to move back to a more pluralist democratic system. It simply required assistance to do so. The US was and is in a position to provide that. You?ll find that now, the US has little to do with the political system in Iraq ? the foundations are laid and the Iraqis themselves are continuing to reform it themselves.[/color] [quote] I think it's the opposite, because Iraq had oil wealth went quickly into the hands of few, which blocked the way for good institution-building. Whereas in places like Japan, where resources were few, good institutions were made. Though bringing up Japan attacks my own point, because the influence the US used on Japan ended up being a relatively good thing.[/quote] [color=#606060]In terms of your first point I?m not sure what you mean ? do you mean post-war or pre-war? Post-war was very different to pre-war. Iraq is a member of OPEC and its oil is sold on the international market; it now does not have the same trade restrictions as it once did. You will find that Iraqi oil revenue is actually not going to any private companies in Iraq specifically; Iraqi oil is administered by the Iraq Oil Ministry and that revenue goes back to government coffers. This at least ensures that the money will be spent on public services like hospitals, police, military, water, power, etc? The US influence on Japan was good, but I wish they had made it a condition of withdrawal that Japan acknowledge the horror she visited on her enemies. To this day Japan has not officially apologised. Australia (along with many of our neighbours) suffered greatly as a result of vicious Japanese POW camps. It would be nice to see their history books reflect this.[/color]

[quote] Yes, we did them a massive favor... for the time being. We'll see how the political destabilization of the region goes, and what exactly happens in the future before we judge the invasion to be a fundamentally good thing. Granted, Iraq is crippled despite the fact the US has poured in twice the amount of money Japan used to rebuild Nagasaki/Hiroshima post-WWII (dollars were indeed adjusted for inflation), and there still is no electricity in many parts of the country.[/quote] [color=#606060]I think that the idea of freeing the Iraqi people is fundamentally good and has long term benefits. But I do not think that the situation in Iraq is easy. It’s compounded by a) America’s lack of planning for the aftermath and b) intervention by neighbouring countries. So it’s unquestionably a different situation than Japan was post-WWII – I would agree with you there.[/color] [quote] Perhaps we misunderstand how political systems are transformed effectively in the first place. Invading with the noble intention of "bringing democracy to the Middle East" without understanding the sociopolitical intricacies that existed on the ground, and failure to understand that these intricacies present themselves as massive barriers to the goal is never prudent.[/quote] [color=#606060]Oh yeah, I would agree with you entirely. Nobody could say that the whole thing was done prudently, lol. But having said that, there are a myriad of reforms going on within Iraq at the moment – I am referring to things that are largely unrelated to what America is doing (i.e. federal political reforms within Baghdad). Those reforms are all valuable and they obviously need to continue happening, because a stable political system will help to facilitate better internal decision-making surrounding military development, policing, border control and public policy.[/color] [quote] On what grounds? I'm curious.[/quote] [color=#606060]Well, to be honest with you…that’s a whole other discussion. I could sit here and go into great detail about this subject. I want to be careful about that because I don’t want to derail the thread [i]too[/i] much. At the moment we are really talking about democracy and its implementation, rather than justifications for the action in Iraq. It’s hard to summarise. But essentially, there are two grounds. One, humanitarian: the citizens of Iraq rebelled (unsuccessfully) twice against Hussein. When this happened, they needed international support and they didn’t get it. In my view, Saddam should have been ousted at the end of the first Gulf War – unfortunately the international community stopped short, despite Iraqi pleas for assistance. So although it’s late, it’s probably better late than never. And secondly, on legal grounds. The first Gulf War technically didn’t end – it simply suspended due to a cease fire. Under the resolution confirming the cease fire, Iraq was told that if it violated the terms of the agreement, the military action would resume. Iraq violated those cease fire conditions on multiple occasions over a ten year period. So, technically, they violated a cease fire and there was already a legal provision for action to be taken. Subsequently I think everyone can say that the response was handled poorly – I would not doubt that. But there are certainly a great many misconceptions about the situation, just as there were regarding Germany in WWII.[/color] [quote] This is a great goal, but it flies in the face of the vast majority of sources on Iraqi 'progress'. I speak primarily of the Baker Report and the marginal impact of the US "surge".[/quote] [color=#606060]In fact, most authoritative reports suggest that large areas of Iraq are now stable. There are pockets where violence is still occurring, but many major cities are now secure. There are also multiple reports suggesting that the troop surge is yielding positive results. Ultimately there are a lot of contrasting reports and there are a great many interests motivating these reports. One thing you have to be very careful about is relying largely on entertainment based news, for instance. Most news organisations only ever report negative and/or sensational news - this is true even in everyday life (i.e. murders get reported but major medical recoveries often don't). Unfortunately watching general commercial news will provide an impression that is very different than the actual reality. And as I said, I would agree that many aspects of the conflict have been handled incredibly poorly – there’s absolutely no question about that. But that is kind of a different issue to the question of how political systems are implemented and so on. I have tried not to meld these two together because doing so risks completely changing the nature of this thread; if we are to discuss reasoning behind the war and such, we should probably do so in a dedicated thread.[/color]

[color=#606060]I like it when Hillary gets asked a question that she dislikes and she does that weird laugh. She does it every single time, it's pretty funny. lol[/color] [quote] I mean, George Bush. lol He might not have really thought that, but there was so much hype about Iraq's "first elections" and media implied that this voting automatically meant Iraq was a democracy now, just like the US. Which was crap, basically. People think it was good for America to go over and make Iraq democratic again, but it wasn't. [/quote] [color=#606060]To your first point, I agree that the media spins things quite a lot. The first elections after Saddam’s fall were definitely historical and significant though. They were also precisely what the Iraqi public wanted. So you know…I don’t tend to make judgements about whether their system is “right or wrong”, because really, it’s the system they want and are supporting in an obvious way. As far as what America did…in principle I agreed that Saddam needed to be dealt with. [i]However[/i], there were massive misjudgements on the part of the American government and military, which resulted in a sloppy handover period (especially with regard to training). I tend to separate that particular point (was it right to go in) from the point that Iraq is better off with democracy (regardless of how it came to being).[/color] [quote]Saddam's time in power created mass corruption and confliction internally, and just because it was a return doesn't mean everything will be dandy-fine. I'm not saying everyone believes this, or that you think this (clearly you don't) but trust me, there are people in the US who think just because Iraq is 'democratic' the US has done it a great favor. Were we even justified in going other there in the first place? How's reconstruction doing? And now that we're in this mess, what will people think when we just decide to pull out? [/quote] [color=#606060]Well, I believe that the US did the Iraqi people a massive favour by removing a dictatorship that the Iraqis wanted gone (and could not remove on their own). Having said that, you are 100% right in saying that it isn’t all dandy. Anyone who thinks that transitioning an entire political system is [i]easy[/i] is definitely misunderstanding how it all happens. But anything like this – and often anything worthwhile in general – is tough. As for your questions, I do think the coalition was justified to go in, but my problem is with how the occupation was handled subsequently. Not nearly enough planning went into dealing with functional issues like training and policing. That’s proven to be a major problem. And as for pulling out, I agree – you can’t go into a country and then suddenly pull out when it all gets too hard. We are really obligated to stay until the Iraqi security services are in a position to operate 100% independently. They are certainly on the way there (certain parts of the country are entirely under Iraqi security control). But yeah, definitely plenty more to do. [/color] [quote] But I will say this- why democracy? There's such an obsession with the idea of democracy, that it will help pave the way for a great future, but who knows? Again, just because it worked out the US doesn't mean it's suitable for other countries. Can nations in the Middle East, that have the vast and disgustingly rich resource of oil in the hands of a few super wealthy families really form effective government institutions? [/quote] [color=#606060]I agree with the idea that democracy isn’t something you can quickly transplant into a country that has had thousands of years of monarchy. For instance, I wouldn’t think it’d be easy to immediately input this type of system into, say, Qatar. In terms of why democracy though, I think you have to look at the context. First of all, democracies are not all made alike. It is a misconception to think that America is enforcing its own style of democracy on other countries. In Australia, our democratic system is a hybrid model – it’s 50% based on America and 50% based on Britain. And it works incredibly well. In Iraq, their democratic system was/is different again. What I would say is that democracy – when established properly – does provide a framework for fundamental reforms such as civil rights and so on. Democracy is also the only philosophy that really allows for self-determination. As I said though, there are many kinds of democracy. America’s is one kind, Iraq’s is another and Australia’s is yet another. They all have pros and cons, but ultimately I think most people would tell you that self-determination is better than autocratic rule.[/color] [quote] Same with Indonesia. Reliant on its own natural resources, the country had weak political institutions and a low per capita income, and after its democratic reformation their gross domestic product decreased by fifty percent and 20 million people were pushed under the poverty line. Sometimes you need elements of a capitalistic economy, or at least a bourgeoisie to demands rights from governments. [/quote] [color=#606060]Yes you do need elements of a capitalistic economy, but democracy and capitalism are not mutually exclusive (quite the opposite really). Indonesia’s move to democracy, in and of itself, is not the source of its woes. Much of the problem in Indonesia is related to the fact that the country still clings to poor habits from the past (including rampant corruption). Indonesia also doesn’t have the necessary maturity in its economic regulations to provide the right environment for healthy business growth. These issues are not intrinsically tied to democracy though. In China, which is now adopting a “capitalist socialist” type system, the government has instituted business reforms to provide capitalistic elements for business…yet the government is still fundamentally socialist. [/color] [quote] The IMF and the U.S. government demanded radical reforms in Indonesia during the late 90s, but they didn't realize the political instability those reforms would produce. Similarly, in India, the quick implementation of free elections gave birth to special interest parties such as the Bharatiya Janata Party, which used religious conflict and intolerance to gain power. [/quote] [color=#606060]I’m not really sure what your point is though. Indonesia’s reforms were and are necessary for the country’s economy to develop. I think you’ll find that the relationship between reform and instability isn’t a direct causal relationship – there are other factors involved. Also in the case of India, you have to make a distinction between “democracy” and “abuse of power”. The two are not inherently related. Democracy is like any political system; people can corrupt it. This is what Saddam Hussein did in Iraq. I don’t think this reflects badly on democracy, but rather, I think it reflects badly on those who abuse their power (no matter the circumstances).[/color] [quote] YES. Yes, it should have taken longer. That's my point. Real liberal democracies are supposed to take time. There's supposed to be rights demanded by a middle class, a resource-poor nation, a capitalist economy, and other things.[/quote] [color=#606060]How long? It’s already taken years to implement. How do you make that determination? And again, you can’t make generalisations about this sort of thing. Iraq had many of these elements inherently in place before these transitions took place (in terms of economy and resources particularly). I think you’ll find that the question is much like asking how long is a piece of string – it’s entirely dependent on the circumstances.[/color] [quote] Should it have happened at all? Who says democracy was the best course for a country like Iraq? The Westerners? Because it worked for us, surely it'll do great things for other nations... [/quote] [color=#606060]Who said? The Iraqi people, that’s who. Lol The country was previously a democracy and there were no less than two failed uprisings. Moreover, there are a number of democratic activists who have been operating in Iraq for years. So, if Iraq really didn’t want democracy that’d be one thing. But they do and it is the Iraqis themselves who are in the driver’s seat. I think some Iraqi leaders and scholars are offended by the idea that someone else is doing it all for them.[/color] [quote] Building a truly liberal democracy is gradual, and I'm not saying if countries take it step-by-step it'll be hardship-free. I'm saying a quick jump to democracy just raises the chances for corruption, democratic autocracy, etc.[/quote] [color=#606060]Well, you know, in Iraq it [i]is[/i] gradual. It’s being done carefully and with due consideration. I’m not sure what more we can expect; I would not want to place an arbitrary number of years on the outcome. I agree with your last sentence, but I don’t think that it really applies to Iraq in particular. It does apply to Indonesia though – but again, it doesn’t negate the need to transition to democracy, it just means that the [i]process[/i] must be handled with care. And no need to apologise at all in terms of sources and stuff – you are a very respectful member and you’ve shown me a lot of courtesy. So I want you to know that I appreciate that. I think it’s a great example to other members who want to debate. :catgirl:[/color]

[quote]I mean 'forced' democracy as in democracy is just instated into a country. Liberal democracy isn't something that can just be put into power, even if a country has one before. There's a process to building up any type of government. Sometimes it might work, but you can't expect voting to suddenly create secure constitutional rights or actually liberal democracy.[/quote] [color=#606060]The thing is though…who is expecting the ability to vote to suddenly create secure constitutional rights? I don’t think anyone suggested that really. It’s true that the ability to vote does not automatically bring with it improved rights. However, it’s important to understand that Iraq didn’t peacefully transition between democracy and dictatorship. When Saddam’s party came to power, it forcefully manipulated and hijacked the existing democratic system. So it’s not as though the Iraqi people voted for a new system and then had America [i]force[/i] another system onto them. Rather, America facilitated a [i]return[/i] to the system that had been created by the Iraqi people through their existing democracy. And from that basis, Iraq has the opportunity to make decisions about the implementation of reforms including the incorporation of constitutional rights and so on. Under Saddam Hussein’s government, such ability to reform one’s own society did not exist. It’s also important to mention that Iraqi citizens are the architects of their new democracy. It wasn’t so much about America forcing democracy on Iraq…it was about American [i]removing[/i] a parasitical entity that had largely corrupted the democracy that already existed. I think that’s an important disctintion.[/color] [quote] I think it's important that a direct predecent of pluralism or opposing parties needs to be present; while Iraq may have had a democratic government before Saddam doesn't matter, because it was before Saddam's reign. You still can't really just jump into a new form of government, epsecially when it's being pushed by a 200-year-old democratic nation that thinks democracy is just the answer to everything.[/quote] [color=#606060]I don’t really see your point here though. First of all, if you think that there were no opposing parties while Saddam was in power…that just isn’t factually correct. Saddam was the head of one party and there were others in parliament at the time. The reason Saddam was in power was because he’d achieved a majority in the federal parliament and this majority was then abused through force. When Saddam came to power, do you imagine that all of the opposition parties just disappeared? Where did they go? Of course these groups still existed. And they still had members and affiliations. Whether or not there was a direct link between the old democracy and the new is largely irrelevant. What matters is that Iraq now has the ability to determine that for itself; if the new democracy is somehow unpopular, the Iraqi people at least have the opportunity to make the changes that they feel they need. Also I should point out that Iraq isn’t “just jumping into a new form of government”. All of the public institutions that existed before Saddam also existed while he was in power – and still exist. So what’s the difference? The difference now is that the current Iraqi government respects the authority of the different powers. These entities, which always existed, have simply had their authority returned to them.[/color] [quote] You wrote that the only problem with Indonesia was the lack of education and knowledge about how to operate democratic institutions, which just goes back to why implementing democracy too quickly is bad. Strong democratic institutions are created by the government when they have to make up for some lack in their country (i.e. resources). I have doubts on whether Indonesia wasn't influenced by the US to become democratic, but since I don't have any resources to back that up right now, I'll concede on that point. My main point is that this obsession with democracy isn't exactly good, because democracy is something a nation builds up to, not something that should be automatically implemented.[/quote] [color=#606060]Indonesia is an example of how democracy can be difficult to implement. But there’s a problem with your comparison. Indonesia has never built democratic institutions, nor does it have the experience or knowledge to run these institutions with great effectiveness; there’s definitely a longterm development going on. Iraq is different because it has historically been a democracy, at least during much of the 20th century. Iraq didn’t need to learn everything from scratch; it already had educated officials who had experience in managing government responsibilities. It also had well-established federal court systems, which were quite capable of upholding newer constitutional reforms. Indonesia’s move to democracy was largely influenced by internal parties, many of whom distrusted Suharto’s regime. One of the big concerns was corruption (of which there was a great deal) and many of these smaller groups motivated larger groups to go out and protest on the street. The big change came when Suharto resigned as a result. As for your last point…I don’t know. In terms of democracy being automatically implemented, I think it’s important to understand exactly how the process works. It’s not as though America breezed in one day and said “Iraq, time to be a democracy! By the time you wake up tomorrow, you’ll be just like us!” Doesn’t work that way. Iraq has taken [i]years[/i] and several layers of elections to achieve a basic repositioning of its political system. All we hear about is the conflict, but I guarantee you, there have been countless meetings, conferences, forums, redistributions and so on. The various political groups in Iraq are – and have been – working incredibly hard to put together the functional elements of a “new” democracy. So it’s still a process that is continuing. But as I said earlier, there’s one bottom line to the entire discussion: at least now, the Iraqi people can make fundamental choices about how they want the country to operate. Even if you accept the argument that democracy was implemented too soon, what is the ultimate point of saying that? That it shouldn’t have happened at all? That it should have taken longer? Ultimately that question is largely irrelevant – even if the Iraqis thought that, for example, redistribution of House seats was done improperly…they now have a mechanism to change that and to debate that. So no matter what, the fundamental mechanism is in place to allow for self-motivated change. If Iraq wants to make further changes or if it doesn’t want to modify certain areas of its political system…it will or won’t. The beautiful thing is that it’s [i]their[/i] decision, not ours. [/color]

[color=#606060]I don't know if I agree with that really - it's like saying that walking out of a music store with a CD "for educational purposes" is protected under the law. I can't imagine that being the case. But having said that, the law is still struggling to establish standards in this area. So it wouldn't surprise me if there are various loopholes at the moment. The ultimate issue really is paying for the ownership or the permission to use whatever you've acquired (whether that is music or something else - no matter how you acquired it). [/color]

[quote]Just those idiots behaving like they are robin hood stealing from the rich and so on.[/quote] [color=#606060]Yep, bingo. Admitting you download music is one thing (I had just finished saying that I have and do download music on occasion). However, I don't believe people have the [i]right[/i] to do this. The whole Robin Hood justification annoys me for various reasons. I don't particularly argue against people downloading in general...I just can't tolerate that particular justification. The only justification I offer, personally, is that if I like the song I will buy the album on every occasion. If I don't like it? I'll delete it. Of course, it's still probably illegal for me to download it in the first place. So there's the raw legal argument there too. In terms of whether the law should be changed...that's a whole other thing. I'll have to edit my post or post later on to get into that one.[/color]

[color=#606060]I like the concept of Time for Tea. :catgirl: None of my unworkable ideas are even in a position for me to use the format you've suggested...but you know, there's one idea we discussed for possibly years that I'd still like to push forward. Pokemon. I would like to see a more fleshed-out version of this idea. I think there have been other ideas about Pokemon in the real world, but I liked your concept of having a police unit that is responsible for investigating Pokemon-committed crimes and such.[/color]

[color=#606060]I didn't misunderstand you though. You said:[/color] [quote]I know that downloading music is illegal but what is a person to do if they want music from other countries that they cannot get unless they pay 60 dollars for the cd. Some are not lucky to even find the cd for sale over here.[/quote] [color=#606060]And I answered. I said that they'd have to pay the 60 dollars or go without. You then asked me "what about the people who cannot buy online?" And I answered that they would just have to miss out - that just because you can't access an online store doesn't give you an excuse to acquire the CD by illegal means. I'm not saying - and I never implied - that [i]you[/i] were doing this. I was answering your general questions.[/color]

[color=#606060]Huh? Jessica Simpson? lol What has Dumbledore's sexuality got to do with Harry? Dumbledore is an old man and Harry is a boy. I would imagine that Dumbledore views Harry almost as a grandson, more than anything else. His approach to Harry is very fatherly in nature.[/color]

[color=#606060]What about them? You have to follow that argument to its logical conclusion. What about homeless people who can't afford to buy a CD single from a music shop? Should they be allowed to steal it because they can't afford it? I don't have a whole lot of sympathy here. Yes, it sucks if you can't access something like that...but I've come across plenty of things I'd want to buy but am not able to for whatever reason. Often this relates to stuff released in Japan and not in Australia. But I would never say that I have the right to acquire such things illegally simply because I can't access them any other way. You won't fall over and die without a CD; it's a product, it's a luxury item.[/color]

[color=#606060]It shouldn't really make a difference regardless...even if he was straight, I wouldn't like the idea of him having sex at his age, lol. I could not view Dumbledore as anything but a wise old man and as such, sex doesn't come into it at all. lol Still I think it's interesting...and now a few things do tie together. I actually think it's a shame that the relationship between Dumbledore and Grindelwald wasn't explored further, if only in terms of the potential for the whole tragic love story angle. I think mostly it helps to explain why Dumbledore had such a complex relationship with someone who, on the surface, should have just been his enemy. You often sit there and think "Why did he get so many chances?" and stuff. Obviously if love was involved, it was a different scenario for Dumbledore. So yeah, I think it does make sense when I think back on the story...and I admire Rowling for having the guts to announce this. My respect for her just went up even higher, lol.[/color]

[quote name='Japan_86'][COLOR="DarkRed"]I know that downloading music is illegal but what is a person to do if they want music from other countries that they cannot get unless they pay 60 dollars for the cd. Some are not lucky to even find the cd for sale over here. What about the downloading of anime? We do that to get the latest series and to watch the authentic show and not some 4kids concoction.[/COLOR][/QUOTE] [color=#606060]What if you want music from another country and you can't get it without paying 60 dollars? You pay the 60 dollars, lol. And if you can't afford it, you save up. Overpriced CDs are not really an excuse to steal, in my view. Besides, there are usually online stores that provide various deals - it can be possible to purchase a CD cheaper if you shop around for it. I have the same view with anime as well. This is why theOtaku.com doesn't support the idea of downloading anime episodes. [/color]

[color=#606060]I am sure there's at least one anime with that idea as its premise. [/color]

[color=#606060]I wouldn't really want to say what you should include in the story - I think you should ideally allow the players to help build the story as they go in the RPG. The main thing is to provide a general opening premise that gives people a good starting point. I like it when an RPG sets up a solid framework for me to work with - it allows me to use my own ideas, but I know the general limits of the universe. You can never predict whether you will get that balance completely right; you can only try. At the moment I'm probably more in the mood for joining an RPG rather than creating one, because if I created one I'd feel that I'd want to do it justice...and I don't know if I really could. But I can definitely add to someone else's story.[/color] :catgirl:

[color=#606060]Whoa, yeah, that orchestral video was great. I really hope that the sound quality isn't downgraded at all upon recording - having the original orchestral score would be wonderful. And that video...it's probably the most interesting one I've seen, despite the spoilers. The power-ups all look wonderful - it's amazingly cool to see the fireballs return. And I like that spring power-up; looks interesting. One thing I notice, more than anything else, is the sheer [i]variety[/i] in this game. And that's something that IGN commented on recently; SMG never seems to repeat itself. Each world - and each level within each world - not only looks very different to the last one, but actually performs/functions differently.[/color]

[color=#606060]I don't really find any justification in the term "they're mega rich anyway and they need to be more understanding". Rubbish. If you steal intellectual property from someone - even a mega corporation - you are still fundamentally stealing. Attempts to justify this by saying that the band or company somehow deserve it are pretty ridiculous. I think we can say that some bands handle this situation improperly...but really, if they don't want people stealing their music, they don't have to put up with that. If you are the artist, you have the right to set pretty much whatever sales terms you want. If it affects your album sales negatively, then you'd obviously have to re-think your strategy. I mean, what Radiohead is doing is kind of cool and it's a nice experiment, but if I were a music artist there is no way I'd take that path. And I shouldn't really be expected to, especially when I've put a great deal of work into something that I expect to be duly compensated for. This is a separate issue to how we may feel about DRM or the RIAA or whatever. I kind of think that should be pointed out. I have a lot of issues with the current state of DRM (although this is changing slowly), but that doesn't mean I'm prepared to circumvent the law because I disagree with the current DRM standard.[/color]

[quote]Even if the Iraqi government was democratic before Hussein, it doesn't discount the fact that a large part of Bush's insistence for the war in Iraq was to spread democracy to the world. Simply, there is a difference between liberal and illiberal democracy, and voting does not equal democracy. Forcing democracy onto other countries can (and have, in cases such as Indonesia, India, Venezuela, etc.) does not ensure that the people of those countries are allowed civil and constitutional rights.Elected governments that claim to represent people use democracy as a ruse for autocracies, and infringe upon the rights of other “elements in society”, either by taking control of other governments branches or private/third-party businesses and groups. I don't my articles about democracy in Iraq with me, but just because the US has gone in and given the Iraq people the ability to vote doesn't mean they're a liberal democracy. [/quote] [color=#606060]It isn't really "forced" democracy though. This is evidenced by the massive turn out for various elections - people not only wanted to vote, but they wanted their original democracy back. In terms of civil rights and such, I'd agree with you to some extent - but this doesn't really have anything to do with the American or British governments. It's ultimately up to the Iraqi parliament to make decisions about civil liberties and such (speaking of which, Iraq's new constitution provides significantly more freedoms than the prior version did). There have been a number of legislative changes in that area, but of course it's an ongoing process. In terms of Indonesia - a subject I am very familiar with - I think it's important to note that Indonesia has never had "real" democracy, unlike Iraq. When Indonesia became democratic (of its own will), the problem was simply lack of education and knowledge about how to operate democratic institutions. At best you could say that the country is still learning and finding its feet. Democracy probably does not come easy to a country that has never experienced it before - and I don't mean this on an ideological level, I mean it on a functional level. I certainly can list a myriad of problems with the Iraq conflict, but the vast majority of people misunderstand a lot of the specifics about the country itself and the situation surrounding the current political climate. The same was true during World War II, when it took a change of government for Britain to understand the true nature of its relationship with Nazi Germany.[/color]

[quote]I've never understand Edwards always being third. I consider him to be a strong all around candidate for the Democrats. He doesn't polarize the electorate as Clinton does or appear like a greenhorn as Obama does. I think he would do very well against any republican contenders, and would be at least an above average president. I doubt America could do much worse than Bush. [/quote] [color=#606060]I've wondered about that too, since I followed Edwards closely in the last election. My only thought is that perhaps he's simply too vanilla or something - too quiet, too pleasant...too something. Maybe he doesn't come across strongly enough. Clinton annoys many, but she speaks with strength and conviction - she knows how to come across as a potential leader. Edwards often seems a bit quieter and he sometimes seems to fade into the background a little. I could be totally wrong there, but I get the impression that a lot of people view him as being a bit lacking in substance (either rightly or wrongly). Either that, or people don't seem to view him as leadership material.[/color] [quote]What debates? Right now, the two big talking points for America's political hacks are some WWI era Armenian genocide declaration...thing...and trying to figure out what to do with Larry Craig, the Republican ***. [/quote] [color=#606060]Well that's the thing. Most of the issues are stale and/or misrepresented. Either that or they just aren't discussed at all. It's just boring and lacks substance. That's probably one reason why I haven't bothered to tune in very much.[/color]

[color=#606060]Look, the bottom line here is pretty simple. If you don't want to have a discussion with Revolver, don't. Address/quote whom you want and don't respond to Revolver is he's annoying you. At this stage most people are keeping out of the personal attacks and stuff, which is good. Let's try not to get to that point. There's always someone in a thread like this who isn't as knowledgable as the other members - so you can either ignore that person and talk with whoever you want [i]or[/i] you can just engage in both discussions. At the moment I don't really see much of a problem, other than some pretty significant differences of opinion. Let's just try to remain calm over something that isn't all that important anyway. As I said, if worst comes to worst, you simply don't have to talk to Revolver if you don't want to. But it isn't really fair to exclude him just because he might be a bit ignorant about the subject. Also, his posts aren't spam - the most you could say is that they are uninformed. Having an uninformed view about something doesn't mean you are spamming. And it shouldn't attract any personal criticism. Anyway, yeah, I guess the overall message here is [i]play nice[/i]. There's really no excuse not to. :catgirl:[/color]

[color=#606060]Yeah, I agree with you that this election isn't as high-stakes or as interesting as the 2004 election. In terms of "enforcing democracy" I'm not quite sure what you mean. If you are referring to Iraq, I'd just point out that prior to Saddam Hussein's regime coming to power, Iraq actually had a democratic parliamentary system. As far as I know, the current model being used in Iraq is largely similar to the pre-Saddam system. My understanding was that Iraq used to have a unicameral parliament (in other words, a house of reps without a senate). The only real difference now is that they are trying to create an executive branch which contains members from each ethnic group in the country. I suppose you could say it's a form of affirmative action. I don't think this was ever done before in Iraq, but it's similar to what some countries do in their parliaments. For instance, in Australia, we do have a rule about having at least one seat in the House occupied by an aboriginal Australian. As for Republican candidates go, I really know nothing about the current lineup (other than Guiliani).[/color]

[color=#606060]I don't have much to say about this that isn't already pretty obvious. Downloading music - or any copyrighted material - illegally is stealing, as has been said. I think most people would agree with that. There is also plenty of free media online, but that's another story. A while back I used LimeWire to download music for free. This was obviously illegal, but I did it as a way of sampling new music. I rarely downloaded a track and when I did, I always made sure to go out and buy the single or album. So there is also a slightly different debate related to the ability to back up your purchased content - I don't like that I can't move my Virtual Console downloads around with Wii, for example. If I purchased it, I should be able to store it anywhere. These days the need for LimeWire is pretty much eliminated. I now use iTunes Music Store and it's really convenient. I recently purchased my first song through the iTunes Music Store on iPod touch - I have never seen a more convenient way to sample and purchase music. Being able to do it right from the iPod, rather than using a computer, is even better. And really the prices are pretty decent compared to CD equivalents. There are, of course, advantages to CD (I personally like having the physical disc and album cover, as well as any bonus tracks that may not be available on iTunes). But yeah, even now I'm not always reliant on iTunes Music Store either. I still do buy CDs now and then. So it's a mixture for me.[/color]

[color=#606060]I used to be very engaged with American politics despite being Australian myself. I find the American system really interesting. And although I still believe I know more about American politics than many (including some Americans), I must admit that I haven't followed this year's primaries very closely at all. I'm not really sure why. Other than a general lack of time, I think another reason is that I just haven't found the discussion/debate terribly interesting this time around. The last American election sort of frustrated me because I felt that John Kerry wasn't the best pick (or even the most obvious choice) for Democratic nomination. I almost felt, in the beginning, that the Democrats had set themselves up to fail. I wanted better for them. This time around I just don't know. I don't have enough knowledge about the Democratic candidates. I can only say that every time Barack Obama speaks he comes across as a potentially great leader. Having said that, I don't know the detail of his policies. I don't mind Hillary Clinton but she is a very stereotypical politician - she's an expert strategist and it is difficult to know what she genuinely believes. She is very much a career politician and I think it shows. Having said that, she's an undeniably intelligent woman and a very formidable opponent. Australia is having its federal elections in November this year, so a lot is going on right now. I am loving our election campaign - I think it'll be a real cliffhanger this year. :catgirl: [/color]

[color=#606060]I think the point here is that everybody needs to remember some mutual respect. Some of you definitely know a lot more about the subject than others - this happens all the time (it happens frequently in Hardwired for instance). If you want to educate the casual fans, I'm sure there's a way to do it without getting too flustered (Jake is usually pretty clear and concise with what he says: kudos to him for that). If it's a real worry, then maybe we need one thread for hardcore fans and one for casual fans who don't want to get engaged in a genre debate. I personally know nothing about the subject but I've enjoyed reading some of the posts here - they have been pretty enlightening. :catgirl:[/color]

[quote name='Desbreko'][color=#4B0082]I have this horrible feeling that DB's going to start some sort of cult of masturbation in the future. Can't you just imagine him going door-to-door, Jehova's Witness style, to talk about it? I bet people would join, too.[/color][/QUOTE] [color=#606060]Either that or we'll have some new Adam's Angels style group on OB that will have a very different theme, lol.[/color]

[color=#606060]Yeah, my browser was being dodgy. It happens. My understanding is that you can kind of slingshot a little bit - like if you long jump off the side of a planet you'll slingshot around to the other side. That's pretty cool, I just wonder if any puzzles will use that feature. I'm mostly interested to know what elements are in the game that we still don't know about. Hopefully it hasn't been spoiled too much by all the previews.[/color]