RandFan
Mormon Atheist
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2001
- Messages
- 60,135
E.J. I told you that I would give you the last word while reserving a right to respond to a point or to. I have no problem doing that since most of your answers are non responsive.
I've posted an example.
To answer your question, though I know that you don't care what the answer is and BTW I did answer it several times. The Shiites are the majority. Shiites have a history of imposing their will on everyone else. Please note the lack of diversity in Iran. Based upon history and the politics and goals of Shiites, if given a "democracy" without any checks and balances it will be replaced with a theocracy.
I do want all of the Iraqis to have a voice. If we walk away and leave the decision making to the majority then we have lost and all of the Iraqis will NOT have a voice.
I have made this argument clear but you simply don't care. That the minorities won't have a voice is of no concern to you. At least you have expressed no interest in this. We should just leave according to you. No attempt at structuring a government that is fair to all.
Thank you for not providing any logical argument whatsoever and giving us a lot of rhetoric and only disagreeing with me.
Can provide any objective proof that the Shiites who hold 60% of the population won't institute a theocracy.
Do you have any examples of nations composed of a Shiite majority who have recognized the civil rights of the minorities?
How many nations composed of a Muslim majority have democracies?
How many nations composed of a Muslim majority have theocracies?
This contention is the heart of our discussion. It is the very reason we don't just turn the reigns over to the Iraqis without first setting up a provincial government with checks and balances that would best meet the needs of all of the groups in Iraq.
Since it is integral to the discussion I would think that you would take some time to support your contention.
Absent some evidence or compelling logical argument I don't really see the need to discuss anything with you because I find that this is a pattern with you. Make an argument and then fire off rhetoric and disagreement.
I've posted an example.
Your response is just gainsaying, rhetoric and a straw man. You don't explain why the Shiites who hold a majority and who have a history of creating non-secular governments won't create a theocracy? You accuse me of not wanting the Iraqis to have control of their destinies based upon the idea that I support a government that will give all Iraqis a voice.
To answer your question, though I know that you don't care what the answer is and BTW I did answer it several times. The Shiites are the majority. Shiites have a history of imposing their will on everyone else. Please note the lack of diversity in Iran. Based upon history and the politics and goals of Shiites, if given a "democracy" without any checks and balances it will be replaced with a theocracy.
I do want all of the Iraqis to have a voice. If we walk away and leave the decision making to the majority then we have lost and all of the Iraqis will NOT have a voice.
I have made this argument clear but you simply don't care. That the minorities won't have a voice is of no concern to you. At least you have expressed no interest in this. We should just leave according to you. No attempt at structuring a government that is fair to all.
Thank you for not providing any logical argument whatsoever and giving us a lot of rhetoric and only disagreeing with me.
Can provide any objective proof that the Shiites who hold 60% of the population won't institute a theocracy.
Do you have any examples of nations composed of a Shiite majority who have recognized the civil rights of the minorities?
How many nations composed of a Muslim majority have democracies?
How many nations composed of a Muslim majority have theocracies?
This contention is the heart of our discussion. It is the very reason we don't just turn the reigns over to the Iraqis without first setting up a provincial government with checks and balances that would best meet the needs of all of the groups in Iraq.
Since it is integral to the discussion I would think that you would take some time to support your contention.
Absent some evidence or compelling logical argument I don't really see the need to discuss anything with you because I find that this is a pattern with you. Make an argument and then fire off rhetoric and disagreement.