Prae

I agree with everything Free Capitalist said. We tend to idealize the Greeks even though they were normal people. Greek civilization was amazing considering when it had its golden age and all that came out of it. But that is not all that should be considered as Roman civilization was truly grand spanning many generations and eventually conquering the Greeks.

If we started to experiment on captured terrorists it would certainly anger the terrorists who were not captured. It may possibly lead them to do even worse things to the hostages they capture.

And I you

Okay, should america do so?

I started to read VOS. I guess I didn't enjoy it because it is gathering dust on my bookshelf.

The question is not invalid, stop dancing around it and just answer it. I wanted to see what everyone here thought of the question, but you were the only one who responded to the question. I did not presuppose anything of you, because I was asking the question of many people.

They are related. Their religion permeates into every aspect of their lives. Islam is a major part of who they are. When you attack Islam you attack the most stable and fundamental thing in their lives. Islam is inseperable from their race.

I never said you did, but I did want a response. Now you haven't answered MY question. Because any citizen can leave. Also the citizens can overthrow their own government. The citizens are ultimately responsible for themselves and for their own future, we certainly are not. Isn't this basically the previous question asked differently. I might as well answer it again. If the majority of citizens desire a theocracy then they should have it. If it by chance begins to violate the rights of dissenting opinions then the people who wish to should leave. If christians are being persecuted in Iraq then they should leave Iraq. It doesn't make any sense for them to be over there if there is violence against christians. I know that this particular aspect of self-determination and democracy is looked down on by Objectivism but I don't really care. We live in the real world.

Racism: Discrimination or prejudice based on race. (Dictionary.com) 'What an individual thinks' is their thought processes. Race is their ethnic origin. On what premise do you assert that the majority of the people in a country are not entitled to the government that they desire? Lie: 1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood. 2. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression. (Dictionary.com) I like these two definitions. Error: An act, assertion, or belief that unintentionally deviates from what is correct, right, or true. So I guess it comes down to whether was a liar or whether he was just ignorant. And which would actually be better, an ignorant president, or a liar?

The people living under a dictatorship (although the argument was originally based around a theocracy) have the responsiblity to decide if they are going to live there. It may seem absurd that somebody would decide to live in Iraq or any other middle eastern country, but they are religious and these governments cater to that religion. They can practice with all of their brethren without fear of christian influence. The only people who have the right to overthrow a government are the citizens themselves (unless of course the government had declared war etc.). Since this argument is just going in a circle I'd like to ask a question of you who are arguing against me. Why is it so that America has to be the country that liberates all of these dictatorships?

I voted for Rome even after I considered the numerous contributions the Greeks made. The Romans had quite a bit as well but the reason I voted for them was because their civilization was truly impressive, the time span was enormous (over 1,000 years) and their civilization basically covered the entire world worth conquering. With all due respect to Greece they could not maintain the empire they created, and the golden age of Greece was only in the Greek peninsula, it would take Alexander to spread Greek culture to the world. Rome however was able to build an empire and was also able to pass leadership succesfully. They were both great though, and thats why they both have a lasting influence today.

Of course the people have the right to be ruled by a better government, we all do. That is why anyone can leave their country. The Berlin Wall was put up because the best minds in East Berlin were running into West Berlin. The wall couldn't even stop them. A government is for the people, and typically it serves the majority. If the majority want an Islamic government who are we to say "sorry, that is irrational." And not all Islamic governments are dangerous to the United States. None of the governments in the middle east can even compare to U.S.S.R., Germany during the '30s and '40s, and Japan during the '30s and '40s.

Finally somebody agrees with me. This I certainly don't agree with. But that is all I can say, that governments have a right to exist without interference unless they clearly attack another government.

What's your's?

Because the majority of Arabs are Muslims, everbody knows that. Of course some other races are muslim but they don't even compare to the arab population.