"Right to equal treatment under the law - Well, hey, that's equality."

But does it exist? If you ask Glenn Greenwald, in the US there is a two tiered judicial system; one for the weatlhy and one for the rest (see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eYBJDRmSMRY )

But yeah, that is a problem which you can help with some kind of public defender system like... oh wait https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USkEzLuzmZ4

"To be frank; giving democracy to those regions hasn't worked out so well in Egypt & Libya now, has it?"

you can't give people democracy; a system like that only works if people believe in it. They have to take it (which builds belief that those who took power can run the system) and once in power they can build more belief in the system. As diplomat says: "Democracy does not just happen overnight."

@ Jeff Kuta: "Those are bad false dichotomies there, jamiet. Bad, bad bad."

Why are they false? There are currently hundreds of thousands of people in Iraq whose ability to access electricity, running water, and other basic infrastructure services - which they could generally rely on under the Ba'ath government - has been severely disrupted by the West's attempts to impose democracy by force. This is a fact.

@Jeff: Jamie is essentially giving examples that demonstrate how Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs works.

Well, kinda.

That's why people tolerate bad governments. As long as they provide essential services without interruption, people put up with hated overlords. "Mussolini kept the trains running on time," was an example on why Italians put up with the Fascists.

Look at the out cry in the US when the government shuts down. As much as Americans care about abortion and taxes, what really gets them mad is not being able to take their scheduled vacations in national parks because the budget didn't get passed or their government checks are held up because of the debt ceiling didn't get raised. Even Tea Party Republicans aren't going to survive if they keep disrupting socialized government programs that are now considered basic rights by most Americans.

Stability has value.

Modern China is defined by the CCP's fear of revolution driving them to to deliver better living standards to the majority. In a weird way it is democracy in action.

China is just a one party system, unlike the two-party system in America where they pretend you have a Choice; China ain't pretending...

"Stability has value."

There is definitely truth to this statement. But that doesn't mean the A/B choices you posited earlier are true ones. They are merely hypothetical and don't prove anything. There are plenty of people who would fight and die for B while working toward A.

"China is just a one party system, unlike the two-party system in America where they pretend you have a Choice; China ain't pretending..."

It is not pretty but they do have a choice. A revolution bought the CCP to power and the Chinese do not forget history (they see it as circular rather linear, with events coming around again). It is why the CCP is trying to deliver growth (to improve living standards) at almost any cost, why they come down hard on corruption (undermines their authority and was one of the reasons for the 1946 against the KMT) and why they stamp down hard on dissent. It is not a democracy as we know it but Chinese leaders are shit-scared of the people.

1946 revolution against the KMT

"It is not pretty but they do have a choice. A revolution bought the CCP to power and the Chinese do not forget history"

I'm pretty positve about China, and i do believe they hve choice in their elections; but it is not which party to vote for, more whoch local candidate to election. But your point stands.

Still, i doubt it would be considered a choice by the Taiwanese, who disagreed to... Well they still disagree, both Taiwan and China saying there is only one China, and we are it!

And yes, the risk of revolution from their people actually means the government listens to them more; but risks instability.

In modern western 'democracies' policy often ignores public opinion (the US public always opposed the Vietnam war, not just when the casaulties started mounting...) but these governments can afford to ignore public opinion because an election is never too far away; so the chances of a revolution as greatly reduced.

Now if both the ruling party and opposition party are bought by the same corporate interests, then it doesn't matter who you elect, but 'there is value in stability' - especially for the corporate elite... Though they don't mind a little conflict too if it increases demand for arms (not too much of a problem in the US because the people want arms regardless...)

(The KMT retreated to the Chinese island of Taiwan, right? And continue to officially refer to it as the Republic of China, yeah? And recognising them as a legitimate government it is considered taboo by the PRC...)

@BOG … why not just a holiday on Election Day? If we're celebrating Columbus Day for gang raping native women and using native corpses as dog food, can't we celebrate the election of our public officials too?

@Orathaic: I am not sure how much choice there really is in their elections. When I worked in China one of my staff was a candidate, he had not sought selection, he had just been chosen by the local party. In any case, the conference (equivalent to parliament) only occurs for two weeks every five years.

Sorry, yes, KMT is the Kuo Min Tang or Chinese Nationalist Party, who ended up retreating to Taiwan.

"the conference (equivalent to parliament) only occurs for two weeks every five years."

is the conference not closer to an election then? (five years is a pretty solid amount of time for elections; though in some countries the governement can collapse earlier; i know the UK just changed their system...)

I'm not actually that well read up on the system in place.

And yes, i do like that the one things the Republic of China and the People's Republic of China agree on is that there is only one China...

Amusing because if you recognise two Chinas then you get into trouble. I believe the US state department refer to Taiwan as Chinese Taipei. Total aside.

Bo_Sick - Fat, Dumb and Stupid is No Way to Go Thru Life, Son.

Sorry, maybe i should be comparing it to a party's primary election; is that closer? The labour party voted in a new leader, or the republicans can't get their shit together to select a speaker of the house or find someone to lead their party against Trump-Clinton...

orathaic- The fight in the Republican party is an attempt to get back to the government established by the Constitution. The US is not a democracy. A democracy is three wolves and a sheep voting as to what is for dinner. We are a representative republic. Unfortunately, since Teddy Roosevelt, the Progressives have been pushing us to an authoritative Federal government. The 10th Amendment has been ignored.

The congress is more like a report back and an announcement of new policies. Not unlike a UK party conference really. I think there has been some small move towards democracy at a very local level (town councils) but even that is very tightly controlled.

Both PRC and Taiwan work hard to maintain the principle of one country. At the (old) airport in Shanghai the road-signs to the terminals were marked (in English) as Domestic and International & Taiwan, whilst in the arrivals area at Taipei International the signs (again in English) referred to Chinese brothers (or some such).

I don't think there are any true democracies around, most are representative, varying only in how those representatives are chosen. The Greek original gave no say to slaves and the closest today is the system used in some Swiss cantons.

Slavers used the 10th amendment to argue against anti-slavery rules in the North.
Do you agree with them BOG? Tenthers are the worst.

Slaves or women...

JK - "Slavers used the 10th amendment to argue against anti-slavery rules in the North." the 14th amendment ended all discussion about slavery.
10thers are the best. It defines the role of the federal government

Starting from the top.
@Principians: Yeah, that would have been a more direct comparison except Cuba doesn't equal Ukraine in power or - anything. Cuba would more be like Estonia+Latvia+Lithuania.
Theres a difference between been in cold war politics in general, and trying to compare the conflict in Syria with something happening under The Cold War.

@Orathaic, I do not by your last point. I think there is more to International Relations then power. Playing diplomacy might teach you something about the realism school of thought when you play it here on this site, but if you play the game with slightly different rules you get another picture. Diplomacy is nothing but a simple simulation, as with all board games, if you do not agree with the picture it is painting, you slightly change the rules so it does.

@BOG, yes, if you choose what readings are holy you can go around the ones that tells you to threat Jews and Muslims differently. There are plenty of these in the middle ages. Christianity have gone through an evolution. Some times Christians reprogresses back to violence just as some muslims do. One is only to look at the Jews history in Christian Europe from the rise of Christianity to the late 1800-hundreds. As the Emperors, Popes and later Kings power is seen as coming from god in Christianity there is quite a lot of examples of brutal religious violence to take from - that is, focusing on the violence where religion is used to justify it. Papal bulls and what not - all key part of Christianity at one time. Same goes for parts of the Koran - they were important at some point in the history of Islam, but their relevance is in decay. And it's possible to find other parts of the history of Islam were a more peaceful coexistence with Christians and Jews was more key then other parts of its history. Of course if you only value the founding books of the religions you're still very wrong: Luk. 19,27: "But these mine enemies, that would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me."

Luk, 13,1: Now there were some present at that very season who told him of the Galilaeans, whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices. And he answered and said unto them, Think ye that these Galilaeans were sinners above all the Galilaeans, because they have suffered these things? I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all in like manner perish. Or those eighteen, upon whom the tower in Siloam fell, and killed them, think ye that they were offenders above all the men that dwell in Jerusalem? I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish."
This is only what I found from a quick search in my own language. I to am a Christian, I believe in the peaceful part of Jesus teachings. But don't fool yourself. Jesus teachings have blessing and peace for those who follow him and curse, death and eternal damnation for those who don't.

@JK
1) I think you know what I mean just from you write. Yes, there were no official agreements, but you clearly know that the Russians were under impression that an agreement of sorts had been made. The point is that the Russians felt cheated when EU and NATO started to intervene in Ukraine.

2) Totally agree, just trying to look at it from another perspective then my own. Trying to keep track of the actual strategic moves of Assad, what he did and why is something that have seemed to be impossible for me. Not that I think he loved all tribes in Syria, just saying that his retreat from these areas might have some reasons behind them that counts.

3) Agree again. I was just saying my opinion against the original note by yassem. The steps taken by Obama holds within those rules I mentioned. Yassems call to action those not IMO.

@Middle fart:

One thing on Luke, I criticised BOG for his ignorance of Islam, and i would be remiss if i didn't delve a little deeper into Christianity.

The only real question is, who wrote the gospel of Luke? (And from what i can tell, the same author wrote the Acts of the Apostles) And When. (yes this is still one question)

Now we know there are four gospels. How much of them is copied from each other? Well it is a bit messy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Luke#/media/File:Relationship_between_synoptic_gospels.png

You might also wonder why they didn't just have one story, told once; the main thing is, they were not written in the time of Jesus. The were all written about 40-100 years later; based on the oral traditions of the Christians.

So you would expect some differences.

Second, these four gospels are the accepted cannon version of events. Does this mean they are accurate? Or that they just politically useful.

Also why are there only four? Well that seems to come down to Irenaeus of Lyons, around 185 CE. And his arguements are... rather questionable, at best.

And so by Pope Innocent I 401-417 the Roman Catholics had four official 'cannonical' gospels. (the Orthodox Eastern Church only recognised these texts around 692)

Now i know the Mormons have the book of Mormon as their major text. Probably written by Joseph Smith in ~1827. But lets pretend that they are irrelevant as the vast majority of Christians feel they are... (though the ~15 million Mormons in the world rather outnumber Wahhabi's followers)

Ok. Back to the New Testament, now i could go on to mention how the Protestant reformers thought about the gospels, and how to interpret them - as compared with the Roman Catholic Church's Sacred Tradition, papal bulls, and ecumenical councils.

But i think understanding the authors is more important; Who were they, who was their audience, and why were they teaching about Jesus? Lets be clear, Jesus was Jewish and preached to Jews in the Roman province of Judea. From what we can tell he promised a 'Kingdom of Heaven on Earth' - which most Jews at the time would have understood as a Theocracy.

Paul, and later church leaders, meanwhile, were not Jewish, they were Roman citizens, and they were writing for a Roman audience. They focused instead on converting these Pagan Romans to Christianity; and Paul never actually met Jesus.

This was the founding of Christianity, and as you can imagine, it looked very different. Firstly there is no talk of overthrowing the Roman Empire (Rome doesn't like this kind of talk, and infact destroyed the Second Temple in Jeresulam in 70AD and the Jewish homeland was erased. Jew spread throughout the Empire and.... nearly 2000 years later they returned to, no seriously, this is a cool story... but lets not talk about Modern Israel just now, it never ends well...)

So Jesus never tried to convert Romans, there is no evidence of that from the time. What we know is the Romans crucified him, and we also know that this was the punishment they used for bandits. People who attacked tax collectors and tried to undermine the power of the Empire.

They were even crucified beside him. Sure Paul and the later writers tried to remove all blame from the Roman authorities, but that's propaganda being used by later writers to convince Romans citizens that they should follow Jesus; can't go around telling them that it wouldn't look good; sure it is much easier to blame the Jews anyway... Also Jesus did have a problem with the Jewish authorities (those who were in power and thus had the most to lose from any change to the status quo)

Ok, so what do Christians believe about Luke? Well that it provides a true story based on the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. Mostly... Do they use it to justify violence? Well they probably could, if they wanted to. Should they? Well i guess that depends on how you feel about the Roman Empire and it's authority.

And whether you want to establish a Theocracy (which outside of the Vatican City, i don't believe there are any Christian Theocracies... Iran is the only other Theocracy i can find, and apparently it is a republic - while the Vatican is technically an absolute monarchy, where the king is elected...)

One thing: China may, infact, not have an aircraft carrier in the mediterranian.

As detailed in this report: http://libertyunyielding.com/2015/09/27/theres-no-chinese-aircraft-carrier-in-syria/

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/10/sam-harris-is-still-mad-about-liberals-who-followed-noam-chomsky-off-the-edge-of-the-world/

"As a Muslim, Nawaz said, the “correct answer” is to say that the link between terrorism by Islamic extremists and the religion itself is defined by the connection between their interpretation of scripture and what they feel needs to be done."