won't be surprised by how Libya is faring today.
www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-28564637

what they & Iraq need is a tough strong ruthless leader who can force all the factions to work together.

errr..that's what they had

Summed up beautifully Hedda. Sadly, corruption will appear and individual freedoms will erode as the tyrant gets stronger. So there's a revolution and chaos until the next strong man comes along.

JK2006 wrote:
won't be surprised by how Libya is faring today.
www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-28564637

More or less exactly how the UK developed !

Why would you think that a "democracy" can develop overnight - when it took about 1000 years to reach where we are today?

Poor Pattaya seems to have "forgotten" the Wars of the Roses, the UK Civil War, the infighting between the Irish and the English ... the battles between the Scots and the English ... the battles to pacify Wales !

He thinks democracy was established overnight !

In The Know (as always) wrote:
Poor Pattaya seems to have "forgotten" the Wars of the Roses, the UK Civil War, the infighting between the Irish and the English ... the battles between the Scots and the English ... the battles to pacify Wales !

He thinks democracy was established overnight !

He also has 'A' grade A levels in both history and politics....so can you please tell me what the war of the roses or the Welsh/English/Scott fighting had to do with democracy?...Even the civil war had very little to do with 'democracy',more an increased representation of the upper middle classes.

Ever been to Arab countries ITK? Libya perhaps? Iraq maybe? Syria?....answers on a very small postcard,care of somewhere undiscovered in rural Derbyshire....

Pattaya wrote:
He also has 'A' grade A levels in both history and politics....so can you please tell me what the war of the roses or the Welsh/English/Scott fighting had to do with democracy?...Even the civil war had very little to do with 'democracy',more an increased representation of the upper middle classes.

Parliament was started after Magna Carta - all the other things came AFTER that !

In The Know wrote:
Pattaya wrote:
He also has 'A' grade A levels in both history and politics....so can you please tell me what the war of the roses or the Welsh/English/Scott fighting had to do with democracy?...Even the civil war had very little to do with 'democracy',more an increased representation of the upper middle classes.

Parliament was started after Magna Carta - all the other things came AFTER that !

Brain of a Pea

Pattaya wrote:
In The Know wrote:
Pattaya wrote:
He also has 'A' grade A levels in both history and politics....so can you please tell me what the war of the roses or the Welsh/English/Scott fighting had to do with democracy?...Even the civil war had very little to do with 'democracy',more an increased representation of the upper middle classes.

Parliament was started after Magna Carta - all the other things came AFTER that !

Brain of a Pea

He was doing so well,gone back to his old ways now

Pattaya wrote:
Even the civil war had very little to do with 'democracy',more an increased representation of the upper middle classes.

You don't think slinging out the Divine Right of Kings was a massive shift in any process of democratization {here's a clue, no king has ever dared to try toget it restored} ? You don't believe that the removal of a system under which Parliament could be desolved by Royal Whim to be a fundamental shift in that same process? You don't believe either that the beliefs of the Diggers or the Levellers had a resonance still valid today, and that their {admittedly brief} flourishing would have been possible under Charles I's {or anyone elses for that matter} autocracy. Briefly put, your A levels don't appear to have instilled in you any understanding at all of the deep impact that the ECW had on England and its principalities. Before 1642 the monarchy could do what it wanted whenever it wanted. By 1650 no one in the country could be in any doubt that things had changed about as much as they possibly could. Rule by one man had been ended. For good.
The sovereign body was now elected. If you think that boils down to "more an increased representation of the upper middle classes"
then you wasted your time studying the period at all.

By the way, there's only one "t" in Scot. Presumably you didn't get an "A" in English. And before you start please remember that it was you who brought qualifications into this.

Locked Out wrote:
By the way, there's only one "t" in Scot. Presumably you didn't get an "A" in English. And before you start please remember that it was you who brought qualifications into this.

Educashun is not wot it waz is it ????

I blame the teachers

Locked Out wrote:
Pattaya wrote:
Even the civil war had very little to do with 'democracy',more an increased representation of the upper middle classes.

You don't think slinging out the Divine Right of Kings was a massive shift in any process of democratization {here's a clue, no king has ever dared to try toget it restored} ? You don't believe that the removal of a system under which Parliament could be desolved by Royal Whim to be a fundamental shift in that same process? You don't believe either that the beliefs of the Diggers or the Levellers had a resonance still valid today, and that their {admittedly brief} flourishing would have been possible under Charles I's {or anyone elses for that matter} autocracy. Briefly put, your A levels don't appear to have instilled in you any understanding at all of the deep impact that the ECW had on England and its principalities. Before 1642 the monarchy could do what it wanted whenever it wanted. By 1650 no one in the country could be in any doubt that things had changed about as much as they possibly could. Rule by one man had been ended. For good.
The sovereign body was now elected. If you think that boils down to "more an increased representation of the upper middle classes"
then you wasted your time studying the period at all.

By the way, there's only one "t" in Scot. Presumably you didn't get an "A" in English. And before you start please remember that it was you who brought qualifications into this.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy

'Democracy is a form of government in which all eligible citizens participate equally'

Seems you know even less about democracy than you know about economics.~However you got better marks in your spelling.

I seem to recall the ECW ended up with both houses of parliament dissolved,and a certain Mr Cromwell establishing a 'Protectorate'.

Until the Reform Act of 1867 very few people outside the upper echelons had any real say in government.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reform_Act_1867

Oh and just to clear up your comment here

'By 1650 no one in the country could be in any doubt that things had changed about as much as they possibly could. Rule by one man had been ended. For good.'

Didn't Mr Cromwell dissolve parliament in April 1653?

As said,the ECW simply enfranchised the better off in society,hardly democracy,when the vast majority of citizens had no input in government.

Oh and Mr Know,education is not what it was because many schools put far too much of their resources into educating non English natives to the detriment of the lower class natives you think so little of.

Pattaya wrote:
'Democracy is a form of government in which all eligible citizens participate equally'

Eligible !

Thats the key word .... to start with most could not even read or write, and had simply no understanding - why should they be "eligible" ? They had their educated peers to look after their interests.

to the detriment of the lower class natives you think so little of.

...... and why should we waste (even more) money on them?

Their destiny is sealed - they will become till operatives in a Pound shop - and you don't need to be able to read to do that - the scanner does all the work ! They don't even need to be able to add-up ... the till does all that for them.

Then we can spend the money on the retired (those who deserve it - because they HAVE worked for 50 years, and HAVE paid tax, and HAVE contributed to society).

But getting back to the original point, yes, democracy takes time (although I don't think it works - why allow clueless people who vote on simplistic slogans, good hair and teeth to decide who to run things?) but my approach against violent interference in other regime changes remains... on the other hand I am strongly in favour of supporting governments financially and with trade, tourism etc.

In The Know (as always) wrote:
Pattaya wrote:
'Democracy is a form of government in which all eligible citizens participate equally'

Eligible !

Thats the key word .... to start with most could not even read or write, and had simply no understanding - why should they be "eligible" ? They had their educated peers to look after their interests.

to the detriment of the lower class natives you think so little of.

...... and why should we waste (even more) money on them?

Their destiny is sealed - they will become till operatives in a Pound shop - and you don't need to be able to read to do that - the scanner does all the work ! They don't even need to be able to add-up ... the till does all that for them.

Then we can spend the money on the retired (those who deserve it - because they HAVE worked for 50 years, and HAVE paid tax, and HAVE contributed to society).

Back to the Pea?

I had a lovely full day in the Eurozone ITK,perfect weather,great food,attractive feminine company.Hoiw was it up your way?

JK2006 wrote:
But getting back to the original point, yes, democracy takes time (although I don't think it works - why allow clueless people who vote on simplistic slogans, good hair and teeth to decide who to run things?) but my approach against violent interference in other regime changes remains... on the other hand I am strongly in favour of supporting governments financially and with trade, tourism etc.

Interesting to note that when any increase in popular representation in Muslim countries has been allowed that an increase of more extreme Muslim laws has taken place.

Afghanistan and Persia were quite progressive places for things like religious tolerance/women's rights etc during the 70s. I believe now they have the death sentence for those who turn away from Islam.

JK2006 wrote:
why allow clueless people who vote on simplistic slogans, good hair and teeth to decide who to run things?)

Indeed.
Britain ruled the world when the landed classes ran the country !

but my approach against violent interference in other regime changes remains... on the other hand I am strongly in favour of supporting governments financially and with trade, tourism etc.

I also agree, and am (normally) against violence as I believe it rarely achieves anything BUT would Hitler have backed down if we had simply removed trade and tourism? I think not.

Despotic dictators understand only one thing !

... and if we acted when I first suggested we attack Syria, then more lives could have been saved, as the ongoing war shows absolutely no sign of ending.