Bin Laden's Dead

[Mak]

You seem to be quoting me and then going "Off Base"

Heh, you're right, I was very tired and shouldn't have even posted at that time. I was coming back to fix and delete several parts of it; but you pretty much covered it already. I normally don't stick my nose in to political conversations in the first place, it just started to sound like it was becoming another hate thread which there are enough of littered on most forums; which would normally have been more reason to ignore it, but you seemed to know your history and politics so I was unsure what point you were getting at.
 
Your view on muslims still confuses me, I think you aren't clearly stating when you're talking about people in the modern world or people living in opressed countries is what's happening and that's what I originally got confused. Now that you seem like someone who does look at available facts and interprets them objectively, I think even arguing on this would be pointless now because we would probably end up debating small things that in the end make no real difference.
 
The 9/11 tapes thing I was going to outright delete from my post. I wasn't talking about conspiracy theories, I worded myself poorly and didn't explain. I was trying to find my original source again but couldn't, it seems like all the info on this has been sucked into and twisted by the conspiracy theorist world. So I'll leave this alone until/if I can again find it from a respectable source with a link, haha already made myself look bad enough with the last post, no need to look like a nut.
 
The Daily Show link won't work for me, it brings me to the page but the video gets stuck loading. Checked my flash player and it's the newest version, so not sure what the issue is.

[Xela]

Live long and prosper

To bad about the daily show link. It's very good

"Your view on muslims still confuses me, I think you aren't clearly stating when you're talking about people in the modern world or people living in opressed countries" I was talking about both and was trying to draw a parallel but it was confusing

[Barinthus]

the bin Laden cocktail:


two shots and a splash of water.

[Aslan]

Hgehe... "films-investigations" as you call them are more commonly called conspiracy theory movies and have nothing in common with the real world. People that enjoy such fiction get erection while watching "Zeitgeist" (No offense intended towards anyone)
 

BBC conspiracy theory movies? Well, I don't think about it. I wont argue about 9/11 tragedy, I don't think that I have enough knowledge about this.

  Now about Putin. I may not live in Russia but I was born and grew up in Russia and I still speak perfect Russian. First thing worth mentioning is that Putin destroyed the Mass Free Media in Russia. Criticism of him or his fellow politicians is not existent on mainstream television. Second he has control of the government as a whole.
 His prolonged rule lead to amazing outbursts like: Дума - это не место для дискуссий? Which translates to: "Congress is not a place for discussions" and sound borderline insane to the free world

 "he's just a charismatic man in the top of the goverment" Is not an argument in favor of him not being a dictator... Hitler, Stalin, Zedong were all charismatic men in the top of the government... Putin is the head of the Government, leader of the strongest political party in Russia, he has control of the Judiciary branch and Executive branch of the government. As far as I am concerned he is not a figurehead but an actual leader and with his power pretty much undisputed, he is a dictator!

I was born and begin to grow up in USSR and I prefer to distinct Soviet Union and modern Russia, it's two really different countries.
 >Putin destroyed the Mass Free Media in Russia
 I surprised to read this. There was no free Mass Media in USSR, there is no free Mass Media in Russia. What exactly destroyed Putin? There is only one free media source - Internet. And it's still out of control in Russia (unlike Kazakhstan, for example). All other media sources has a progoverment direction and that's why I don't watch TV, I don't like brainwashing.
 >Second he has control of the government as a whole.
 Personally? That's not true really. His place in goverment (I think in English it is Prime Minister) allow him to fire almost anyone working for the goverment but if that's what you mean "has control of the goverment" then any President, Prime Minister, Head of the Congress and the like is no less dictator than Putin.
 And moreover, Putin and Medvedev has certain disagreements, in some cases they has different positions, different looks. If goverment has two equal leaders how can one of them be a dictator?
 >Дума - это не место для дискуссий
 Фраза, вырванная из контекста, может принимать совсем другое значение. Phrase without its context can have different meaning.
 >Putin is the head of the Government, leader of the strongest political party in Russia, he has control of the Judiciary branch and Executive branch of the government
 Putin is not a President, he's a Prime Minister. That's the second place in the goverment, not the first. President can fire him as he did this to the mayor of Moscow. Putin is not the leader of "United Russia" political party, he's just a member of this party. The leader of this party is another man, a speaker of congress Boris Gryzlov, if I remember right. So as a Prime Minister Putin has some degree of control over Judiciary and Executive branches of the government, but full control has only President of Russia. Of course, second place in goverment is still the top of the goverment but that doesn't make him a dictator.
 

"If Kaddafi is a dictator then why that rebels still fight with him? Why he isn't put an end to this rebellion in a few days? And why the most of population of his country supports not the rebels but Kaddafi?" Again... these are not arguments... Stalin was supported by most of his countrymen even though he slaughtered 20 000 000 of his own people in Gulags. Hitler was wildly supported by his countyfolk during the time of his reign... and who the hell told you that most of the population supports Gaddafi? And how much of that population support him because he is willing to run them over with tanks and shell them with heavy artillery/cluster bombs? He has been in power for almost 42 years. He has control of the Mass Media, Judiciary system in Syria simply doesn't exist, at least not by the modern standards, what they call courts are not simply corrupt, they do not even pretend to function as courts at all... They do not even have a constitution. Gaddafi is a modern posterboy for Dictators. In the free world, all media is calling him a dictator, be that liberal, conservative or unbiased media... I have no idea why you think that it extends just to Obama, Berlusconi and some other persons. And why did he not simply put an end to that rebellion in a few days? Because killing people in masses is pretty hard, especially if they are willing to fight back with their lives. Not to mention that Libya is divided in Tribes and not all tribes are friendly with Gaddafi. All and all he did try to end it and he is trying to end it... with a great hunger for blood non the less...

Yes, Stalin was a dictator. But that dictator bring the victory to his people in the Second World War, that dictator raise the biggest country on Earth from the totally mess to the place where people like to live. That's why people liked him and many modern people dream about leader like Stalin. Sometimes it's better to kill thousands to save millions. I wont discuss that idea, I just think that it has the right to live.
 >and who the hell told you that most of the population supports Gaddafi?
 And who told you the opposite? Official "free" Mass Media, I suppose.
 >They do not even have a constitution
 Of course. Anarchy differs from democracy, differs in many ways. I always wonder why Europe and USA sees democracy as the only true way for the goverment. People are different, you know. Socialism, absolute monarchy and anarchy has the same right to exist as the democracy. Intervention in internal affairs of another country - that's what is happening in Lybia. In this situation Europe and USA are agressors, that bombs another country, that brings pain and suffering to the Lybian people. And the goverments that kill innocent people are much like dictators than Kaddafi. Why do you not call George Bush Jr the dictator? His troops made an intervention in Aphganistan, in Iraq, his troops killed many innocent people (moreover these people was killed without any special reason).
 >Because killing people in masses is pretty hard, especially if they are willing to fight back with their lives
 In masses? AFAIK, there's not too much rebels to call them "masses". You talk about tanks and cluster bombs but what weapons has the other side. They are rebels, right? So they are not military people with no modern weapons. They are fighting back the tanks and cluster bombs with what? With spades and kitchen knives? And they even fight back successfully. I don't offer any conspiracy theory or offer any "working theory" about the Lybian rebels. I just ask you to think about that.

[Ctwo]

Of course. Anarchy differs from democracy, differs in many ways. I always wonder why Europe and USA sees democracy as the only true way for the goverment. People are different, you know. Socialism, absolute monarchy and anarchy has the same right to exist as the democracy. Intervention in internal affairs of another country - that's what is happening in Lybia. In this situation Europe and USA are agressors, that bombs another country, that brings pain and suffering to the Lybian people. And the goverments that kill innocent people are much like dictators than Kaddafi. Why do you not call George Bush Jr the dictator? His troops made an intervention in Aphganistan, in Iraq, his troops killed many innocent people (moreover these people was killed without any special reason).
 >Because killing people in masses is pretty hard, especially if they are willing to fight back with their lives
 In masses? AFAIK, there's not too much rebels to call them "masses". You talk about tanks and cluster bombs but what weapons has the other side. They are rebels, right? So they are not military people with no modern weapons. They are fighting back the tanks and cluster bombs with what? With spades and kitchen knives? And they even fight back successfully. I don't offer any conspiracy theory or offer any "working theory" about the Lybian rebels. I just ask you to think about that.

Actually the United States is a republic, not a democracy. Republics are "rule by law" while Democracys are "rule by mob". Also Anarchy isn't a government type, but the complete lack of government. An area under Anarchy has no laws and tends to have a high rate of violence and crime due to a lack of any organization to prevent it. A Monarchy is rule by heraditary leaders, and by absolute monarchy I suppose you mean a monarchy with no constitution or laws? So if the leader of such a society can rule by whims and would expect to be followed no matter what decisions such a leader makes? If your comfortable with that sort of government then your a lot more trusting than I am. I'd rather live in a country where the people have a say in it and bad leaders can be removed easily.
 
Oh, and Socialism isn't actually a government type. It is an economic model in which government owns the means of production and uses it to provide for the masses, both as a producer of goods and an employer. This kind of government can only be approached after going through a long capitalist phase in which the society learns how to best exploit its resources but tires of the kind of society that capitalism leads to. Karl Marks wished the USSR well in their experiment into Socialism but accroding to his own philosophy of history the USSR was doomed to failure due to the attempt to move from a Monarchy directly into Socialism without the Capitalism phase.
 
As for Libya the majority of the army outside of the capital joined the rebels immediately. The rebel factions were able to march into army bases and police stations and were quite litterally handed weapons. Kaddafi still has his best soldiers with him. He kept himself surrounded with those most loyal to him. His troops are better armed, trained, and organized. If it wasn't for the intervention from the US and European's in Libya Kaddafi would of probably been able to bomb the rest of Libya into submission by now. Instead the rebels and loyalist forces are fighting back and forth over a few cities...which will bring more and more casualties over time. the political situation is messy. No forigne power wants to step in because if they do it will cause a huge backlash for very little gain. At this point the best thing that could happen is Kaddafi flees the country and some coalition takes over and manages to create a legitimate government that isn't as powerful or abusive as the current regime. While an elected government would be perfered by western governments, it probably isn't too realistic to expect one.

[Xela]

First, thanks Ctwo for covering part of the topic

BBC conspiracy theory movies? Well, I don't think about it. I wont argue about 9/11 tragedy, I don't think that I have enough knowledge about this. I was born and begin to grow up in USSR and I prefer to distinct Soviet Union and modern Russia, it's two really different countries.

BBC made plenty of documentaries on Sasquatch and Aliens as well. The idea is to watch and make your own decisions about what you believe in. Also thinking about modern day Russia and USSR is not really a preference. They differ on to many levels for anyone to think of them as one but that doesn't mean some parallels cannot be drawn.

>Putin destroyed the Mass Free Media in Russia
 I surprised to read this. There was no free Mass Media in USSR, there is no free Mass Media in Russia. What exactly destroyed Putin? There is only one free media source - Internet. And it's still out of control in Russia (unlike Kazakhstan, for example). All other media sources has a progoverment direction and that's why I don't watch TV, I don't like brainwashing.

Actually there was. Before mid year 2000 there was plenty of criticism and satire against the Government. That is what Putin destroyed, mainly by having Gazprom taking over management of NTV and then going after the rest of smaller channels. After that mainstream news and tv shows were poisoned with an insane amount of news where Putin could do no wrong and even greater amount of shows where police and alike were portrayed as honest, incorruptible organisations... That is what I've meant. Also while Internet remains reasonably free in Russia, it is a poor tool to shape public opinion or to keep people informed as it consists of thousands of sites, blogs and journals that are not often factchecked.

>Second he has control of the government as a whole.
 Personally? That's not true really. His place in goverment (I think in English it is Prime Minister) allow him to fire almost anyone working for the goverment but if that's what you mean "has control of the goverment" then any President, Prime Minister, Head of the Congress and the like is no less dictator than Putin.
 And moreover, Putin and Medvedev has certain disagreements, in some cases they has different positions, different looks. If goverment has two equal leaders how can one of them be a dictator?

The trouble here is that it is close to impossible to explain to someone who believes that anarchy has the same right to exist as democracy the real difference between the two...

First it is not about who can fire who... There is theory and there is a reality. Government is not a mathematical equation where everything works like clockwork, it is a complex system that is based on and around people. I simply believe that Putin has far more control then his position warrants him and there are plenty of facts to back that theory. The thing is that you seem to believe that Government system in Russia functions as it should and there is a distribution of power between the branches of government like in EU countries, US and etc. I do not believe that it is the case and I believe that Putin has built up a vertical of power that puts him on top of all branches of government. To back myself up a bit I will say this:

- Virtually all people that influenced Putin during his life are in the positions of wealth and power. Be that his teachers, friends or colleagues (Old, new colleagues are obviously in the position of power ).

- Judiciary branch in Russia is falling apart, it is corrupt, all verdicts favour beyond reason to people in power, etc.

- He has been in the position of insane power for almost 12 years now. His attitude towards Medvedev who can "fire" him is sometimes mocking and outright disrespectful.

Second is actually to expand the thought of the first and to answer your constant comparison of Medvedev and Putin. Yes, it is true that they are both a "real" deal as Medvedev has his own political "clan" and Putin has his own. But it is hard to dispute that Putin's clan is stronger... He is the leader of "United Russia", he is has been around longer and I see no reason for him to actually relinquish control of the media or influence over oligarchs to Medvedev. The one who will decide who gets to be elected as president next year will be Putin unless someone manages to destroy his "brand" and that is not likely.

>Дума - это не место для дискуссий
 Фраза, вырванная из контекста, может принимать совсем другое значение. Phrase without its context can have different meaning.
 >Putin is the head of the Government, leader of the strongest political party in Russia, he has control of the Judiciary branch and Executive branch of the government
 Putin is not a President, he's a Prime Minister. That's the second place in the goverment, not the first. President can fire him as he did this to the mayor of Moscow. Putin is not the leader of "United Russia" political party, he's just a member of this party. The leader of this party is another man, a speaker of congress Boris Gryzlov, if I remember right. So as a Prime Minister Putin has some degree of control over Judiciary and Executive branches of the government, but full control has only President of Russia. Of course, second place in government is still the top of the government but that doesn't make him a dictator.

That phrase represents situation in Russian Duma quite well, but I do not believe that it actually exists. Rather it was compiled from a longer speech and was defended with "I meant battles, not discussion" that did not really fly, see if you can find the unabridged version... I am not very strong on the "RuNet".

 From here on I risk at repeating myself... Neither of them is supposed to have control over Judiciary branch, my believe that Putin has such is a sad reality of Russia in my eyes. Any president that has "Full control" is a dictator by definition so you are contradicting yourself with what you write about Medvedev. Putin is the leader of "United Russia" political party! Check their freaking website. Putin is NOT a member of the "United Russia", no idea where you got that from. Gryzlov leads those member of the party that are in the actual "Duma" but that does in no way makes him an actual leader of the party itself...

   Yes, Stalin was a dictator. But that dictator bring the victory to his people in the Second World War, that dictator raise the biggest country on Earth from the totally mess to the place where people like to live. That's why people liked him and many modern people dream about leader like Stalin. Sometimes it's better to kill thousands to save millions. I wont discuss that idea, I just think that it has the right to live.
 >and who the hell told you that most of the population supports Gaddafi?
 And who told you the opposite? Official "free" Mass Media, I suppose.
 >They do not even have a constitution
 Of course. Anarchy differs from democracy, differs in many ways. I always wonder why Europe and USA sees democracy as the only true way for the goverment. People are different, you know. Socialism, absolute monarchy and anarchy has the same right to exist as the democracy. Intervention in internal affairs of another country - that's what is happening in Lybia. In this situation Europe and USA are agressors, that bombs another country, that brings pain and suffering to the Lybian people. And the goverments that kill innocent people are much like dictators than Kaddafi. Why do you not call George Bush Jr the dictator? His troops made an intervention in Aphganistan, in Iraq, his troops killed many innocent people (moreover these people was killed without any special reason).
 >Because killing people in masses is pretty hard, especially if they are willing to fight back with their lives
 In masses? AFAIK, there's not too much rebels to call them "masses". You talk about tanks and cluster bombs but what weapons has the other side. They are rebels, right? So they are not military people with no modern weapons. They are fighting back the tanks and cluster bombs with what? With spades and kitchen knives? And they even fight back successfully. I don't offer any conspiracy theory or offer any "working theory" about the Libyan rebels. I just ask you to think about that.

 "Liked to live" under Stalin is a relative term. I am sure there are many people who "Like to live" in the North Korea these days and most of the people who crave Stalin today are poorly informed about the possible alternatives that do not require killing millions to save millions.

 About the free pesky "Free Western Massmedia" (Not sure what you meant with official). I've never heard anything about the real numbers of supporters, rebels and people who just don't give a f^ck. But the thing is that they have convinced me that Gaddafi was using military force against his population and there is an international treaty that allows intervention if leadership of a country is using military force against it's people. One of the main differences between a democracy and other forms of government is that problems seems to get solved under democracy before they get to the point where you need kill thousands to stay in power... and that is exactly the reason why it has more right to exist then anarchy, absolute monarchy and dictatorship...

 I usually call Bush a "D^ck" for invading Iraq, but Afghanistan was the right call to make after 9/11. And why Bush qualifies only for such a grand title and not for a dictator is that he hasn't killed the Free press, Media and didn't manage to build a vertical of power high enough in U.S.A worthy of calling him one... Oh, not forgetting that he lost his political party Presidency and both of the houses while at it...

Rest was covered in the post above... damn, this took some time to type out

[Xela]

Actually the United States is a republic, not a democracy. Republics are "rule by law" while Democracys are "rule by mob".

 While the rest of your post is very good, this part is somewhat misleading. Ochlocracy (rule by mob) is merely one of many forms of democracy.

 The idea of Democracy is that all citizens have an equal influence on affairs that effect their daily lives. When people speak of "Democracy" today, they very rarely mean Ochlocracy but rather mean a concept of "liberal democracy" that is also very dodgy but generally means:

- Equality before the law
- Civil liberties
- Human rights
- Separation of power

etc.

 You are absolutely right about U.S. being a republic but it has so many things in common with democracy that it is not a mistake to think of it as such.
 A somewhat cruel and sarcastic comparison of different types of Democracy would be this:

 A daughter of a high ranking government official runs over two pedestrians on sidewalk. After checking damage to her vehicle, she takes out her mobile and starts making phonecalls while ignoring two women lying in front of her in a mess of blood, not to call for ambulance but to call her daddy or some of his friends, ambulance is later called by people on the street.

Article: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1253782/Fury-Putin-ally-caught-camera-callously-ignoring-pedestrians-run-car-fatal-crash.html

1) U.S. type of democracy: She gets jailtime according to law..
2) Russian (Putin's) type of democracy: She gets 1.5 years in jail to be served only 14 years from the time of verdict and only if she does not commit any serious type of crime in those 14 years (beats me what serious crime has to be).
3) Ochlocracy: She gets killed, preferably on spot as "mob" doesn't generally like heartless b^tches.

 We would rather live in the county where the 1) is a standard, Aslan prolly believes that 2) and 3) have just as mush value... But the trouble is that "democracy means different things to different people" so sometimes we should specify in order to be precise...

[Aslan]

Ctwo, thanks for pointing on my mistakes. I used wrong term and I mixed type of goverment with type of state. I meant type of state (correct me if I wrong, discussion in English is new to me), not the type of goverment.
There is some types of state - monarchy (and class society), democracy, totalitarism, oligocracy, meritocracy and so on. Part of them are ideal, part of them are real. The most of the world use different types of democracy and the most of the world believes that there's only one "true" type of state and all other types are something wrong. I consider all types of state are equal and... I see totalitarism as the only true way (cause meritocracy unreal or still unreal regretfully), that's my opinion and nothing more.

Actually the United States is a republic, not a democracy. Republics are "rule by law" while Democracys are "rule by mob". Also Anarchy isn't a government type, but the complete lack of government. An area under Anarchy has no laws and tends to have a high rate of violence and crime due to a lack of any organization to prevent it. A Monarchy is rule by heraditary leaders, and by absolute monarchy I suppose you mean a monarchy with no constitution or laws? So if the leader of such a society can rule by whims and would expect to be followed no matter what decisions such a leader makes? If your comfortable with that sort of government then your a lot more trusting than I am. I'd rather live in a country where the people have a say in it and bad leaders can be removed easily.

I don't know why you think that democracy is "ruled by mob", but USA has democracy as a type of state and federation (consisting of many rebublics) as a type of goverment. Also anarchy isn't goverment type, I agreed, it's the type of state. There's no goverment in anarchy so Lybia really isn't anarchy (as Russia isn't really a democratic state). I consider Lybia as a totalitaristic state. But you completely wrong about anarchy. Anarchy is an ideal type of state where people don't need jail and police to not commit crimes and don't need governor to rule them. The use the inner rules of society, moral norms and so on.
Abosolute monarchy is the type of monarchy where heredetiary leader rules by himself without the parliament. Some Arab countries ruled by absolute monarchy, Oman or Bachrein for example. They has no constitution but has strong laws. And yes, I trust that goverment more than bunch of politicians and thieves that want to be elected and want to rule me by something they call "freedom" and "democracy".
 

Oh, and Socialism isn't actually a government type. It is an economic model in which government owns the means of production and uses it to provide for the masses, both as a producer of goods and an employer. This kind of government can only be approached after going through a long capitalist phase in which the society learns how to best exploit its resources but tires of the kind of society that capitalism leads to. Karl Marks wished the USSR well in their experiment into Socialism but accroding to his own philosophy of history the USSR was doomed to failure due to the attempt to move from a Monarchy directly into Socialism without the Capitalism phase.
 

Well, I'll try to explain. China and Kuba are socialistic countries, Sweden is socialistic too but these are different kinds of socialism. Three of them are different. I remember what Karl Marx said about Russia, I can't argue, socialism failed in Russia (but not the way Marx supposed). The reasons of this (of that failure)... there are hundreds of pages and don't want to citate all this pages But I can say that socialism don't need capitalism phase and countries I named (beside Sweden) confirms that.
You think of capitalism only as of economic model but I was studied since school that difference is not only in economy. I really not the man of socialistic sciences and maybe you're right. But the way of living is not only economic model and capitalistic way of living really differs from socialistic way of living.

Xela, I answer to your post for sure but regretfully right now I short of time.

[Xela]

I'll debunk this for you as I just got home. Language is a barrier... I understand what you mean most of the time so sometimes you make mistakes because you write in English, sometimes your statements are just incorrect.

Ctwo, thanks for pointing on my mistakes. I used wrong term and I mixed type of goverment with type of state. I meant type of state (correct me if I wrong, discussion in English is new to me), not the type of goverment.
There is some types of state - monarchy (and class society), democracy, totalitarism, oligocracy, meritocracy and so on. Part of them are ideal, part of them are real. The most of the world use different types of democracy and the most of the world believes that there's only one "true" type of state and all other types are something wrong. I consider all types of state are equal and... I see totalitarism as the only true way (cause meritocracy unreal or still unreal regretfully), that's my opinion and nothing more.

Lets start with types and forms. This problem came from language barriers. Anarchy is a form of government but not a type (funny thing is that it might be called type of state ). Since there is no recognized government under anarchy, it cannot be a type of government but it is a form.

So to rewrite a part of your post: There are some forms of government - Monarchy, Democracy, Totalitarianism, Oligarchy, Meritocracy and so on. Some of them are real, some theoretical. Most of the world lives with belief that government based around a concept of liberal democracy is the right form while you believe that Dictatorship (Or totalitarianism that is just a form of dictatorship) is a better way.

*Please note that "class society" has nothing to do with forms of government.

It's all good but this is an unusual opinion for someone who has access to Internet so you may want to expand on it a bit. It's not like you have to but it might make an interesting discussion. I think this covers the first part.

I don't know why you think that democracy is "ruled by mob", but USA has democracy as a type of state and federation (consisting of many rebublics) as a type of goverment. Also anarchy isn't goverment type, I agreed, it's the type of state. There's no goverment in anarchy so Lybia really isn't anarchy (as Russia isn't really a democratic state). I consider Lybia as a totalitaristic state. But you completely wrong about anarchy. Anarchy is an ideal type of state where people don't need jail and police to not commit crimes and don't need governor to rule them. The use the inner rules of society, moral norms and so on.
Abosolute monarchy is the type of monarchy where heredetiary leader rules by himself without the parliament. Some Arab countries ruled by absolute monarchy, Oman or Bachrein for example. They has no constitution but has strong laws. And yes, I trust that goverment more than bunch of politicians and thieves that want to be elected and want to rule me by something they call "freedom" and "democracy".

 This is a part where you are plain wrong, regardless of language barriers. Here is why and most of what I write below are facts not opinions so there is little point to go into dispute.

 First thing... USA. It is not a democracy in "type/form" of "state/government" (at least not officially). You have mentioned before this:

 There are some forms of government - Monarchy, Democracy, Totalitarianism, Oligarchy, Meritocracy and so on.

 Another form of government is republic. Just like a certain types of Monarchy can have a LOT in common with Totalitarianism, certain types of democracy can have a LOT in common with a republic. But United States of America has republic (Or a constitutional republic to be more precise) as a form of government, not a Democracy. That is an indisputable fact, there is no point in trying to contradict it. It consists of many (50) States (Not republics, language barrier again).

Second thing... Libya. For Libya Gaddafi invented a new form of government: Jamahiriya (state of the masses). Just like democracy is not a republic, jamahiriya is not totalitarianism.

Third thing... Anarchy (From Greek "without ruler") is not theoretical (Ideal as you call it (Language barrier, Ideal means perfect in plain English and it hardly fits to your context)). It was seen for several in history and even modern history. Also just like Dictatorship and Democracy it has many forms within the term "Anarchy" so it has many interpretations.

Absolute monarchy you have pretty much covered but it is not just a lack of a parliament but an absence of limitations to monarchs power in general (hence the word "absolute"). You can trust such leaders but people usually want to hear why you trust them since it is a very unusual opinion for someone with free access to the net

Well, I'll try to explain. China and Kuba are socialistic countries, Sweden is socialistic too but these are different kinds of socialism. Three of them are different. I remember what Karl Marx said about Russia, I can't argue, socialism failed in Russia (but not the way Marx supposed). The reasons of this (of that failure)... there are hundreds of pages and don't want to citate all this pages But I can say that socialism don't need capitalism phase and countries I named (beside Sweden) confirms that.
You think of capitalism only as of economic model but I was studied since school that difference is not only in economy. I really not the man of socialistic sciences and maybe you're right. But the way of living is not only economic model and capitalistic way of living really differs from socialistic way of living.

Xela, I answer to your post for sure but regretfully right now I short of time.

Another language barrier and more mistakes. Let's start with the barrier. What you call an economic model is called an Economic system. Just like with forms of governments, there are great many Economic systems, Socialism and Capitalism are examples of such systems.

Lets review what the two mean:

 Socialism... The term is broad but what it actually represents is the idea of State (Government) owned means of production, producing for "use" (Not demand) and usually through economic planning.

 If you have a different meaning or it means something else to you, please do tell

 Capitalism... Privately owned means of production, producing "on demand" (Not "use") and for profit.

 If you have a different meaning or it means something else to you, please do tell

 From that perspective I would like to note that modern economic system in China has more in common with Capitalism then with Socialism and does not prove anything. The correct term is "Socialist Market" economic model but since over 70% of their GDP comes from private sector they can call a fly an elephant all they want. It is almost exactly like modern day Capitalism

 Cuban model is practically non existent since they seem to do whatever suits them at the moment and roll with that

 Sweden... Poor example of a socialistic economical model, just think about privately owned Ikia

[Destont]

I would like to say that I also find a Dictatorship to be ideal. I believe that because of the simple reason that I do not believe that the people know what is best for them. There is a chance that a Dictator can be a corrupt and high handed leader etc. but there is just as much chance that he could be a fair and just one. But no matter what kind of government you have that will always be the case as long as it is run by human beings who do things based off of emotion whether good or ill.

And the question isn't whether or not you could trust a leader with absolute power, because the things you know about a leader could very well be sugar coated. The one thing you have to worry about with any leader is whether they do what is best for the country or what's best for themselves. More then likely you would get some combination of the two. The fact of the matter is that people are usually too varied and secretive for people to properly gauge whether or not a person who they don't have some sort of personal connection to.

This is probably not the most logical or useful statement. But that's to be expected since I feel its better to trust your feelings on things like this rather then try to analyze it. After reading through the recent posts I felt like posting something which is what brought us here.

[Xela]

I would like to say that I also find a Dictatorship to be ideal. I believe that because of the simple reason that I do not believe that the people know what is best for them.

 That is not a reason for believing in Dictatorship for any human being in a healthy mental state. That is a reason to believe in the need of a government. Governments exist because most people realize that they cannot rule themselves as individuals since most people are busy with their daily lives and cannot see the big picture and are most likely to pursue their own self interests even if those are harmful to society as a whole. The need for an organized, responsible and accountable system is self-evident, hence a need for a government. Dictatorship is simply one of many forms and it is in no way self-explanatory why you believe it to be ideal.

There is a chance that a Dictator can be a corrupt and high handed leader etc. but there is just as much chance that he could be a fair and just one.

Really? Just as much chance?  Name me 10 fair and just dictators... Can't? Noone aside from Garibaldi and possibly Lee Kuan comes to mind? The thing is that you actually went as far as saying "fair and just" instead of "effective". If you said the latter a couple of others could have been added to the list, but the trouble is that you seem to have a very poor knowledge of history, the chance of a dictator making a mess is significantly higher then the contrary!

But no matter what kind of government you have that will always be the case as long as it is run by human beings who do things based off of emotion whether good or ill.

 Actually humans are not all that simple and their actions are not based on emotion, rather their life experience, reason, moral and religious believes, self interest, patriotism, sense of justice, mental state, emotional state and so on. A list can be very, very long and entire libraries of books have been written about motives for human actions. But since we were discussing politics and not psychology I would rather focus on "no matter what kind of government" part.

 You see the form of government matters greatly for many reasons. I would like to mention two:

1) Free press
2) Feedback

 One of the reasons most dictators make a mess not because they do not care about their own people but rather because they cannot see the situation "on the ground" and do not make the right calls in time. In an open, liberal society there is a pesky thing called a "Free press" (Or freedom of speech), one of it's functions is to raise issues that are important to the public so the government can take action before the things get out of hand. That system is called feedback and it works, not perfectly of course but it works. Free press and dictatorship are not compatible... so a form of government matters greatly!

And the question isn't whether or not you could trust a leader with absolute power, because the things you know about a leader could very well be sugar coated. The one thing you have to worry about with any leader is whether they do what is best for the country or what's best for themselves. More then likely you would get some combination of the two. The fact of the matter is that people are usually too varied and secretive for people to properly gauge whether or not a person who they don't have some sort of personal connection to.

 Simplicity of these statements is almost childlike. In an open, liberal society where everything that a government does is being discussed and analyzed on daily basis in the free media, it can be, within a frame of a reason understood what the people in power do and think.

 Basically your statement in a way contradicts your previous one and speaks in a favour of liberal democratic process in which a leader that does not have the countries best interest in mind can be removed by a peaceful elections or another branch of a government... but you are stuck with a dictator no matter what he is like...

This is probably not the most logical or useful statement. But that's to be expected since I feel its better to trust your feelings on things like this rather then try to analyze it. After reading through the recent posts I felt like posting something which is what brought us here.

 Well, not logical at least. Now about "trusting your feeling" rather then analysing... Humans evolved above all other animals and since we now have ability to reason and analyse, why not use it?

 Imagine yourself in a small village without a fire-department. You wake up one night and smell fire, you go outside along with some other people and see a building on fire. Now the first feeling you will get unless you've received special training will be fear. It will come from an instinct of self preservation and it is perfectly normal, you'll want to get away as far from it as you can. Seconds later ability to reason should kick in and you'll start asking questions... "What is there are people inside?", "What if other buildings will get caught on fire as well?" "What if we all organized and looked for a source of water and a way to transport it?" Feelings are important but you should not forgo analysis, knowledge and reason all together because they can stir up other feelings inside of you that you never knew you've even had

 Think about that for a moment

[Aslan]

At first, I want to thank you for the explanation.
Then a promised answer.

Actually there was. Before mid year 2000 there was plenty of criticism and satire against the Government. That is what Putin destroyed, mainly by having Gazprom taking over management of NTV and then going after the rest of smaller channels. After that mainstream news and tv shows were poisoned with an insane amount of news where Putin could do no wrong and even greater amount of shows where police and alike were portrayed as honest, incorruptible organisations... That is what I've meant. Also while Internet remains reasonably free in Russia, it is a poor tool to shape public opinion or to keep people informed as it consists of thousands of sites, blogs and journals that are not often factchecked.

You blame the wrong man for this. Plenty of criticism was a logical consequence of the horrible mess of 90th. And as stability risen criticism faded. Just the laws of human society. But the case of NTV - that was really unpleasant deed. And I 'm not so sure that was Putin's deed. Of course, for those who sees him as a dictator, he's only one to blame. But he has much to do besides the TV channel. Remember the Russian proverb: если в кране нет воды - значит выпили жиды (there's no need to translate this). And Choobuys (if I type correctly), a head of Gazprom, isn't the man under Putin's command.
He (Putin) was a director of National Security Service and no doubt he ordered his men to make him a true leader in the eyes of Russians. That is what any adequate leader always doing when he try to rise country. That's not the dictator's feature. Any foreign news sources no one forbids in Russia.

The trouble here is that it is close to impossible to explain to someone who believes that anarchy has the same right to exist as democracy the real difference between the two...

Hmm, I used to think quite opposite. Where are equal rights to everyone and everything? How can you compare things that has different rights to exist? How can you compare real with imaginary, for example? Without comparing it's impossible to see the difference.

- Virtually all people that influenced Putin during his life are in the positions of wealth and power. Be that his teachers, friends or colleagues (Old, new colleagues are obviously in the position of power ).

- Judiciary branch in Russia is falling apart, it is corrupt, all verdicts favour beyond reason to people in power, etc.

- He has been in the position of insane power for almost 12 years now. His attitude towards Medvedev who can "fire" him is sometimes mocking and outright disrespectful.

Second is actually to expand the thought of the first and to answer your constant comparison of Medvedev and Putin. Yes, it is true that they are both a "real" deal as Medvedev has his own political "clan" and Putin has his own. But it is hard to dispute that Putin's clan is stronger... He is the leader of "United Russia", he is has been around longer and I see no reason for him to actually relinquish control of the media or influence over oligarchs to Medvedev. The one who will decide who gets to be elected as president next year will be Putin unless someone manages to destroy his "brand" and that is not likely.

I won't fight with opinion or belief, that's meaningless. We have different points of view, you look from outside the Russia and I look from inside. And that's why we see different things. But I must tell you some.
>Virtually all people that influenced Putin during his life are in the positions of wealth and power
That's Russia and it's perfectly normal. Every man with power "share his light" (metaphorically speaking) with those he respect and/or like.
>Judiciary branch in Russia is falling apart, it is corrupt, all verdicts favour beyond reason to people in power, etc
I have personal expirience with courts and judges of Perm region (Russia, western Ural). Of all Perm region, that's a big territory. And I saw no trace of corruption. If you saw corruption in Moscow... well, this is another case. I see Moscow like another country, to live there like living in foreign country. Moscow is unlike Russia.
>His attitude towards Medvedev who can "fire" him is sometimes mocking and outright disrespectful
So, that's the point (to different points of view). I have a quite opposite opinion. Medvedev disrespects Putin in any way he can, he laugh at him and I can't understand such attitude to a man who made him president.

From here on I risk at repeating myself... Neither of them is supposed to have control over Judiciary branch, my believe that Putin has such is a sad reality of Russia in my eyes. Any president that has "Full control" is a dictator by definition so you are contradicting yourself with what you write about Medvedev. Putin is the leader of "United Russia" political party! Check their freaking website. Putin is NOT a member of the "United Russia", no idea where you got that from. Gryzlov leads those member of the party that are in the actual "Duma" but that does in no way makes him an actual leader of the party itself...

Thing that really blown my mind away. Gryzlov is a leader of "United Russia", news said so. All news sources, radio, TV (possibly,  I don't watch TV), Internet. Google approves that But their freaking website... It told me that Putin is the chairman of the party and Gryzlov is the chairman of the High Council of the party. they both are chairmen, but who is the leader of the party after all? I prefer to trust news in that case.

"Liked to live" under Stalin is a relative term. I am sure there are many people who "Like to live" in the North Korea these days and most of the people who crave Stalin today are poorly informed about the possible alternatives that do not require killing millions to save millions.

Of course it's relative term. But if even part of population (not a small group I must add) enjoy with that leader, what's so bad in dictatorship?

About the free pesky "Free Western Massmedia" (Not sure what you meant with official). I've never heard anything about the real numbers of supporters, rebels and people who just don't give a f^ck. But the thing is that they have convinced me that Gaddafi was using military force against his population and there is an international treaty that allows intervention if leadership of a country is using military force against it's people. One of the main differences between a democracy and other forms of government is that problems seems to get solved under democracy before they get to the point where you need kill thousands to stay in power... and that is exactly the reason why it has more right to exist then anarchy, absolute monarchy and dictatorship...

Well, just an example. A country, default country. A group of bandits with the weapon, bought in illegal way, announce themselves as rebels and began to commit different crimes. They always talk of themselves as of rebels fighting with state leader (he didn't gave us a free high education, he don't want there was a free trade of fire weapons, he must be killed), but the things they really do are murder and stealing. They are well enough armed and can easily kill the police force. So the leader of the country sent the military force against them. And that's the reason for intervention. How you think, is that right? The inner problems of the country must be solved by the inner forces of that country. Any intervention is aggression. That situation repeats from time to time, in last century and in this century. And it is democracy who intervents other countries, not monarchy or dictatorship. Democracy don't give a damn about one of main rules of nature: Live and Let Live.

I usually call Bush a "D^ck" for invading Iraq, but Afghanistan was the right call to make after 9/11. And why Bush qualifies only for such a grand title and not for a dictator is that he hasn't killed the Free press, Media and didn't manage to build a vertical of power high enough in U.S.A worthy of calling him one... Oh, not forgetting that he lost his political party Presidency and both of the houses while at it...

Of course, of course. What do you know of Afghanistan? Terrorist organizations, terrorist camps, Muslim jihad... And you say I watch conspiracy theory movies? Do you remember Afghanistan war conflict where USSR take part? Do you know what remains of that country after Soviet troops are left? You believed Bush when he said that terrorists was from Afghanistan. He can name any eastern country. Iraq, for example. Or Packistan. Or Libya. Or Israel. But Afghanistan couldn't say any words in your defence. And that was the reason for laying guilt on this country. Afghanistan was a land of constant unending war conflict. And for the leaders of conflict.. they just don't give a damn about USA, they fight for his land. All Afghani terrorist was only on lips of Bush and nowhere else. But after the tragedy USA need someone or something to guilt.

Sorry, but I need to stop again. Posts in English take very much of my time. I will answer on your other posts when I have time.

[Abtakha]

Dunno about other countries, but here in the U.S. of A., I was taught that we were a Democratic Republic type government, as the founders didn't think either would work on their own
I have enjoyed reading your thoughts on Russia tho - Since Obama got elected the only thing I hear on the news is how wonderful he is (which is not to say hes not, Ive noticed a tendency for it to be difficult to tell how wonderful a leader is until several years AFTER they leave office, so I'm keeping my opinion on him in the backseat for now)
to give my 2c on the thought of Democracy, John Addams described True Democracy (where the people gather to vote on Everything) as a form of mob rule, as the minorities will rarely, if ever, get their opinions heard, he did make a distinction between it and Anarchy, but I can't seem to find the particular text I'm thinking of, so I won't attempt to mangle what was somewhat beyond my political acumen (My apologies if I get big-worded, I'm somewhat struggling for words as it is ) After having studied the market methodologies here in America somewhat (trying to figure out why one of my favorite card-games went out of business) I have seen that the one that gets heard the most almost always gets the 'vote' so to speak. Most people have very little interest in the government over here, so long as it doesn't directly interfere with their daily lives they don't give a rats-rump (is it the same other places? I've always wondered about that...) Hell, most of the people I talk to only remember half of our official Government-Type (kinda bugs me that the Civ games don't allow mixes like ours - but I bet it'd be a pain to program )
Anyways......can't remember where I was going with all this, if I remember later I'll try to come back and post again.
(edit)
Remembered part of it - the problem with a Dictator type leader is the same as the biggest 'bonus' of one - when you have a good one, the entire country prospers and it is Wonderful - but when you have a Bad one...well, that's why my home country declared independence in the first place isn't it.

[Midnight_Amratha]

ignorance and idiocy is (sadly) not limited to the human race.