A country should be founded by its own people and able to defend itself, not be a puppet country/"ally"/parasite on another country half way around the world. The Jewish people have done amazingly well for a people with no country, actually better before Israel. I should know.
I chose Iraq only because Winston Churchill always expressed regret that England had not fought harder for a separate and independent Kurdistan after World War I. The Kurds were placed in Turkey, Iraq and Syria. They have always deserved their own country and Saddam Hussein attempted a genocide against them, especially when he gassed them in 1988.
Wild animals don't have nations. Nations are just something made up by the human herd to see where they stack up in the pecking order and have breading rights and first dibs on game to eat.
Thats why I urinate all around my yard to define the boundaries. It's funny because the dogs and other animals go around the yard and urinate in the same places. Try it.
whatever, the fact is animals do have territories, many live in groups, packs, heards, many have a leader, of course they can't form governments but other than that, they do have what would be equal to a nation in the animal kingdom
I know what you mean about genetic engineering, but that thing they did with boneless chicken is a little cruel. Flopping and rolling around in their cage. Good thing they mature fast, less than a week and off to the freezer they go.
that's funny. and... we do. it's great for the soil. nitrogen and all. our yard is the greenest in the neighborhood, even more so than the neighbors who pollute our world with synthetic chemicals.
great, so now we reduce ourselves to 'wild animals' ? wild animals also do not know their history, do not have the communications we do, they do not have art, they do not envision and create their future. there are a handful of things that make humans truly unique. why should we at the top of the food change be looking down it for our benchmark, instead of up, to divine / celestial inspiration?
The Greeks were thinkers while the Romans were slave trading thugs that forced christianity down everyone else's throats while changing a good idea into a sub government meant to control the populace by threats of a non existent hell and promises of a non existent heaven. Follow the Romans sheeple, follow or perish in flame.
True. But the Romans spread the Greeks philosophies. You are right they were slave trading thugs just like most other nations at the time. And they were war mongers. Christianity was their religion for the last phases of their existence. When they weren’t expanding as rapidly. The republic and the early Empire had their own religion.
Yes it was and apparently we did learn that lesson then either. Republics are inherently corrupt! There is a better way to exist than being crushed under the boots of men who would govern with words of peace and actions of hate and war.
I disagree that all of humanity is inherently corrupt. People that hold power are the corrupted ones. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. All republics up to date in history have been corrupt.
All countries are corrupt. Not just republics. Republics are considered better than most countries because it is generally more difficult for the peraon in power to impose themselves completely on the populace. Im not saying it cant be done, its just more difficult.
History is full of such people!! A republic is a form of government in which the supreme power rest with the people and representatives or officers for the people are officially granted alienable powers to represent them in "public matters" (Latin: res publica) via a constitution. Offices of state are subsequently directly or indirectly elected or appointed. In modern times, a common simplified definition of a republic is a government where the head of state is not a monarch. The word republic is derived from the Latin phrase res publica, which can be translated as "the public affair", and often used to describe a state using this form of government. Both modern and ancient republics vary widely in their ideology and composition. In classical and medieval times the archetype of all republics was the Roman Republic, which referred to Rome in between the period when it had kings, and the periods when it had emperors. The Italian medieval and Renaissance political tradition today referred to as "civic humanism" is sometimes considered to derive directly from Roman republicans such as Sallust and Tacitus. However, Greek-influenced Roman authors, such as Polybius and Cicero, sometimes also used the term as a translation for the Greek politeia which could mean regime generally, but c...
History is full of such people!! A republic is a form of government in which the supreme power rest with the people and representatives or officers for the people are officially granted alienable powers to represent them in "public matters" (Latin: res publica) via a constitution. Offices of state are subsequently directly or indirectly elected or appointed. In modern times, a common simplified definition of a republic is a government where the head of state is not a monarch. The word republic is derived from the Latin phrase res publica, which can be translated as "the public affair", and often used to describe a state using this form of government. Both modern and ancient republics vary widely in their ideology and composition. In classical and medieval times the archetype of all republics was the Roman Republic, which referred to Rome in between the period when it had kings, and the periods when it had emperors. The Italian medieval and Renaissance political tradition today referred to as "civic humanism" is sometimes considered to derive directly from Roman republicans such as Sallust and Tacitus. However, Greek-influenced Roman authors, such as Polybius and Cicero, sometimes also used the term as a translation for the Greek politeia which could mean regime generally, but could also be applied to certain specific types of regime which did not exactly correspond to that of the Roman Republic. An example of this is Sparta, which had two kings but was not considered a normal monarchy as it also had ephors representing the common people. Republics were not equated with classical democracies such as Athens, but had a democratic aspect. In modern republics such as the United States and India, the executive is legitimized both by a constitution and by popular suffrage. Montesquieu included both democracies, where all the people have a share in rule, and aristocracies or oligarchies, where only some of the people rule, as republican forms of government. Most often a republic is a sovereign country, but there are also subnational entities that are referred to as republics, or which have governments that are described as "republican" in nature. For instance, Article IV of the Constitution of the United States "guarantee[s] to every State in this Union a Republican form of Government". The Soviet Union, although in reality a unitary state, was technically a confederation of sovereign Soviet Socialist Republics. Do not attempt to inform me about republics Sir!
that's your opinion but I never thought it was fair or right that a large part of India was taken to create Pakistan.. How would you feel if that was done to your country?
Both modern and ancient republics vary widely in their ideology and composition. In classical and medieval times the archetype of all republics was the Roman Republic, which referred to Rome in between the period when it had kings, and the periods when it had emperors. The Italian medieval and Renaissance political tradition today referred to as "civic humanism" is sometimes considered to derive directly from Roman republicans such as Sallust and Tacitus. However, Greek-influenced Roman authors, such as Polybius and Cicero, sometimes also used the term as a translation for the Greek politeia which could mean regime generally, but c...
Both modern and ancient republics vary widely in their ideology and composition. In classical and medieval times the archetype of all republics was the Roman Republic, which referred to Rome in between the period when it had kings, and the periods when it had emperors. The Italian medieval and Renaissance political tradition today referred to as "civic humanism" is sometimes considered to derive directly from Roman republicans such as Sallust and Tacitus. However, Greek-influenced Roman authors, such as Polybius and Cicero, sometimes also used the term as a translation for the Greek politeia which could mean regime generally, but could also be applied to certain specific types of regime which did not exactly correspond to that of the Roman Republic. An example of this is Sparta, which had two kings but was not considered a normal monarchy as it also had ephors representing the common people. Republics were not equated with classical democracies such as Athens, but had a democratic aspect. In modern republics such as the United States and India, the executive is legitimized both by a constitution and by popular suffrage. Montesquieu included both democracies, where all the people have a share in rule, and aristocracies or oligarchies, where only some of the people rule, as republican forms of government. Most often a republic is a sovereign country, but there are also subnational entities that are referred to as republics, or which have governments that are described as "republican" in nature. For instance, Article IV of the Constitution of the United States "guarantee[s] to every State in this Union a Republican form of Government". The Soviet Union, although in reality a unitary state, was technically a confederation of sovereign Soviet Socialist Republics. Do not attempt to inform me about republics Sir!