Does Aristotle specifically say whether women should vote? No. He says slaves should not vote, but nowhere does he state whether women should or should not vote. For political reasons. Poor old Aristotle, trying to teach Alexander the Great what to do, and he can't even start his second scroll without tactfully avoiding the glaring gender gap between the ideal and reality.

From Aristotle's inspiration, Alexander the Great's conquests built the largest empire ever known. Alexander died early and unexpectedly. His empire immediately dissolved into battles between his Generals. Had Alexander not suddenly died, he would have been able to institute a democratic constitution, like that of Solon (~600 BCE), in accordance with Aristotle's tutelage.

Even in the last decade, politicians have increasingly regarded the Solonic Constitution as the cornerstone of modern, healthy democracies. When Soviet Russia invaded Afghanistan in 1979 CE, it thought that communism could safely supplant military dictatorship, but failed. in 2001 CE, the USA touted that its idealistic superiority justified a further attempt to invade Afghanistan, but it failed. Four years later, the USA touted the same idealistic superiority in Iraq, but this time it made the formation of a new Iraqi Constitution a top priority after conquest, even more important than terrorist suppression.

The slow success in Iraq has been internationally embittered as foul play. Some say the constitution did not really provide much of an improvement. For example, Iraqi women already had the right to vote since 1980. But the problem has not been so much in political governance, and far more with moral justification for invasion. The USA justified the invasion to the United Nations by claims that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), but they were never found. So the USA has now lost the moral right for further invasions entirely, no matter what the actual value of Solonic Constitutions, and has been increasingly retreating into nationalism. Meanwhile, the rest of the world has become more cynical, ironically moving back to viewing democracy as the best option among worse alternatives...just as Aristotle did 23 centuries ago.

--------------

That completes my first thoughts on Aristotle for the modern man. I welcome your criticisms and corrections.

From Aristotle's inspiration, Alexander the Great's conquests built the largest empire ever known. Alexander died early and unexpectedly. His empire immediately dissolved into battles between his Generals. Had Alexander not suddenly died, he would have been able to institute a democratic constitution, like that of Solon (~600 BCE), in accordance with Aristotle's tutelage.

Even in the last decade, politicians have increasingly regarded the Solonic Constitution as the cornerstone of modern, healthy democracies. When Soviet Russia invaded Afghanistan in 1979 CE, it thought that communism could safely supplant military dictatorship, but failed. in 2001 CE, the USA touted that its idealistic superiority justified a further attempt to invade Afghanistan, but it failed. Four years later, the USA touted the same idealistic superiority in Iraq, but this time it made the formation of a new Iraqi Constitution a top priority after conquest, even more important than terrorist suppression.

The slow success in Iraq has been internationally embittered as foul play. Some say the constitution did not really provide much of an improvement. For example, Iraqi women already had the right to vote since 1980. But the problem has not been so much in political governance, and far more with moral justification for invasion. The USA justified the invasion to the United Nations by claims that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), but they were never found. So the USA has now lost the moral right for further invasions entirely, no matter what the actual value of Solonic Constitutions, and has been increasingly retreating into nationalism. Meanwhile, the rest of the world has become more cynical, ironically moving back to viewing democracy as the best option among worse alternatives...just as Aristotle did 23 centuries ago. — ernestm

a) Afghanistan war is one I am somewhat more empathetic too.... don't get me wrong it is a clusterfuck but there is no way 9/11 happens and someone doesn't pay. The Taliban chose not to turn over BinLaden based on lack of evidence as they saw it... So America began a war.

The big problem there is America didn't cut a deal with some other regional leaders to help stabilize the region and began a large scale assault against what was essentially a guerrilla war effort retaliation. M

b) Whilst Afghanistan was going on fake rancher G.W. Bush tried to run a war through based on the intelligence given from a meth addict, of biochemical manufacturing space in the back of a truck that never stops....
This was A grade BS and they took it to the United Nations.
On the other hand, multiple people from the intelligence community also quit over the Iraq war. Pentagon officials complained and the war that would be over by Christmas... Famous last words since the first world war dragged on into thousands of U.S. and allies dead, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis dead and trillions of dollars of debt.

It is good that in Iraq a better political policy but the war was an unwarranted murderous act of aggression voted down in the U.N. with those fantastic advanced interrogation tactics...

The best thing to come out of the wars was Saddam and Bin Ladens deaths but the price just wasn't worth it.

I think democracy can be given the Winston Churchhiill defense but I do support some nationalism... More specifically I want nations to have to fiat their own financial institutions' effect in international court damages. I want to see what the banking regulation looks like then, most problems around the devisive nature of politics is a specific type of ethical claim around 'Political Correctness' and specifically economic policy....

Nobody is really questioning whether their nations should have a sovereignty or a vote. It is the future vision for that democratic nation that is in contention.

I cant really speak for Afghanistan because at the time of Alexander the Great, it was entirely nomadic. The closest city to Afghanistan at the time is now called Dohuk, which is in Iraq. Alexander the Great conquered Darius III there, and just rode around for some civilized raping and pillaging in the lower Afghan foothills. When Alexander died, one if his generals formed a Hellenic state containing the Afghan territories, with Babylon as capital.

So there really isnt anything to compare with modern history of Afghanistan from the time of Alexander the Great.