Well, from my expertise in Civilization 4, if you mandate Universal sufferage and Free Religion, societies are more peaceful, or something.
Not true at all really.
It would be far easier to bribe/control dictatorships than democracies. Exxon Mobil and the like can simply move into a country and give the ruler a fat bribe and make off with all the oil if they want. Greasing the palms of a democratic nation is far more difficult because you have to bribe different people from different parties and then you have the opposition that will call you on your bribing which causes all types of problems of course.
Where is your common sense Conjur.
Futhermore, the UN has stated time and time again throughout history that democratizing nations is one of the goals of the UN and democracy is the best way of governing any nation.
Ironic isnt it BBond that the United States which is the beacon for democracy in the world faces the same "problems" isn't it?
Would you argue that the United States isn't divided by recent elections?
Do you not remember all the libs whining after the last election saying it was rigged?
Have I not heard you guys say time and time again that christian fundamentalists are running the United States?
I must laugh at your comment on why democracy can't work for these reasons.
The United States is probably one of the least divided democracies out there. Go to Italy, they have a party for just about every issue and it shows considering how many governments they've gone through (And by governments, I mean PMs/Cabinets).
While ours differs considerably from most, as we don't use the parliamentary system, even without it, we remain considerably stable with just two parties. Other than the few countries dominated by one party, which even then can have factions within itself, we're quite alone in our two party system. The other few countries that used to be mostly two party are increasing with their third parties.
While ours differs considerably from most, as we don't use the parliamentary system, even without it, we remain considerably stable with just two parties. Other than the few countries dominated by one party, which even then can have factions within itself, we're quite alone in our two party system. The other few countries that used to be mostly two party are increasing with their third parties.
How's that ExxonMobil deal working out in North Korea, Cuba, Sudan, etc.?
Right here. Been here all along.
Oh really? And by what means? The barrel of a gun like the PNAC fvcks desire? I don't think so.
This is a very interesting topic. On first glance Democracy seems to be the ideal choice: empowering the population, having the government work for the people, it is a perfect idea. And with a thorough check Democracy IS the best we have.
But there are some problems with it, not because the system itself is flawed, but because those participating in the democratic process are flawed. We assume that an educated population makes informed decisions. They know what they are voting for, and they understand the issues and its consequences. However, this is never true.
We sit here and talk about how the "uneducated" of Iraq, Pakistan and other countries are unable to vote because they have no idea. The Green Been stated that "People here (in Pakistan) vote for anything without understanding the core issues". This is something that is regrettable and causes the deterioration of the democratic process. By not understanding the core issues, people may vote based on simple two line descriptions of proposed laws, proposed laws may be so long that it may hide key clauses in the middle, companies may take advantage of the idiocy of the population for their own advantage, the list goes ON....
But now with all that stated...can we say ourselves that the population of the United States is uneducated as well? That because our population is uneducated, that our democracy is threatened and even comprised often? I know people who vote for a candidate based on a single issue [without realizing the other positions affect them adversely], or they will vote a straight ticket because they ASSUME a party holds the same values, they will vote on a candidate based on "what they heard". Hell, even corporations take advantage of this, and you see some of the most random Pork appear in bills with the hope that they will pass. You have companies price gouging the government with ridiculous prices (note: I?m sure most of you know what company I am alluding to, but let me say straight out right now this has occurred during both ?Democratic? and ?Republican? Administrations). Most people don't even concern themselves with the political process except for once every four years where they will pay attention to the news the week before the election. Is this true democracy my friends?
However, it is easily evident that at least SOME people participate in such a process they way it should be intended. There are informed people on both sides of the spectrum who participate actively, and there are a few people here that would fall into that. I may not agree with some of their positions based on different ideology, but they still understand the issues and WHY they vote for something.
So the question that begs to be asked is thus: does the informed minority counter and overtake the uneducated masses?
Personally, I would have to say no and that it erodes the political process, especially that of the United States. Those uneducated masses actually hold back the process; sometimes it might be because they are a single issue voter, other times it maybe the fact that they can?t understand a cryptically written bill (which would be their fault anyways for voting for candidates that would try to deceive the public. Alternatively this is a BIG problem in California where even I sometimes get muddled trying to figure out the propositions: two different propositions may sound VERY similar but in reality do two completely different things).
Occasionally you have it work properly, but outside that I feel more and more that the people I elect either lie to me outright, or are purchased by lobby groups (which are itself another issue that deserves its own thread). This is why, personally, I am pushing for minimal government possible in order to curb the control it has over us.
Anyways, this brings us to another idea: can an imperfect democracy spread democracy to other countries? I think not, because those corrupt aspects of the original democracy will spread along with democracy. Now in a new ?fledgling transplanted democracy? the corruption will exist from day ONE. No need to even WORRY about it, because it is already there. This can take many forms, from the favoring of a specific candidate from the outset, to the ability of certain organizations trying to get unfair non democratic advantages. A few things I can think of are Iraq which makes a perfect example: companies such as MCI essentially got the rights to the entire airwaves of the country. Capitalism ? No, just corporatism.
Let us look at some examples: many people immediately scream ?INDIA? as a perfect example. After speaking with various Indians (this is on a college campus; some of these people lived here their lives and their parents immigrated, other are college students who got the chance to come here, etc. etc. Basically I am getting QUITE a narrow point?but the opinion of this specific slice is still interesting). Many believe India is a sham democracy itself. While I don?t want to get into anything long, rampant Corruption is the biggest complaint I have heard. That itself invalidates the political process.
Other places we mention are Japan. While it is a good example of how far you can get in fifty years, it is peculiar that you find one party dominating for nearly fifty years. Is it because the party truly represents the people?s interests, or the fact they have been around so long they have political power as well as the ?name brand?? Other countries themselves have only become ?democratic? recently: Taiwan and South Korea were dictatorships for a VERY long time and only in the past fifteen to twenty years did they develop into democracies because the people themselves desired it. In Taiwan?s case you went from the country being controlled by the Mafia, to the Mafia becoming the politicians themselves. As many Taiwanese (interestingly this is from all extremes; from those who vehemently advocate an independent Taiwan to those who want Taiwan united with China) have told me, ?In Japan the Mafia controls the politicians?In Taiwan the Mafia ARE the politicians?. Is that still a democracy?
I think if anything, it shows that democracy itself cannot be established immediately. Rather, a forty to fifty year transitional period occurs where the process is undemocratic in all but name. And even when you reach that point where it could be a genuine democracy (which itself is probably open to more debate) you still have many elements of corruption that have intertwined itself so deeply because of the simple fact that it was part of the initial seeds of democracy that were sewn.
So to those who say that Iraqis and other groups of people are not ?ready? for democracy?I ask if we ourselves maintain our RIGHT to be called a democracy, or if we are just electing leaders on false premises and watch them get bought out OVER and OVER again. Either way, Iraq will be about fifty years away from democracy.
By the way, because I get slaughtered for mentioning companies so often?it isn?t because I am against them. Rather, I believe that capitalism DOES work the best. But the problem is when companies take advantage of the people?s ship and steer it in a direction favorable to itself only. When companies like ConAgra REPEATEDLY attempt to price fixate, REPEATEDLY attempt to maintain a monopoly, and REPEATEDLY are found guilty of such acts?it is a shame when they are REPEATEDLY let off the hook. Actions such as that, along with gross corporate welfare are what I speak out again and complain of when I mention companies.
Sorry if it was kind of long and I did go off topic, but many points were made and I tried to address many of them and elaborate without being extremely choppy and having to quote a million times
edit:
That is my point...even in a so called democracy when the population does not care it doesn't make much of a difference in the difficulty of greasing the nation; rather all you need is some nice PR to spin it one way or another so the people themselves don't care.
But there are some problems with it, not because the system itself is flawed, but because those participating in the democratic process are flawed. We assume that an educated population makes informed decisions. They know what they are voting for, and they understand the issues and its consequences. However, this is never true.
We sit here and talk about how the "uneducated" of Iraq, Pakistan and other countries are unable to vote because they have no idea. The Green Been stated that "People here (in Pakistan) vote for anything without understanding the core issues". This is something that is regrettable and causes the deterioration of the democratic process. By not understanding the core issues, people may vote based on simple two line descriptions of proposed laws, proposed laws may be so long that it may hide key clauses in the middle, companies may take advantage of the idiocy of the population for their own advantage, the list goes ON....
But now with all that stated...can we say ourselves that the population of the United States is uneducated as well? That because our population is uneducated, that our democracy is threatened and even comprised often? I know people who vote for a candidate based on a single issue [without realizing the other positions affect them adversely], or they will vote a straight ticket because they ASSUME a party holds the same values, they will vote on a candidate based on "what they heard". Hell, even corporations take advantage of this, and you see some of the most random Pork appear in bills with the hope that they will pass. You have companies price gouging the government with ridiculous prices (note: I?m sure most of you know what company I am alluding to, but let me say straight out right now this has occurred during both ?Democratic? and ?Republican? Administrations). Most people don't even concern themselves with the political process except for once every four years where they will pay attention to the news the week before the election. Is this true democracy my friends?
However, it is easily evident that at least SOME people participate in such a process they way it should be intended. There are informed people on both sides of the spectrum who participate actively, and there are a few people here that would fall into that. I may not agree with some of their positions based on different ideology, but they still understand the issues and WHY they vote for something.
So the question that begs to be asked is thus: does the informed minority counter and overtake the uneducated masses?
Personally, I would have to say no and that it erodes the political process, especially that of the United States. Those uneducated masses actually hold back the process; sometimes it might be because they are a single issue voter, other times it maybe the fact that they can?t understand a cryptically written bill (which would be their fault anyways for voting for candidates that would try to deceive the public. Alternatively this is a BIG problem in California where even I sometimes get muddled trying to figure out the propositions: two different propositions may sound VERY similar but in reality do two completely different things).
Occasionally you have it work properly, but outside that I feel more and more that the people I elect either lie to me outright, or are purchased by lobby groups (which are itself another issue that deserves its own thread). This is why, personally, I am pushing for minimal government possible in order to curb the control it has over us.
Anyways, this brings us to another idea: can an imperfect democracy spread democracy to other countries? I think not, because those corrupt aspects of the original democracy will spread along with democracy. Now in a new ?fledgling transplanted democracy? the corruption will exist from day ONE. No need to even WORRY about it, because it is already there. This can take many forms, from the favoring of a specific candidate from the outset, to the ability of certain organizations trying to get unfair non democratic advantages. A few things I can think of are Iraq which makes a perfect example: companies such as MCI essentially got the rights to the entire airwaves of the country. Capitalism ? No, just corporatism.
Let us look at some examples: many people immediately scream ?INDIA? as a perfect example. After speaking with various Indians (this is on a college campus; some of these people lived here their lives and their parents immigrated, other are college students who got the chance to come here, etc. etc. Basically I am getting QUITE a narrow point?but the opinion of this specific slice is still interesting). Many believe India is a sham democracy itself. While I don?t want to get into anything long, rampant Corruption is the biggest complaint I have heard. That itself invalidates the political process.
Other places we mention are Japan. While it is a good example of how far you can get in fifty years, it is peculiar that you find one party dominating for nearly fifty years. Is it because the party truly represents the people?s interests, or the fact they have been around so long they have political power as well as the ?name brand?? Other countries themselves have only become ?democratic? recently: Taiwan and South Korea were dictatorships for a VERY long time and only in the past fifteen to twenty years did they develop into democracies because the people themselves desired it. In Taiwan?s case you went from the country being controlled by the Mafia, to the Mafia becoming the politicians themselves. As many Taiwanese (interestingly this is from all extremes; from those who vehemently advocate an independent Taiwan to those who want Taiwan united with China) have told me, ?In Japan the Mafia controls the politicians?In Taiwan the Mafia ARE the politicians?. Is that still a democracy?
I think if anything, it shows that democracy itself cannot be established immediately. Rather, a forty to fifty year transitional period occurs where the process is undemocratic in all but name. And even when you reach that point where it could be a genuine democracy (which itself is probably open to more debate) you still have many elements of corruption that have intertwined itself so deeply because of the simple fact that it was part of the initial seeds of democracy that were sewn.
So to those who say that Iraqis and other groups of people are not ?ready? for democracy?I ask if we ourselves maintain our RIGHT to be called a democracy, or if we are just electing leaders on false premises and watch them get bought out OVER and OVER again. Either way, Iraq will be about fifty years away from democracy.
By the way, because I get slaughtered for mentioning companies so often?it isn?t because I am against them. Rather, I believe that capitalism DOES work the best. But the problem is when companies take advantage of the people?s ship and steer it in a direction favorable to itself only. When companies like ConAgra REPEATEDLY attempt to price fixate, REPEATEDLY attempt to maintain a monopoly, and REPEATEDLY are found guilty of such acts?it is a shame when they are REPEATEDLY let off the hook. Actions such as that, along with gross corporate welfare are what I speak out again and complain of when I mention companies.
Sorry if it was kind of long and I did go off topic, but many points were made and I tried to address many of them and elaborate without being extremely choppy and having to quote a million times
edit:
That is my point...even in a so called democracy when the population does not care it doesn't make much of a difference in the difficulty of greasing the nation; rather all you need is some nice PR to spin it one way or another so the people themselves don't care.
There is plenty of larger deposits of oil to be had in countries that are far less of a train wreck than those that you listed.
The question in this thread was never by what means, the question was why favor the spread of democracy.
So does your clever dodge of my valid point mean that you accept the fact that the UN has been trumpeting democracy for decades now?
It isn't just an American policy I hope you realize.
Let's point out that attempts at regime change are for the benefit of a select few, and not for the good of that country.
Look at what we did to Iran's democratically elected Mossadegh in 1953. The CIA overthrew that government because there were goodies to be had.
In such places, 'we' don't want a democracy to exist. So any talk about spreading democracy there is total bullsheit! We are not yet mature enough for such noble ideals.
"There is nothing new in the world except the history you do not know" - H. Truman
Look at what we did to Iran's democratically elected Mossadegh in 1953. The CIA overthrew that government because there were goodies to be had.
In such places, 'we' don't want a democracy to exist. So any talk about spreading democracy there is total bullsheit! We are not yet mature enough for such noble ideals.
"There is nothing new in the world except the history you do not know" - H. Truman
You're beginning at a point in your comparison where Iraq is on and equal footing with the US. You're making me laugh.
You also said above that's it's easier to just bribe some dictator than to "spread democracy". Well, Reagan/Bush did just that in Iraq. They bribed Saddam to advance their agenda, which BTW had NOTHING to do with democracy, and the Iraqi people suffered. Now Bush invades and bombs the hell out of Iraq to clean up the mess his father and Reagan began but he's only causing the Iraqi people more suffering.
These altruistic motives you people attribute to Bush's unprovoked attack are only being used to mask the lies and naked aggression you've supported and allowed by supporting Bush's naked aggression against Iraq. They are nothing but a cynical attempt to hide the fact that after the UN Security Council was forced by the Bush administration into demanding weapons inspectors return with unfettered access to inspect Iraq for WMD, Saddam surprised the UN and Bush and agreed, the inspectors were ON THE GROUND IN IRAQ telling Bush and the world there was NO WMD but Bush went right ahead and lied to justify his illegal attack anyway.
The whole "freedom and democracy" skit is just a smoke screen for Bush and his business partners, war profiteers, and madmen who believe this is America's century to rule the world. Well, they have been given a rude awakening in Iraq and the surprises just keep coming.
Now they trumpet elections that have resulted in Iraq becoming a client state theocracy of Iran. And you people keep going along with the fantasy because it's too embarassing to admit the truth. Too damning to fess up and admit what the rest of the world and a majority of Americans already know.
Bush has fvcked up in Iraq like no other president in history and there is no way out. No democracy. No freedom. Only a fantasy maintained because after all the sacrifice of lives and treasure it's too painful for some Americans to admit the truth. Even to themselves.
You are getting warmer but you haven't quite reached the true heart of the issue.
The point is that it isnt until a nation/people reaches a certain wealth that they even care about the politics of these things. For years environmentalist groups have been complaining because the deserts in Africa are expanding due to the fact that central African nations are chopping down the trees or inviting lumber companies in to chop down the trees. The environmentalists can't believe that the people want this to happen and all the beautiful forests to be chopped down, but all the indigenous people want to do is get some money to feed their families.
People who are worried about freezing, starving, or other basic necessities not being met are far less concerned about saving rain forests and whales. People who know their next meal is taken care of is much more likely to worry about other political issues because their basic needs are assured. The more wealthy you get, the more you begin to focus on issues that people who aren't as fortunate don't have the luxury of worrying about.
Is it a coincidence that blacks are poorer than whites and do not turn out to vote in elections at the same rate as whties? Why do you think the Hollywood elite is so active in the political spectrum? 99% of them have some charity, cause, or political action they are working on throughout the year. The reason for this is because they have tons of freakin money and plenty of time on their hands.
The bleeding heart idealists will cry for the overseas employee of a billion dollar company who is getting paid practically nothing to make a product that will rake in tons of profit. The cold hearted realist will realize that if that country's workers weren't willing to work for that low wage then that company would simply move to another 3rd world country, thus those people would be starving rather than simply exploited.
I wish someone could tell me what's truly right and what's truly wrong and when they try to solve the world's problems maybe they can convince the poor bastard in some 3rd world country that they be concerned with anything other than feeding themselves and their loved ones.
The now 2,161 Americans who have died for Bush's lies is bad enough.
The nearly 16,000 seriously wounded is bad enough.
The tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians who have died because Bush lied is bad enough.
The hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis who have been wounded is bad enough.
The Iraqi cities bombed to the ground like Fallujah is bad enough.
The hundreds of billions of dollars wasted is bad enough.
The damage to America's reputation and credibility throughout the world is bad enough.
But you people have to continue with this ridiculous myth of spreading "freedom and democarcy" at the point of a gun when all indications and all facts prove otherwise. And that is the final insult. That you refuse to admit the incredible mess this president and his administration has made AND HOLD THEM ACCOUNTABLE.
Like I said, the stakes are too high now. Too much to lose. Too big to fail. But Bush has failed. He failed the moment he opened his lying mouth and began this entire misadventure because even after the WMD lie was exposed and the story was changed to this "freedom and democracy" bullsh!t excuse the fact still remains that you can't free people with lies. And you're all witnessing the proof of that axiom every day in Iraq.
House passes $453 billion defense spending bill
Keep enabling these maniacs. Keep allowing them to avoid accountability and you'll just get more of the same.
The nearly 16,000 seriously wounded is bad enough.
The tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians who have died because Bush lied is bad enough.
The hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis who have been wounded is bad enough.
The Iraqi cities bombed to the ground like Fallujah is bad enough.
The hundreds of billions of dollars wasted is bad enough.
The damage to America's reputation and credibility throughout the world is bad enough.
But you people have to continue with this ridiculous myth of spreading "freedom and democarcy" at the point of a gun when all indications and all facts prove otherwise. And that is the final insult. That you refuse to admit the incredible mess this president and his administration has made AND HOLD THEM ACCOUNTABLE.
Like I said, the stakes are too high now. Too much to lose. Too big to fail. But Bush has failed. He failed the moment he opened his lying mouth and began this entire misadventure because even after the WMD lie was exposed and the story was changed to this "freedom and democracy" bullsh!t excuse the fact still remains that you can't free people with lies. And you're all witnessing the proof of that axiom every day in Iraq.
House passes $453 billion defense spending bill
Keep enabling these maniacs. Keep allowing them to avoid accountability and you'll just get more of the same.
Bush and Reagan came up with the oil-for-food program? I don't think so. You might want to take a closer look at who was being bribed by who.
Clinton created the policy of nation building in Iraq. He did that with the 1998 Iraqi Liberation Act. What's more he freed up millions upon millions of dollars to try to foster a civil war in Iraq. Don't blame Bush for following Clinton's lead and doing one better by not fostering civil war. If you want to talk about Iraqi suffering then give Clinton afew more years in office to create another Bosnia or Rwanda in Iraq and then you will see Iraqi suffering.
Great rhetoric, but the UN has been trumpeting freedom and democracy for every nation for much much longer than Bush has been in office.
Your talking points aren't going to make me have selective memory of who has done exactly what BBond. It won't make me forget that Clinton and the democrats were calling for this war since 1997. It won't make me forget that the vast majority of Democrats not only voted for war in Iraq but demanded a very public debate on it to make sure they wouldn't seem "weak on defense" to their consitutuents.
You might be blindedly partisan enough to make you forget these facts, but I'm not. Bush and so so many others from sides of the aisle are responsible for this war. If you don't believe that you are simply delusional.
Bush and Reagan armed and supported Saddam Hussein. Stop being obtuse.
Bush invaded Iraq. Not Clinton. Using threats as a means to pressure a dictator into submission isn't on a par with lying to justify an illegal, unnecessary, unprovoked attack against a nation that posed no threat to the USA. The maniacs at PNAC tried to force Clinton to invade Iraq. Clinton refused. The maniacs at PNAC got your idiot president to invade Iraq. Stop using Clinton for an excuse for the incompetence and mistakes of Bush. It's been five years of Bush already. You look ridiculous still coming up with this Clinton did it bullsh!t.
Bush invaded Iraq. Not Clinton. Using threats as a means to pressure a dictator into submission isn't on a par with lying to justify an illegal, unnecessary, unprovoked attack against a nation that posed no threat to the USA. The maniacs at PNAC tried to force Clinton to invade Iraq. Clinton refused. The maniacs at PNAC got your idiot president to invade Iraq. Stop using Clinton for an excuse for the incompetence and mistakes of Bush. It's been five years of Bush already. You look ridiculous still coming up with this Clinton did it bullsh!t.
PS Clinton went into Bosnia/Herzegovnia to end acts of genocide. How can you possibly compare that with Iraq? If Bush wanted to be a humanitarian and end genocide he would have gone into Sudan, not Iraq. You're clutching at straws. Stop being ridiculous.
Using threats? I would hardly call it only a threat.....
Clinton made it very publicly clear that his policy regarding Iraq was regime change and he had Congress authorize many, many millions of dollars in order to foster a civil war in Iraq. Clinton didn't refuse to go to war. He created the policy Bush went by, he made it clear he wanted Saddam removed which is a declaration of war. Bush simply followed his lead but only by actual invasion which is far more humane than fostering civil war.
The "maniacs at PNAC" didn't come up with this idea. Clinton and the other democrats did. Now you can argue that Clinton only did it to beat the drums of war and get the newspapers talking about something other than his impeachment trial, which was going on at exactly the same time, if you want. That would mean Clinton really didn't want war and then I guess sure it would be all Bush's perogative.
But then by doing that you are admitting your adulterous golden boy was really just playing warmonger for political gain which I doubt you will admit that very simple truth.
Go ahead and explain it away.
I'll be sleeping though, have a Merry Christmas. Maybe by the 30th when I get back you can actually convince yourself that those quotes are fake democrats really didn't make the same claims the republicans did.
If so I'll be truly impressed by your partisan blinders ability to make you selectively stupid.
Bush invaded Iraq. He was given authority to do so by a congress coerced after 9/11 that was fed fake intelligence and had intelligence witheld from them. Congress authorized Bush to use force only as a last resort and only after certain conditions were met. Bush ignored all conditions as well as the UN Security Council and invaded Iraq based on a pack of lies anyway.
Maybe when you wake up you'll stop dreaming. But I doubt it.
Calling me stupid is a personal attack and according to what I've read personal attacks aren't tolerated.
Personal attacks are also a sure sign that you've lost the argument.
There are a number of differences in the basic principles of the ME and America. Arabs are a proud people, proud to be Arab. The forceful spread of American values and culture into the ME has only caused friction amongst themselves. When every man feels equally powerful, no one will be willing to compromise. Because of their religious and cultural beliefs, every Iraqi feels he has the right to rule. The Sunnis can never approve of a Shiah rule imposed "by their own will"
Is it really freedom when you can be imprisoned without having committed a crime? Did the American people do anything to stop torture, wars, crimes committed by their elected leaders? If in a republic and democracy, power really lies with the people, why do most people oppose Bush and do nothing about it? the masses are most easily deceived by charisma. And the American people have been devoiced into fighting into a hole without light. People will believe anything fed to them. It?s easier to fool an uneducated group of people, but most Americans simply do not care about the real picture. They believe everything and anything fed to them by their rulers. And if they really don?t care, can we call really call it a rule of the people?
The Iraqis do have more to care about with no security electricity or water. They do care of who takes over and does something about the man-slaughter committed by Americans and Iraqis alike. And in a place where everything is at stake, people will never be willing to compromise.
So why aren?t America's closest friends in the ME, (SA?) democratized yet? It?s because if the people really do get their say, America would not be able to acquire cheap oil. A true say to the people in Egypt would threaten the security of Israel.
Empires conquered in the name of glory and righteousness. Many believed they were the rightful rulers of the world. However, it was done for power, land and money. That?s what?s happening now;
1. America protecting its interests in the ME - OIL
2. Protecting Israel?s borders
America says democracy is the only way forward, which then gives the "right" to invade any country they want
If America really wanted to work for the benefit of the ME, there would be a "United Republic of Arabia."
However, as previous imperialistic powers demonstrated; "Divide and rule"
Is it really freedom when you can be imprisoned without having committed a crime? Did the American people do anything to stop torture, wars, crimes committed by their elected leaders? If in a republic and democracy, power really lies with the people, why do most people oppose Bush and do nothing about it? the masses are most easily deceived by charisma. And the American people have been devoiced into fighting into a hole without light. People will believe anything fed to them. It?s easier to fool an uneducated group of people, but most Americans simply do not care about the real picture. They believe everything and anything fed to them by their rulers. And if they really don?t care, can we call really call it a rule of the people?
The Iraqis do have more to care about with no security electricity or water. They do care of who takes over and does something about the man-slaughter committed by Americans and Iraqis alike. And in a place where everything is at stake, people will never be willing to compromise.
So why aren?t America's closest friends in the ME, (SA?) democratized yet? It?s because if the people really do get their say, America would not be able to acquire cheap oil. A true say to the people in Egypt would threaten the security of Israel.
Empires conquered in the name of glory and righteousness. Many believed they were the rightful rulers of the world. However, it was done for power, land and money. That?s what?s happening now;
1. America protecting its interests in the ME - OIL
2. Protecting Israel?s borders
America says democracy is the only way forward, which then gives the "right" to invade any country they want
If America really wanted to work for the benefit of the ME, there would be a "United Republic of Arabia."
However, as previous imperialistic powers demonstrated; "Divide and rule"
Ummm just because Bush is on his crusade to spread democracy doesn't mean that all americans feel the same way.
I personally believe that if a state or nation wants to adopt democracy, then we should assist, but forcing it on others with threats or acts of war or embargo is not the way to do it.
Its a pretty messed up system that Bush came into office in the first place even though Gore got more votes.
So whats the point of spreading something that does not even work in the most advanced country of the world?
Don't get me wrong. Democracy works, but if more people were involved (more people voted in elections from local to national, and voiced their views), it would work much better in my opinion, which is why I am a strong voting advocate. I won't even get into the politics involved because I could sit here for hours writing. I just feel that we shouldn't be pushing it on countries that don't want it in the first place.
And while I do not see eye to eye with some of the presidents policies and beliefs, I do think that he is doing what he thinks is right, and is acting for the benefit of this country. That is of course the difficultly of being the president, you have to make decisions based on what you feel is the right thing to do, then stick with them.
That in the end is the big point which none of the new libs seem to understand.
If democrats could simply admit some very simple truths about the current situation we are in they would win elections by landslides and I would vote for them.
Now the strategy for the left, especially on this forum, is virtually identical to the president's strategy. That strategy is don't admit to anything. Don't admit that Clinton came up with the idea to do this not Bush. Don't admit that the vast majority Democrats thought the same about WMD's as the Republicans. Don't admit that they knew about the warrantless wire tapping. Don't admit that they all wanted this war too. Don't admit that Madeline Albright was a neo-con esque war hawk under Clinton. Don't admit that Holbrooke and Clinton decided to bypass the UN with Bosnia and Kosovo.
All it would take is: "Yes we admit we knew about all these things. Yes we voted for the war too. Yes we were also wrong. But we have a better plan to win and it starts here."
But that won't satisfy the insane far left, like many on this forum. They don't want a platform based on rational thought and reality. They want "OMG BUSH EVIL NAZI TYRANT" and they can't believe that they can't win a single moderate state on that platform.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 400
Facebook
Twitter