First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
War criminals are becoming The Arbiturs of Law
4053 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Yo Mommas House
Offline
Posted 11/3/09
Getting harder for Americans to listen to Israeli war criminals speak now. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=491GOKwrN1s&feature=player_embedded
1718 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
65 / M / Croatia
Offline
Posted 11/4/09 , edited 11/4/09

SeraphAlford wrote:


Who said that video sculpted my view of the entire nation? He just explains it better than I can, I'm not citing anything. Okay, the CIA fact-book says it's a “constitution-based federal republic; strong democratic tradition?" Well that just proves it's not a democracy. "strong democratic tradition" doesn't mean it's a democracy. Voting every 4 years from a group of specially chosen people is technically democratic, I agree. If a country lets it's citizens vote on what tie it's dictator should wear, I guess that's democratic, but that doesn't make the country a democracy.


That doesn’t prove that it’s not a democracy because the term democracy is not mutually exclusive with republic. In fact, our form of republic is just a representative democracy. You said that a democracy is a system in which the people are given power. That’s true. Now let just take a quick swing, for convenient learning, over to the Wikipedia page for the term republic:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic

Right there in the first sentence it says that the people are given power. Because indeed if you look up the definition of republic: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/republic you’ll find that it’s just a proper term for representative democracy.



Just had to say this: during communism in my country we could vote, and our voting had more impact then now. Why? In democracy we have lots of parties, in communism just one: communist party. So when you vote in democracy you vote for one party, and then the party decides /after the counting of votes) who will sit in government, they choose ministers etc. So you actually only vote about number of people from different parties, not actual people.
While in communism, you voted for individuals for every position, so mostly you didn't have incompetent fools on positions like now. why is that? A lot of governmental positions (democracy) is given by parties after election to people who were good and beneficial to party, not because they are the best there is for given position. So in communism things like minster of culture with Ph. D. in law could not happen. He may be a good lawyer, but what does he know about culture?
And every state in Yugoslavia was actually federative republic. And USSR was also Republic.So yes, republic is proper term for representative democracy on paper, but in reality it is just a name you can tag on anything just to please people.
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 11/4/09

blancer wrote:


Just had to say this: during communism in my country we could vote, and our voting had more impact then now. Why? In democracy we have lots of parties, in communism just one: communist party. So when you vote in democracy you vote for one party, and then the party decides /after the counting of votes) who will sit in government, they choose ministers etc. So you actually only vote about number of people from different parties, not actual people.
While in communism, you voted for individuals for every position, so mostly you didn't have incompetent fools on positions like now. why is that? A lot of governmental positions (democracy) is given by parties after election to people who were good and beneficial to party, not because they are the best there is for given position. So in communism things like minster of culture with Ph. D. in law could not happen. He may be a good lawyer, but what does he know about culture?
And every state in Yugoslavia was actually federative republic. And USSR was also Republic.So yes, republic is proper term for representative democracy on paper, but in reality it is just a name you can tag on anything just to please people.


Well, the point I was making was that America’s republic is a representative democracy and that the term republic isn’t mutually exclusive with democracy--and neither is communism. Carl Marx believed that all democratic nations eventually dwindle into socialist states and then into elective communism. The western world has a warped perspective of communism because we look at China and we look at Russia and we look at North Korea and they’re called communist. But they’re not pure communist states. The whole point of communism is that there’re no social classes. (I think this confuses equality with sameness.) Yet, that obviously hasn’t been attained in any of those nations at any point in their history.

Communism isn’t all bad, it’s got a lot of good things going for it.

But, we don't just vote for a party. We vote for individual senators, state representatives, governors, city council, mayors, judges, and we even get to vote on certain bills. I recently voted against making hunting a right by the Oklahoma constitution.
Yei
9137 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
116
Offline
Posted 11/4/09 , edited 11/4/09

SeraphAlford wrote:




If the people in the country view themselves as a democracy, like I said, the illusion of a democracy is a good description way to put it. There's two main problems with it being a real democracy:

-Only candidates with the concentration of power backing them stand a chance. Sure, anyone can run but it would be a waste of time unless you have the right backing. That's not fair. So who are the candidates mainly looking out for? The two party system is very bad, both parties are now just factions of the same power controlling the nation.

-The president and government in general very clearly do not represent public opinion and do not make decisions based on what the people want.

Basically, if it was truly a representative democracy, the people would actually be represented. Most decisions, lack of action, or action, is taken independent of what the people think or want to happen. All the US foreign affairs after WW2 is a perfect example. I understand how a textbook definition of what kind of political system the US has could say it technically is a democracy. But in reality, by just looking at all the things the US government has done and what it hasn't done, it just isn't truly a democracy.
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 11/4/09

-Only candidates with the concentration of power backing them stand a chance.


What’s this concentration of power you’re talking about? Sounds to me like an intentionally ambiguous allusion to something that may or may not exist.


Sure, anyone can run but it would be a waste of time unless you have the right backing.


Yeah, and the right backing is the backing of the people.


That's not fair. So who are the candidates mainly looking out for?


We have a professional legislative system so they’re looking out for their career which is based on the support of their constituants.


The two party system is very bad, both parties are now just factions of the same power controlling the nation.

The two party system certainly isn’t without fault. That’s something we agree on. Yet, one of the things you’d learn if you took an introductory level “American Government,” class would be that the US electoral system is candidate-concentric. The political parties themselves are really just conveyor belts to facilitate public opinion. They have regular conventions in which the members come together and decide what the political party’s stance on each individual issue will be. Study the history of the Republicans, Democrats, or even Independents and you would quickly discover that all three have gone through monumental transformations based on the desires of their constituents in recent history.

The political parties take polls and select candidates that they think are the most likely to win based on compatibility with public desire.

Also, like I’ve said, people who’re essentially nobody have risen up to become state representatives, senators, even presidents. But again, the president isn’t as important a figure as you seem to believe. It’s the legislative and judiciary branches that hold the real power.


The president and government in general very clearly do not represent public opinion and do not make decisions based on what the people want.


I don’t think that’s true at all. Whenever the people really want something they get it. That’s why we’ve got so many amendments to the constitution. That’s why we’ve desegregated public schools. Segregation is entirely constitutional, you know? The Supreme Court determined that in Plessy v. Fergusson. Yet, in Brown v. Board of Education they ruled to make it illegal because that’s what the people wanted. You should also keep in mind that the president at that time was against desegregation but deployed federal troops to enforce it because that’s what we the people desired.

It is true that often the government makes decisions with which the majority of the population does not necessarily agree. But these are usually decisions made based on what the largest group believes. So, for example:

In Response to problem X we can do A, B, or C. Forty percent of the people want to do A. Thirty percent want to do B. Thirty percent want to do C. The democratic solution would be to do A because more people support option A than support option B or C.

So it doesn’t negate a democracy just because the majority of the population doesn’t agree with individual decisions; moreover, you’re confusing a pure democracy with a representative democracy. Just because something isn’t a pure democracy doesn’t mean it’s not a democracy at all.


Basically, if it was truly a representative democracy, the people would actually be represented

And we are. I guess you can’t see that because you’re in Canada and you watch too much Michael Moore.


Most decisions, lack of action, or action, is taken independent of what the people think or want to happen.


On small things that may be true, but by and large no major decision is made without significant public support. And that doesn’t mean that we’re not a democracy anyway. We’re still choosing who gets to make the decisions. It demonstrates we’re not classified under the primitive democracy of Athens, but it doesn’t mean we’re not democratic at all.


All the US foreign affairs after WW2 is a perfect example


Actually Americans largely approved of our foreign affairs until Vietnam. That’s what they call the “Vietnam Syndrome,” and as President H. W. Bush so eloquently put it after the victory in the First Gulf War, “By God we’ve kicked the Vietnam syndrome!” Operation desert storm and the second Iraqi war both had popular support when they were enacted as did the Korean War. Our support of Israel is another example. Most Americans support Israel, the government supports Israel.


I understand how a textbook definition of what kind of political system the US has could say it technically is a democracy


Technically, pragmatically, and effectively we are a constitutional, representative democracy.


But in reality, by just looking at all the things the US government has done and what it hasn't done, it just isn't truly a democracy.


It is truly a democracy.

Yei
9137 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
116
Offline
Posted 11/4/09 , edited 11/4/09

SeraphAlford wrote:




The concentration of power is the small percentage of the population with the most wealth and power. Like how 1% of the population has more wealth than what the bottom 95% has, and it's the same situation globally. Heads of the biggest corporations, the people with greatest influence, etc.

I guess then we have to look at the US government's actions and policies in the last century and see if it was in accordance with public opinion, if the public even knew about it, if the public was misled, etc. We could see if everything that was done was in the interests of the people and not just for corporations and other special interests.

When it comes to post-war foreign affairs, the US did some pretty horrible things. Helping put Saddam Hussein in power and then fully supporting him and providing him with weapons while he massacred and tortured innocent people, for example. There's a whole list countries we could go through that the US messed up pretty bad, Vietnam being another good example. It almost seemed like it was carrying out some imperialistic agenda the way it supported and took down and generally took control of certain country's regimes.

More importantly, do you understand the idea of polyarchy, or, more generally, oligarchy in the US? And that almost all governments eventually become oligarchies, even democracies with a constitution? The US, being as big and powerful and wealthy as it is, no doubt would have fallen to oligarchy a long time ago.
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 11/4/09 , edited 11/4/09

Yei wrote:

The concentration of power is the small percentage of the population with the most wealth and power. Like how 1% of the population has more wealth than what the bottom 95% has, and it's the same situation globally. Heads of the biggest corporations, the people with greatest influence, etc.


Look, if the extremely wealthy really controlled the elections then republicans would win every single time. Yet, they do not, and indeed we often elect officials with “share the wealth,” programs like Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, Carter Clinton, or Obama. These programs are directly to the detriment of the wealthy, and yet we choose and enact them all the time. A lot of the time what the people CHOOSE is capitalism, and in capitalism the rich get richer. We do this because of what is called the "American Dream." We think that maybe one day WE could climb that ladder, maybe WE could be the next Sam Walton, the next Rockefeller.



I guess then we have to look at the US government's actions and policies in the last century and see if it was in accordance with public opinion, if the public even knew about it, if the public was misled, etc. We could see if everything that was done was in the interests of the people and not just for corporations and other special interests.


There has been corruption. The Teapot Dome Scandal is a great example. But it was also revealed and the perpetrator held accountable. Yet, for the most part the policy has been in the interest of the people and largely with the support of the people. Just look what we did to the railroad industry, to J.P Morgan, to the Rockefeller conglomerate.



When it comes to post-war foreign affairs, the US did some pretty horrible things. Helping put Saddam Hussein in power and then fully supporting him and providing him with weapons while he massacred and tortured innocent people, for example.


You buy into too much propaganda. The United States provided funding for a democratic party to which Saddam happened to belong prior to taking control of the government. And who exactly took him out of power? Besides, Canada’s had America’s back like a blind duckling throughout the past half century so enough with the superiority complex.


There's a whole list countries we could go through that the US messed up pretty bad, Vietnam being another good example.


Vietnam’s actually a very good example of what I’ve been talking about. The United States got involved after the North Vietnamese communists invaded and occupied South Vietnam. At great expense to ourselves we managed to liberate the South Vietnamese and won the war. Yes, we won the Vietnam War. With the support and cooperation of the local South Vietnamese we pushed the North Vietnamese clear out of South Vietnam. We systematically reclaimed every city, hamlet, and village they’d stolen. They equipped the locals and helped them organize a resistance.

Our only remaining objective was to stabilize the situation. We needed to train a standing army, weed out corruption, and teach the South Vietnamese how to protect themselves. Alas, a lack of political support back home made that impossible. The American population screamed loud enough and finally we withdrew without finishing the job. The North Vietnamese attacked immediately after our departure and now South Vietnam remains occupied territory.

Had we been less democratic we would’ve done the South Vietnamese a great service. Instead we left them with the scars of a war for liberation without the liberation.


I think we had more of an imperial motivation in Korea than in Vietnam. In Vietnam we just liberated the South Vietnamese after the North Vietnamese invaded. We didn’t really take control. They pretty much let us run the operation. The South Vietnamese fought along-side the Americans, Australians, and New Zealanders. We did not seek to expand anyone's border or to maintain a permanent presence in the region. We left as soon as the fighting was done, and that's what REALLY hurt South Vietnam. Just like having left after liberating Kuwait without destroying Saddam is what caused the Second Gulf War. Had we been more imperial, less democratic, and more aggressive it would’ve saved a lot of lives and freed Iraq from tyranny.

Yet, what your attack on the United State’s foreign policy has to do with your attack on our democracy is beyond me. If the population voted to nuke Canada the democratic thing to do would be to give into the tyranny of the majority and turn your sparsely populated and militarily negligible little nation into a bowl of glass. To me it seems like you’re insecure in your own nation and are therefore lashing out at mine. Though, without our nation your nation would've become food for the Soviets a long time ago. America's Canada's safety net, so we've also done a great service to your nation. While you guys aren't willing to put the time and effort necessary to protect yourselves you rely on our military to provide you with security and then question the methods with which we provide that protection.



It almost seemed like it was carrying out some imperialistic agenda the way it supported and took down and generally took control of certain country's regimes.


Speaking of doing things against the will of the public, as I understood from contemporary polls clearly demonstrated that the vast majority of the Canadian population was against action in Afghanistan and Iraq, and yet look who’s been right at our side since 2003-the Canadians.

Canada’s clearly not a democracy, they don’t care about what the people want. I think we had more of an imperial motivation in Korea than in Vietnam. In Vietnam we just liberated the South Vietnamese after the North Vietnamese invaders. We didn’t really take control. They pretty much let us run the operation. The South Vietnamese fought along-side the Americans, Australians, and New Zealanders.


And as far as the ignorance of the constituents goes, our constituents are willingly ignorant. They don’t know because they don’t care. Meanwhile Canada places a plethora of restrictions of people’s right to free speech and limits the media. I can provide a multitude of examples but instead I’ll recommend you read “Shake Down,” you should find it fascinating how your democratic country has adopted a policy of prior restraint.


Look, I like Canada. Always have. It’s a good country, the nicest people in the world, beautiful, wonderfully liberally, but you’re not exactly perfect either and you’ve been right beside America in some of its most imperial decisions. You should stop this “holier than thou,” act. Canada has corruption, Canada makes decisions against the will of its public, Canada covers things up, Canada does a lot of things that a pure democratic country should not do. But like the United States it’s still an overall good country.
Yei
9137 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
116
Offline
Posted 11/4/09 , edited 11/5/09

SeraphAlford wrote:

Look, if the extremely wealthy really controlled the elections then republicans would win every single time. Yet, they do not, and indeed we often elect officials with “share the wealth,” programs like Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, Carter Clinton, or Obama. These programs are directly to the detriment of the wealthy, and yet we choose and enact them all the time. A lot of the time what the people CHOOSE is capitalism, and in capitalism the rich get richer. We do this because of what is called the "American Dream." We think that maybe one day WE could climb that ladder, maybe WE could be the next Sam Walton, the next Rockefeller.


Why would the republicans win every time? Because they got richer people? It's not that straight forward at all, it works like a oligarchy, and both parties are factions of the same party.







You buy into too much propaganda. The United States provided funding for a democratic party to which Saddam happened to belong prior to taking control of the government. And who exactly took him out of power? Besides, Canada’s had America’s back like a blind duckling throughout the past half century so enough with the superiority complex.


Did I even mention Canada? Canada has many of the same problems, but it's impossible for it to be as bad as the US because the US is so much bigger and wealthier and more powerful. I'm sure Canada would be very similar if we had the same power and wealth.

Yeah, who exactly took him out of power? After how many years of supporting him and providing him with weapons and the means to massacre and torture so many people. But I guess as long as he's trading freely it doesn't matter how evil he is, he still deserved all the support he was given? Suddenly after he becomes defiant, the US takes note that he's an evil, murderous dictator and says that he needs to be stopped. Kind of ironic that they supported him so much during all those years where he was a murderous dictator.



Vietnam’s actually a very good example of what I’ve been talking about. The United States got involved after the North Vietnamese communists invaded and occupied South Vietnam. At great expense to ourselves we managed to liberate the South Vietnamese and won the war. Yes, we won the Vietnam War. With the support and cooperation of the local South Vietnamese we pushed the North Vietnamese clear out of South Vietnam. We systematically reclaimed every city, hamlet, and village they’d stolen. They equipped the locals and helped them organize a resistance.

Our only remaining objective was to stabilize the situation. We needed to train a standing army, weed out corruption, and teach the South Vietnamese how to protect themselves. Alas, a lack of political support back home made that impossible. The American population screamed loud enough and finally we withdrew without finishing the job. The North Vietnamese attacked immediately after our departure and now South Vietnam remains occupied territory.


I seriously don't want to get started on Vietnam, people in Vietnam are still suffering today from what the US did to them. I'll go with a better example, the US support of the murderous Nicolae Ceausescu regime in Romania. Or supporting the Suharto regime in Indonesia and therefore supporting the genocide they were carrying out. Those ones were really bad, here's the probably incomplete list of murderous regimes: http://www.tomveatch.com/dictatorships.html

Is this what they call supporting democracy and freedom?



Yet, what your attack on the United State’s foreign policy has to do with your attack on our democracy is beyond me. If the population voted to nuke Canada the democratic thing to do would be to give into the tyranny of the majority and turn your sparsely populated and militarily negligible little nation into a bowl of glass. To me it seems like you’re insecure in your own nation and are therefore lashing out at mine. Though, without our nation your nation would've become food for the Soviets a long time ago. America's Canada's safety net, so we've also done a great service to your nation. While you guys aren't willing to put the time and effort necessary to protect yourselves you rely on our military to provide you with security and then question the methods with which we provide that protection.



It's not an 'attack' on your democracy, like you said, most so called democracies today are really polyarchies or oligarchies, it's not just the US. All very rich and powerful countries eventually turn into this. Foreign policy is a very good example of how the US carries out agendas independent of what's right for it's people, or what the people think, and solely for the special interests of the elite.





Speaking of doing things against the will of the public, as I understood from contemporary polls clearly demonstrated that the vast majority of the Canadian population was against action in Afghanistan and Iraq, and yet look who’s been right at our side since 2003-the Canadians.

Canada’s clearly not a democracy, they don’t care about what the people want. I think we had more of an imperial motivation in Korea than in Vietnam. In Vietnam we just liberated the South Vietnamese after the North Vietnamese invaders. We didn’t really take control. They pretty much let us run the operation. The South Vietnamese fought along-side the Americans, Australians, and New Zealanders.


And as far as the ignorance of the constituents goes, our constituents are willingly ignorant. They don’t know because they don’t care. Meanwhile Canada places a plethora of restrictions of people’s right to free speech and limits the media. I can provide a multitude of examples but instead I’ll recommend you read “Shake Down,” you should find it fascinating how your democratic country has adopted a policy of prior restraint.


Look, I like Canada. Always have. It’s a good country, the nicest people in the world, beautiful, wonderfully liberally, but you’re not exactly perfect either and you’ve been right beside America in some of its most imperial decisions. You should stop this “holier than thou,” act. Canada has corruption, Canada makes decisions against the will of its public, Canada covers things up, Canada does a lot of things that a pure democratic country should not do. But like the United States it’s still an overall good country.


I don't understand where you got this 'holier than you' act idea from. I never said Canada was so much better, I never mentioned Canada. But of course Canada doesn't come close to the US's power and wealth and so it doesn't have the same level of detachment from democracy. But if it had the same population size and wealth, I'm sure it would be in the same situation, almost any country would. The things the US has done over the years are much bigger and more imperialistic, and worse than Canada, mostly because Canada can't even do those things. The US, Russia, Britain and some other European countries have the worst record of imperialism and generally messing up the world, for obvious reasons.
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 11/5/09

Why would the republicans win every time? Because they got richer people?


The republican party supports tax break programs that are known to be disproportionately beneficial for the rich. They also very pro-business and support legislation to ‘get the government off the backs of big business,’ as Ronald Reagan put it and to strengthen corporations.

On the flip side the Democrats are anti-capitalists who support higher taxes for better social programs that are –well- known to be disproportionately beneficial for the poor. They also support regulating businesses to keep them from attaining too much power which quite openly puts a limitation on the growth of any conglomerate. In addition to this they want to socialize many industries often for the very purpose of removing the ultra-upper class from power for the great good of society. For example, FDR made strikingly successful moves to socialize the power industry. His Tennessee Valley Authority, for example, actually put a lot of people out of work and home and provided electricity for seven southern states at no cost.

During his campaign, and this is before the actual election, Obama actually went so far as to promise to destroy the coal industry. He said he would force them into bankruptcy. He did this openly, in public, before we hit the voting booths. Why was he willing to do so? Because the wealthy tycoons behind the coal industry cannot do anything about it. The people wanted Obama. We had “Obamania,” as the media was calling it.
You’ll notice that of the presidents I listed in my last post only one was republican, and he lived a hundred years ago.


It's not that straight forward at all, it works like a oligarchy, and both parties are factions of the same party


Just to note what you described was more like an aristocracy than an oligarchy.
I don’t know where you got this idea but it’s historically false. Actually, the republican political party emerged for the sole purpose of opposing pro-slavery bills being backed by the democrats in Wisconsin. The modern democratic party formed with FDR’s New Deal legislation and the Republican political party formed on Berry Gold Water (a fervent anti-New Dealer,) and his agenda.

Have you ever heard of the Watergate Scandal? Republican President Richard Nixon was impeached (technically he resigned but he only did so because he was going to be impeached,) because he conspired and covered a break in to the Democrat National Committee Headquarters trying to find dirt on the democrats so that he could win the reelections on a slander campaign and a slush fund.

Many of the politicians on either side make deals or agreements, but that doesn’t mean they’re in the same party. The two parties have distinctly separate histories and ‘sub-governmental,’ systems in almost complete opposition to one another. Hints, the Stimulus Bill was passed without a single republican senator’s consent and the Health Care Bill cannot progress because none of the republican legislators will agree. That’s why the media made such a big deal of that one woman. There’re enough democrats that they only need one republican to be absent or on their side to pass their bills. They thought this woman was their gal because she expressed her interest in the healthcare reform bill. She’s now changed her mind because Obama’s trying to tag laws in there that are more appropriate from Mao Zedong.

You pretty much now see unanimous opposition by the republicans and unanimous support by the democrats. This has locked us in a stalemate in which the two parties are lashing at one another’s throats. They’re clearly not two parts of the same faction, especially since they’re simply delegating the opinions of their very distinctly different constituents into a party-wide agenda.


Did I even mention Canada? Canada has many of the same problems, but it's impossible for it to be as bad as the US because the US is so much bigger and wealthier and more powerful. I'm sure Canada would be very similar if we had the same power and wealth.


No, you never mentioned Canada and that’s exactly my point. I’m simply pointing out that while you’re quick to attack my nation you seem to be overlooking the fact that the same problems exist in your nation and all over the world. Also, I don’t see why Canada has such a lack of wealth and power. You guys have more land and WAY more oil than we do. You should be able to make yourselves incredibly rich just by tapping into that. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Iraq have done it.


Yeah, who exactly took him out of power? After how many years of supporting him and providing him with weapons and the means to massacre and torture so many people. But I guess as long as he's trading freely it doesn't matter how evil he is, he still deserved all the support he was given? Suddenly after he becomes defiant, the US takes note that he's an evil, murderous dictator and says that he needs to be stopped. Kind of ironic that they supported him so much during all those years where he was a murderous dictator.


Okay, go on believing whatever you want. But again, I don’t see how your attacks are related to rather or not the United States is a democracy; nor does it demonstrate in any way your conspiracy theory that the US didn’t want to and didn’t try to bring democracy, prosperity, and freedom to these nations.



It's not an 'attack' on your democracy, like you said, most so called democracies today are really polyarchies or oligarchies, it's not just the US. All very rich and powerful countries eventually turn into this. Foreign policy is a very good example of how the US carries out agendas independent of what's right for it's people, or what the people think, and solely for the special interests of the elite.


You didn’t demonstrate that at all. A lot of the time allowing dictatorships is what’s best for us. Following the Vietnam War we announced that “America will not and cannot,” endeavor to protect the free world. After that defeat the people were no longer interested in spreading democracy. Yet, we are a democracy, so how could our government go around opposing the will of the people? It could not, so it took short cuts and instead installed puppets like the Shah of Iran who started giving his people more rights and modernizing his country.

And I don’t see how the special elites were being served. I only see that the national interest was being served independent of what the rich people wanted. The rich were just as much for and against the war as everyone else and remain so to this day.


I don't understand where you got this 'holier than you' act idea from. I never said Canada was so much better, I never mentioned Canada. But of course Canada doesn't come close to the US's power and wealth and so it doesn't have the same level of detachment from democracy. But if it had the same population size and wealth, I'm sure it would be in the same situation, almost any country would. The things the US has done over the years are much bigger and more imperialistic, and worse than Canada, mostly because Canada can't even do those things. The US, Russia, Britain and some other European countries have the worst record of imperialism and generally messing up the world, for obvious reasons.


Actually the United State’s period of Imperialism was brief and sandwiched between two, much larger periods of isolationism. It was also fairly mild.

The British get a bad rep for their long lasting Imperialism which went on until years after the Second World War. Yet, if you look at the history the British were actually pretty kind as far as conquerors go. I think they get a bad rep, and perhaps rightfully so. We tend to forget that much of the world would not be what it is without them. They brought us education, democracy, they built roads and created civilization amongst savagism.

Russia’s not so easy to defend...
Yei
9137 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
116
Offline
Posted 11/5/09

SeraphAlford wrote:


Do you understand how the US could easily be seen as being a polyarchy/oligarchy/aristocracy (oligarchy fits the best)?




No, you never mentioned Canada and that’s exactly my point. I’m simply pointing out that while you’re quick to attack my nation you seem to be overlooking the fact that the same problems exist in your nation and all over the world. Also, I don’t see why Canada has such a lack of wealth and power. You guys have more land and WAY more oil than we do. You should be able to make yourselves incredibly rich just by tapping into that. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Iraq have done it.


Canada's population is 33 million, our GDP is bigger than those three countries you mentioned but the US GDP is still ten times higher, because the population is ten times higher.




Okay, go on believing whatever you want. But again, I don’t see how your attacks are related to rather or not the United States is a democracy; nor does it demonstrate in any way your conspiracy theory that the US didn’t want to and didn’t try to bring democracy, prosperity, and freedom to these nations.


I don't think there's much controversy over the fact that the US was supporting Saddam's regime throughout all the evil things he did.

A conspiracy theory? Did you see the list of regimes the US put in power and supported? It's not a conspiracy theory, it's called history.




You didn’t demonstrate that at all. A lot of the time allowing dictatorships is what’s best for us. Following the Vietnam War we announced that “America will not and cannot,” endeavor to protect the free world. After that defeat the people were no longer interested in spreading democracy. Yet, we are a democracy, so how could our government go around opposing the will of the people? It could not, so it took short cuts and instead installed puppets like the Shah of Iran who started giving his people more rights and modernizing his country.


A lot of the time allowing dictatorships is what's best for you? So all the suffering and destruction caused by the US installing and supporting all those horrible regimes can somehow be justified? And it's still continuing to support undemocratic, horrible regimes today. It all looks like a continued imperialist agenda that's been going on for a century now.

Who is behind this continued agenda? It doesn't seem to change when a new president or party is in power.





Actually the United State’s period of Imperialism was brief and sandwiched between two, much larger periods of isolationism. It was also fairly mild.

The British get a bad rep for their long lasting Imperialism which went on until years after the Second World War. Yet, if you look at the history the British were actually pretty kind as far as conquerors go. I think they get a bad rep, and perhaps rightfully so. We tend to forget that much of the world would not be what it is without them. They brought us education, democracy, they built roads and created civilization amongst savagism.

Russia’s not so easy to defend...


They're all very bad, and still are.
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 2/19/10 , edited 2/19/10
So, I actually have a copy of the Gold Stone report. It’s about five hundred pages and I haven’t read the whole thing, nor do I intend to. I have read a bit of it though, and I have also been using it as a sort of reference for my research and a few debates I’ve been having. Honestly, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with the report.

It seems to be a fairly accurate depiction of the truth. I do not see that it is bias towards inside, at least not to the detriment of the facts. At times it does seem to be friendlier in its judgment of Hamas, but not so far as to neglect their illegal actions.

For example, they may note an Israeli crime and then explain how Israel justifies this. After that, they will explain why Israel’s justification is wrong. In another passage they’ll note Hamas’ crime, explain how Hamas justifies this, and then just move on. They do not, however, grant credence to Hamas’ justification. They just don’t take as much time to refute it as they do with Israel’s justifications. As a result, all the information you can need about the conflict is still within the document.

Even the little bias I did notice wasn’t incredibly significant. I’m not even sure it’s really that the document is bias or that it’s just the parts I have been reading that seem to be bias when not considered with the parts I haven’t looked at yet.
First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.