| Home | Community | Message Board |
|
You are not signed in. Sign In New Account | Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery » |

This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.
|
| Shop: |
| |||||||
|
"jesus wept." ![]() Registered: 09/26/07 Posts: 1,201 Loc: Ay! los popos es Last seen: 13 years, 6 months |
| ||||||
|
Take up the White Man's burden--
Send forth the best ye breed-- Go bind your sons to exile To serve your captives' need; To wait in heavy harness, On fluttered folk and wild-- Your new-caught, sullen peoples, Half-devil and half-child. Take up the White Man's burden-- In patience to abide, To veil the threat of terror And check the show of pride; By open speech and simple, An hundred times made plain To seek another's profit, And work another's gain. Take up the White Man's burden-- The savage wars of peace-- Fill full the mouth of Famine And bid the sickness cease; And when your goal is nearest The end for others sought, Watch sloth and heathen Folly Bring all your hopes to nought. Take up the White Man's burden-- No tawdry rule of kings, But toil of serf and sweeper-- The tale of common things. The ports ye shall not enter, The roads ye shall not tread, Go make them with your living, And mark them with your dead. Take up the White Man's burden-- And reap his old reward: The blame of those ye better, The hate of those ye guard-- The cry of hosts ye humour (Ah, slowly!) toward the light:-- "Why brought he us from bondage, Our loved Egyptian night?" Take up the White Man's burden-- Ye dare not stoop to less-- Nor call too loud on Freedom To cloke your weariness; By all ye cry or whisper, By all ye leave or do, The silent, sullen feebles Shall weigh your gods and you. Take up the White Man's burden-- Have done with childish days-- The lightly proferred laurel, The easy, ungrudged praise. Comes now, to search your manhood Through all the thankless years Cold, edged with dear-bought wisdom, The judgment of your peers. Do you agree with Kipling? This is relevant to a lot of the arguments I've been hearing in this forum lately. They seem to be riddled with an undercurrent of Victorianism. -------------------- While there is a lower class, I am in it While there is a criminal element, I am of it While there is a soul in prison, I am not free. Eugene V Debs Edited by kriminalelement (02/02/08 01:39 PM)
| |||||||
|
Repeat Gold Meda Registered: 01/24/08 Posts: 303 Loc: Delocated Last seen: 13 years, 11 months |
| ||||||
|
No, I don't agree. I as a singular human am responsible for what I do and what I say. I take no responsibility for the sins of my fathers. I am human. I do what I think is right. I think that separating people by their appearance is wrong.
I think anyone who tries to tell me that I owe them something just because someone who looks like me did something to someone who looks like them some time in the past is a racist. I don't believe in forgive and forget either. I believe in forgive, remember, and never repeat. -------------------- Have you ever felt like you were wearing a hat, but you weren't? "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety" -Letter from the Pennsylvania Assembly, November 11, 1755 This profile is strictly for role-playing. Any alleged association with illegal activities is purely fictional. Any images depicting illegal activities are photo-shopped or stolen.
| |||||||
|
...has left the Registered: 01/25/06 Posts: 1,021 Last seen: 15 years, 5 months |
| ||||||
|
{With apologies to Rudyard Kipling}
Take up the White Man’s burden. Send forth your sturdy kin, And load them down with Bibles And cannon-balls and gin. Throw in a few diseases To spread the tropic climes, For there the healthy niggers Are quite behind the times. And don’t forget the factories. On those benighted shores They have no cheerful iron mills, Nor eke department stores. They never work twelve hours a day And live in strange content, Altho they never have to pay A single sou of rent. Take up the White Man’s burden, And teach the Philippines What interest and taxes are And what a mortgage means. Give them electrocution chairs, And prisons, too, galore, And if they seem inclined to kick, Then spill their heathen gore. They need our labor question, too, And politics and fraud— We’ve made a pretty mess at home, Let’s make a mess abroad. And let us ever humbly pray The Lord of Hosts may deign To stir our feeble memories Lest we forget—the Maine. Take up the White’s Man’s burden. To you who thus succeed In civilizing savage hordes, They owe a debt, indeed; Concessions, pensions, salaries, And privilege and right— With outstretched hands you raised to bless Grab everything in sight. Take up the White Man’s burden And if you write in verse, Flatter your nation’s vices And strive to make them worse. Then learn that if with pious words You ornament each phrase, In a world of canting hypocrites This kind of business pays. Source: Ernest Crosby, “The Real White Man’s Burden,” Swords and Ploughshares (New York: Funk and Wagnalls Company, 1902), 32–35. VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV At the same time, I'm thankful to live in a country with technological innovations and financial stability. My wife was born and raised in Monterrey Mexico...in a History class her teacher was saying how the Americans stole all the land up to the border...then he paused and said "...it's a shame they didn't steal us too!" to general agreement. Is this solely because of the White Man that Mexico is so financially polarized, politically corrupt and scary? -------------------- 'Pain is meant to wake us up. People try to hide their pain. But they're wrong. Pain is something to carry, like a radio. You feel your strength in the experience of pain. It's all in how you carry it. That's what matters. Pain is a feeling. Your feelings are a part of you. Your own reality. If you feel ashamed of them, and hide them, you're letting society destroy your reality. You should stand up for your right to feel your pain and leave the Shroomery.' ~ Jim Morrison
| |||||||
|
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized! Registered: 01/22/03 Posts: 193,665 Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutS |
| ||||||
Quote: no, it's because mexico forgot that independence comes from the barrel of a gun
| |||||||
|
...has left the Registered: 01/25/06 Posts: 1,021 Last seen: 15 years, 5 months |
| ||||||
|
are you quoting Bon Jovi?
-------------------- 'Pain is meant to wake us up. People try to hide their pain. But they're wrong. Pain is something to carry, like a radio. You feel your strength in the experience of pain. It's all in how you carry it. That's what matters. Pain is a feeling. Your feelings are a part of you. Your own reality. If you feel ashamed of them, and hide them, you're letting society destroy your reality. You should stand up for your right to feel your pain and leave the Shroomery.' ~ Jim Morrison
| |||||||
|
Pastor of Muppets Registered: 01/25/07 Posts: 3,707 Loc: Zuid-Holland, Ne |
| ||||||
|
The White Man's Burden, as I understand it, was a justification of imperialism and Eurocentrism during the Victorian era. It's pretty racist and offensive if you were to try to apply it to the modern world. At the time however there was no stigma attached to saying that other races were living in ignorance and servitude and it is "The White Man's Burden" to liberate them. Seems to me to be a pretty lame and arrogant way of justifying colonialism.
Edited by Virus_with_Shoes (02/04/08 12:26 AM)
| |||||||
|
Stinky Bum Registered: 12/20/00 Posts: 3,322 Loc: Charm City Last seen: 5 years, 3 months |
| ||||||
|
You'd be amazed how many white men still think they are special or at the top of some caste system.
Time for equality. -------------------- Society in every form is a blessing, but government at its best is but a necessary evil - Thomas Paine
| |||||||
|
Pastor of Muppets Registered: 01/25/07 Posts: 3,707 Loc: Zuid-Holland, Ne |
| ||||||
|
Racism is so stupid. Why would white people hate black people? At one point in history we were ALL black... fuck, Adam and Eve must have been black too (see the Out of Africa hypothesis of human origins). It also astonishes me that some Christians can hate Jews... that dude on the cross you pray to... a Jew!
With that out of my system, yeah racism and ignorance is infuriating but the interesting thing about that Rudyard Kipling poem is that if you replace the concept of whiteness in the poem with democracy, you'd get a pretty accurate picture of where the ideology for our current foreign policy comes from. That is, those who make our foreign policy see it as their own "White Man's Burden" to spread democracy and Western institutions to the "heathen" nations of the world. Both "The White Man's Burden" and "The Burden of Democracy" come from a perceived position of superiority and that we know what's best for others... just a thought.
| |||||||
|
I watch Fox News ![]() Registered: 03/23/06 Posts: 2,946 |
| ||||||
|
I Don’t Want to be Black Anymore
By J.J. Johnson Published 12. 17. 02 at 22:47 Sierra Time xxx I Don’t Want to be Black Anymore J.J. Johnson - Written: 02.28.00 It's not working, folks. I have tried to do everything I can to be the African-American I’m supposed to be, but I just cannot continue. I am hereby resigning myself from the Black Race. And before I get death threats from my Black brethren out there, hear me out. I have almost made it through another Black history month, in which I’m supposed to do all I can to insult White people for 28 days. I guess I should even say the Black History month is a racial conspiracy by White people since they only gave us 28 (or 29) days to rip their dignity to shreds, while the other months have 30 or 31 days. I guess it’s just another example of the Black man not getting his fair share. Frankly, many of my Black brothas and sistas’ are starting to… well... embarrass me. Can I turn on the television and not hear some Black liberal puke complaining about something? I’ll start there – television. First we had the NAACP (Notorious African American Communist Pigs) lambasting Hollywood for not having enough Blacks in front of (or behind) the cameras. “We don’t see enough Black folk on TV.” An economic boycott is threatened, the ugly “R” word is used, and Hollywood (you know, those rich White guys) capitulate. Did anyone ask were the accusations true? And if so, who really cares? Whenever I turn my television to watch my favorite programs, I see plenty of very wealthy and successful Black men excelling in their trade/craft. But I guess the NFL, the NBA, and Major League baseball doesn’t count. It must be just me. I guess the "quota kings and queens" don’t count those folks. Then another “study” comes out. This one says, “While Blacks are over-represented on television, they are still given only minor roles, or are on screen for less than 5 seconds at a time.” And, of course, this too is unfair. The easy defense against this eternal whining was for anyone to just mention three letters: B.E.T That’s right, Black Entertainment Television, where you can get all the Blackness you want, 24/7 with all those Black folks in front of (and behind) all those cameras. Gee, only about 60 million cable viewers can see that. I guess it’s just me. Maybe Momma didn’t raise me right. Now we have that flag issue in Dixie. Most folks thought if they just took down that flag, all this controversy would just go away. After all, it’s a horrible reminder of slavery. Strange, I can’t find a Black person in this country who can remember being a slave. I also can’t find one White person in the country who will admit to owning slaves. In fact, most of the Whites in this country (according to my investigation) had ancestors who landed on these shores long after slavery ended in North America. And I can’t repeat what some of those Irish folks told me. But, for one month I’m supposed to hate the Confederate flag. Not just waving over the South Carolina Statehouse, but on police cars in Mississippi and in front of livestock shows in Houston. I’m supposed to call for the changing of the names of bridges in Virginia, parks in Tennessee and the defacing of portraits of General Lee. I’m even supposed to support Rep. King’s (R-NY) demonizing of every Southerner in the halls on Congress. I’m supposed to support and endorse all of this because I’m a Black man. Yes, boycott South Carolina. Boycott the entire South until they get their “minds right.” This means, no Blacks (like me) should do any business with the South period. So, to that Black businessman in Memphis, sorry. Hope you can get some of those racist White folks to patronize your store. The NAACP says I can’t go there. About the family reunion this year in South Carolina – forget it. Nope, not me. Our un-elected Black leadership says we gotta boycott. Don’t worry, I’ll explain to that Black soul food caterer in Columbia that the reason he’s losing so much business this year is because of a piece of cloth hanging over the capitol building. He’ll understand. And Florida… we’ll have to leave you out, too. You see, Governor Jeb Bush enacted a program called “One Florida” in which anyone who finishes in the top 20% of his or her class gets a scholarship to a public University in Florida. I can’t figure it out for the life of me, but according to my Black leaders, that’s racist, too. The NAACP head (case) says we’ll boycott Florida until that’s changed. By the way, isn’t it interesting that the same people who say we should boycott everything economically are the same people who say Blacks are economically deprived in this “White dominated” society? What they’re telling me is that Black people are too stupid to make it into the top 20% of the graduating class, and that most Black people are too stupid to see through their lies. And most of these self-appointed Black leaders probably NEVER made it into the top 20% of anything. But nevertheless, they’re my leaders. Dan Rather, Tom Brokaw, Peter Jennings, Bill Bradley and Al Gore say they are, and since all these self-appointed “oracles” are White, they must be right. Even Secret Service is getting into the act. Some of these guys, even though they get to guard the President and the Vice President, say they haven’t got the promotions they deserve. Where’s the dignity? I guess those White Secret Service agents get to guard folks more important. Here’s a suggestion for the Black Secret Service agents who guard those important White folks (from the south): Wanna become heroes and restore your dignity? Quit. That’ll teach ‘em. As a Black man, I’m told I should pin my hopes on making it rich when the NAACP gets their “fair share” from suing all those guns dealers. After all it’s those gun dealers’ fault for all those Black folks shooting all those Black folks. Perhaps next year, they’ll be suing bed-sheet makers, rope manufactures, and the South American drug cartels. I have asked my Black leaders to sue the ATF, since the only product in America that “requires” you to list your race before purchasing it is a firearm. They haven’t returned my call. But then again, the right to keep and bear arms isn’t listed under “civil rights” anyway, is it? It’s okay. We’ll just sue the gun-makers instead. That’ll teach them to not sell guns to us Black folks (so we can get gunned down for reaching for a wallet.) Yes, if we just sue a few more White folks, harass and slander the rest, one day – maybe one day--we won’t have to put a prefix in front of the word “American” anymore. Well, I’m not waiting for that. I have done everything to try to advance the cause of personal freedom as a Black man, and to enjoy the liberty that my parents fought for, but it is just not working. These White people are just too smart for me. They made sure that I never had to wait at a Denny’s restaurant longer than anyone else does. Some of them hired me for simply having the brains to do the job. Some of them (the real sneaky ones) had the gall to judge me by the content of my character, and not the color of my skin. They’ve paid me in dollars with White slave-owners' photos on them. And, damn them, they made me earn it first. They have allowed me to own my own business. They even went so far as to steal tax dollars from other White people to make sure I got an education – so I could like…make it in this world. What an evil plot. Since there is almost no reason to bitch about anything anymore, it must be…institutional racism. I am through being used. I am fed up with trying to conform. This year, when I fill out my Census form, I will let them know that I quit. I wish to no longer be a Black American. I want nothing to do with race baiting, whining, pandering for more tax dollars; family breakdowns, and the Al Sharptons of the world. I don’t want to be Black anymore. I am somebody, and I don’t need Jessie Jackson to tell me that. My father already did. I don’t want to be Black anymore. I refuse to be used as a statistic to get more left-wing socialists into Congress. I don’t want to be Black anymore. There is no need to make me part of a “protected group” as the California Governor recently stated. I can protect myself, thank you. I don’t want to be Black anymore. Please do not feel sorry for me anymore, White folks. That liberal pity-party really insults me, anyway. I don’t want to be Black anymore. You Democrats don’t have to act like you like me. I know it’s an election year. I am tired of being the Black “sheep” of the party. Leave me alone. I don’t want to be Black anymore. If it means disgracing my own heritage by insulting Southern history… I don’t want to be Black anymore. Since making the same statements Martin Luther King, Jr. made in 1963 are now considered “racist” and “insensitive…” I don’t want to be Black anymore. If it means more innocent White people are forced to go through “sensitivity training…” I don’t want to be Black anymore. If it means that everyone loses their freedom of speech, freedom to peaceably assemble, and their right to keep and bear arms… I don’t want to be Black anymore. If it means being a ward of the State, rather than a Child of God… I don’t want to be Black anymore. I’ll sign the papers, dammit. I’ll file the lawsuit. I’ll start the boycott this time. I have every right. I am sick of these media-selected Black prostitutes making a mockery out of my country, out of everything America stands for. I’m sick of them giving everyone else a reason to hate me. I quit. I no longer want a prefix in from of my label. From this point forward, I, J.J. Johnson, DEMAND that I be simply called… …American. http://web.archive.org/web/20070 -------------------- http://www.theamericanright.com/ http://www.cnbc.com/id/15838446 http://www.climatedepot.com
| |||||||
|
Ancient Aliens Registered: 05/21/07 Posts: 15,105 Loc: Out of this worl Last seen: 12 years, 5 months |
| ||||||
|
Racism stems from the refusal to learn/advance one's self.
--------------------
| |||||||
|
Pastor of Muppets Registered: 01/25/07 Posts: 3,707 Loc: Zuid-Holland, Ne |
| ||||||
|
To the OP: Who WOULD agree with Kipling? What sort of thinking would be involved if any?
| |||||||
|
Ancient Aliens Registered: 05/21/07 Posts: 15,105 Loc: Out of this worl Last seen: 12 years, 5 months |
| ||||||
|
www.godhatesfags.com thats who
--------------------
| |||||||
|
I watch Fox News ![]() Registered: 03/23/06 Posts: 2,946 |
| ||||||
|
-------------------- http://www.theamericanright.com/ http://www.cnbc.com/id/15838446 http://www.climatedepot.com
| |||||||
|
I watch Fox News ![]() Registered: 03/23/06 Posts: 2,946 |
| ||||||
|
If it wasn't for slavery, they wouldn't be here.
http://www.shroomery.org/forums/ -------------------- http://www.theamericanright.com/ http://www.cnbc.com/id/15838446 http://www.climatedepot.com
| |||||||
|
Pastor of Muppets Registered: 01/25/07 Posts: 3,707 Loc: Zuid-Holland, Ne |
| ||||||
|
I can't take a guy seriously who quotes as gospel the Barnes Review: a publication known for its historical revisionism and Holocaust denial. Can you at least say something of substance rather than quoting long-winded quotes from previous threads.
| |||||||
|
Ancient Aliens Registered: 05/21/07 Posts: 15,105 Loc: Out of this worl Last seen: 12 years, 5 months |
| ||||||
Quote: duh. slaves were the backbone of the american economy. --------------------
| |||||||
|
Repeat Gold Meda Registered: 01/24/08 Posts: 303 Loc: Delocated Last seen: 13 years, 11 months |
| ||||||
Quote: Exactly. What this means is you get nothing special. You don't get a whole month devoted to people who look like you. You don't get 'aid' based on your appearance. You don't get to win an argument by threatening that the outcome you didn't want was a result of 'racism'. I am going to go out on a limb and say something that may come across as racist. I apologize for your future misunderstanding. If you are of a darker complexion, you are equal now. You have all the rights as any legal American living in America. You have your well deserved equality. Stop pushing for superiority. I direct this comment towards official groups who are left in a situation where they find themselves without meaning or need. Yes, its a sad truth that there are some people of a lighter complexion who refuse to let something old and grotesque die. If they are still that way, there is nothing in the world that you can do to change that. You can sue them, call them names, put their face on TV, but anyone so backwards in this day, age, and region who still subscribes to racism WILL NOT CHANGE. Its best to let them smoke away on their death sticks and let their ideas die with them. We are all waiting on the extinction of racism as an idea. Believe me. Now is where I walk away from this idea and this argument to let it die all by itself in darkness. Just as it deserves. -------------------- Have you ever felt like you were wearing a hat, but you weren't? "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety" -Letter from the Pennsylvania Assembly, November 11, 1755 This profile is strictly for role-playing. Any alleged association with illegal activities is purely fictional. Any images depicting illegal activities are photo-shopped or stolen.
| |||||||
|
Stinky Bum Registered: 12/20/00 Posts: 3,322 Loc: Charm City Last seen: 5 years, 3 months |
| ||||||
Quote: If you lived in Baltimore, Detroit, Atlanta, Newark, or New Orleans, you would not be able to make that statement. ![]() I understand that maybe in some places black people have equal opportunity. In terms of mass media, that have at least as much visibility as white people, and oftentimes more. However in our rotting inner cities it is a different game. While Al Sharpton and that "nappy headed-hos" dude duke out over some sound bytes over TV while suburban america watches, there are 10s of thousands of African Americans stuck in cities that the rest of the country has abandoned. Come to my city and I will show you some shit that will have you singing a different tune. I am not calling for affirmative action or hate crime legislation or any laws that treat anyone differently according to race. But I am calling for people to stop ignoring the inner city african americans who are still struggling with the worst conditions in America. They don't deserve to be shrugged off. They are Americans. -------------------- Society in every form is a blessing, but government at its best is but a necessary evil - Thomas Paine
| |||||||
|
"jesus wept." ![]() Registered: 09/26/07 Posts: 1,201 Loc: Ay! los popos es Last seen: 13 years, 6 months |
| ||||||
Quote: I was in agreement with what you said earlier, about substituting democracy for a few of the terms. It seems like a lot of people in this forum and the country at large subscribe to Victorian colonial ideals, but have simply replaced some choice words in the rhetoric. I guess my point is that while racism has become unacceptable, ethnocentrism and colonialism is alive and strong. Instead of saying that we need to help people because of some sort of "racial handicap", people patronize the societies of others, saying they are "backwards and stuck in the middle ages". We need to help them with occupation so they don't hurt themselves with too much sovereignty. It's the same old argument and it's just as odious as it was in the 19th century, and a lot of people agree with it. I really don't understand why people can be so against racism, which is discrimination based on skin color, and not even notice ethnocentrism in policy decisions or personal debates. Ethnocentrism is based on the belief that a culture is inherently wrong, inferior, or evil; it's a discrimination based on personal identity instead of just a physical attribute, and it's always seemed much more offensive to me. -------------------- While there is a lower class, I am in it While there is a criminal element, I am of it While there is a soul in prison, I am not free. Eugene V Debs
| |||||||
|
Pastor of Muppets Registered: 01/25/07 Posts: 3,707 Loc: Zuid-Holland, Ne |
| ||||||
|
Beautifully put, kriminal.
I get the feeling that this "White Man's Burden" idea comes from a need to rationalise selfish, imperialistic policies and make them seem palatable and acceptable. For instance, from the 1880's perspective, we get a poem like the "White Man's Burden" that tries to portray colonialism as some sort of altruistic, self-sacrificing endeavor to help the suffering heathen peoples while it was, in actuality, a mercantilistic land, resources and market grab with a dash of genocide thrown in for good measure. Quote: Nowadays we have the gall to think that we can just export our Western democratic institutions as if it were some kind of commodity that would be readily consumed by those who already have their own systems set up... in short, those we deem as "backwards" (of course, if it is not readily consumed, the US army or CIA is there to ram it down their throats). I think the difference nowadays is everything is more sugarcoated and the language is more politically correct but if you look, those ethnocentric undertones still persist, in my opinion.
| |||||||
|
Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 18 days |
| ||||||
Quote: What is your opinion of some of those other systems? In no particular order: -- the profoundly misogynistic theocracies of so many of the Islamic states -- the totalitarian slave states of North Korea, Cuba, and others of their ilk -- the genocidal tribal warfare endemic to the Balkans and the majority of African states Kind of makes Western democracies look a tad less frightening, doesn't it? Phred
| |||||||
|
"jesus wept." ![]() Registered: 09/26/07 Posts: 1,201 Loc: Ay! los popos es Last seen: 13 years, 6 months |
| ||||||
|
Misogyny won't go away because we're occupying a country. Misogyny is embedded in cultures. Only a cultural shift occurring WITHIN a culture will eliminate the problem. You can't expect a hundred thousand English speaking soldiers to suddenly change millions of peoples' minds about the role of women and gender in their society. The process will take decades or centuries, as it did in the West.
I don't think anyone would support the states you've mentioned as being wholesome to the people that live under them, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't criticize the problems in our own cultural context. And as for genocidal tribal warfare, Western democratic society doesn't really have a clean nose on that one either. No culture is perfect and few nations will likely exist without war. By championing Western culture as a panacea to the civil rights issues inherent in other cultures and governments is not only simplifying the challenges faced by those countries and the global community at large, it is patronizing to people who deserve full sovereignty and are being denied it, by a dictator or by Western occupation. The people under the rule of dictatorships are plagued by ethnocentrism as well: class centrism (Cuba, North Korea) ethnic and religious fanaticism (Iraq, Uganda, Sudan), etc. Replacing someone else's biases with one's own is just creating a new problem by forcibly asserting one's narcissistic tendencies. -------------------- While there is a lower class, I am in it While there is a criminal element, I am of it While there is a soul in prison, I am not free. Eugene V Debs
| |||||||
|
Pastor of Muppets Registered: 01/25/07 Posts: 3,707 Loc: Zuid-Holland, Ne |
| ||||||
|
Phred:
All of those other systems you listed are pretty shitty and democracy (or Constitution Republics in the case of the US) is the most stable, successful system in the world today. You're mischaracterising my position if you think I'm not in favour of Western democracy. If you'd read my post a little more carefully you would have seen that my problem is not with Western democracy but with the effort to install it in other countries that have not invited us. It should not be the role of the US military to overthrow systems in other countries, regardless of how shitty they are. In international law they call that 'sovereignty' and it's a concept that should be more closely respected. Our effort to export our institutions because we think we know what's best for another country is exactly the type of arrogance that resonates in that ol' Rudyard Kipling poem, "The White Man's Burden."
| |||||||
|
Stinky Bum Registered: 12/20/00 Posts: 3,322 Loc: Charm City Last seen: 5 years, 3 months |
| ||||||
|
I don't think the blatant disregard for a notion of civil liberty among certain so called third world regimes is the question at hand in this thread. Does the totalitarian state of North Korea provide any sort of evidence that would suggest an invasion by a democracy would create a democracy?
More importantly, what gives one Nation the right to determine the course of another? Doesn't that go against the very idea of democracy and itself? I think an important question to ask is "what assumptions is the idea of bringing another country into democracy based on?" I think it is often based on the assumption that we know what the will of the people in a given country is. But how can you know unless they vote or not? How can you know if the government suppresses any dissent with violence? And in the long history of deposing governments (from tribal ones to communist ones) what is the success rate of democracy and western civilization taking root? What if the EU invaded America and demanded that we establish a universal health care system? What they be justified in their attempt to "bring us up to their level of democracy?" Would it work or would they be met with both resistance and acceptance? -------------------- Society in every form is a blessing, but government at its best is but a necessary evil - Thomas Paine
| |||||||
|
Pastor of Muppets Registered: 01/25/07 Posts: 3,707 Loc: Zuid-Holland, Ne |
| ||||||
Quote: Quote: Quoted for truth. There are some very insightful people in this thread. ![]() Another question to toss out there is are we truly interested in bringing other countries democracy or is it just a rationalisation for self-serving activities similar to what Rudyard Kipling described in his poem? Certainly our previous and current support of tin-pot dictators around the world along with the overthrow of Salvador Allende's democratically government in Chile in 1972 would be a indicator of this. What do you guys think?
| |||||||
|
"jesus wept." ![]() Registered: 09/26/07 Posts: 1,201 Loc: Ay! los popos es Last seen: 13 years, 6 months |
| ||||||
|
Definitely a rationalization. We're perfectly happy to support dictators when one hand washes the other. The problem with this policy is that we're screwing ourselves by inviting the ire of dissidents and extremists in those countries where we either support a dictatorship or challenge an existing sovereignty.
In the end I think the argument against the current foreign policy rhetoric should come down to pragmatism. It's nonsensical for us to "spread democracy" and prop up the Saudis or General Musharraf at the same time. We need a consistent message realized with different tactics than those we've already beaten to death in the 15th century. -------------------- While there is a lower class, I am in it While there is a criminal element, I am of it While there is a soul in prison, I am not free. Eugene V Debs
| |||||||
|
Pastor of Muppets Registered: 01/25/07 Posts: 3,707 Loc: Zuid-Holland, Ne |
| ||||||
|
Absolutely, and is is neither ideologically sound (for the reasons we discussed before) or pragmatic to be doing this as a country. On the pragmatic side, we are not only creating our own enemies via policies that give us "blowback" but we're also depleting our treasury for foreign entanglements that really do us no good in the long run.
This awesome picture says it all: Quote: What sort of arguments have people in the forum put forth that remind you of this poem? I haven't seen any yet but then again I'm relatively new.
| |||||||
|
"jesus wept." ![]() Registered: 09/26/07 Posts: 1,201 Loc: Ay! los popos es Last seen: 13 years, 6 months |
| ||||||
Quote: I forgot which threads this was inspired by, but there are some people on the forums that have anti-muslim sentiments and have expressed the idea that occupation isn't patronizing or damaging to both cultures involved.... More importantly though it seems to be part of mainstream American discourse, and nobody ever makes a note of it. In our hyper-PC society this borders on the surreal. You'd think with all the ethnic diversity here people would be more angered by the course our policies have taken, but most Americans don't seem to be connecting the dots. They're more interested in the throwaway moments of racism on the radio or sexism in corporate culture. Not that I don't care about these things, but there are larger and more important stories on the exact same topics. -------------------- While there is a lower class, I am in it While there is a criminal element, I am of it While there is a soul in prison, I am not free. Eugene V Debs
| |||||||
|
stereotype Registered: 06/19/02 Posts: 1,294 Loc: Around Minneapol Last seen: 14 years, 7 months |
| ||||||
|
I think this applies here.
Quote: -------------------- The ultimate meaning of our being can only be fulfilled in the paradoxical leap beyond the tragic-demonic frustration. It is a leap from our side, but it is the self-surrendering presence of the Ground of Being from the other side. - Paul Tillich
| |||||||
|
Pastor of Muppets Registered: 01/25/07 Posts: 3,707 Loc: Zuid-Holland, Ne |
| ||||||
Quote: I'm somewhat optimistic that average Americans are starting to realise that the Iraq War was a pretty awful idea. This is a start but like you say, people haven't connected the dots, which would lead them to the conclusion that this war is symptomatic of a larger problem- a deeply flawed imperialistic ideology. It's very rare to hear these root causes addressed and the media tends to focus on more salacious stories that get better ratings. A lot of how people view the current conflict is tainted by the way Iraqis are portrayed by the media, which calls them things like "insurgents" and "terrorists." All we hear on the news is something like "15 insurgents killed today by US bombing." This dehumanises the Iraqi people and reduces them to labels instead of what they really are: mostly ordinary people who want their country back from a foreign invader. It's also interesting to note that our country was founded by those considered to be insurgents and terrorists.
| |||||||
|
Well-PaidScienti Registered: 09/22/07 Posts: 579 |
| ||||||
Quote: I think that the systems you describe suck. but why the fuck would I want to pay taxes and inflation to 'fix' these foreign countries with military force? I don't own stock in Lockheed Martin. Do you? Cuz that's the only reason I could come up with for a lassiez faire capitalist to all the sudden take an interest in the poor, oppressed peoples of impoverished foreign countries. You can't claim to be lazzies faire and then stick up for the PUBLICLY FUNDED war effort out of professed compassion. I don't buy it. -------------------- "America touts itself as the land of the free, but the number one freedom that you and I have is the freedom to enter into a subservient role in the workplace. Once you exercise this freedom you've lost all control over what you do, what is produced, and how it is produced. And in the end, the product doesn't belong to you. The only way you can avoid bosses and jobs is if you don't care about making a living. Which leads to the second freedom: the freedom to starve." - Tom Morello
| |||||||
|
Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 18 days |
| ||||||
|
Virus_with_shoes writes:
Quote: Examples of such countries, please. Quote: I agree. That's why I have long maintained the US should not have invaded Hitler's Europe in 1944. It was up to the Polish and French and Belgians and Dutch and Norwegians and Austrians etc. to handle it on their own. Quote: So you hold the same opinion as the United Nations -- once any random thug (or group of thugs) has managed to murder his way to the top of the food chain in some country somewhere, enslaving the populace (Tibet, North Korea, Cuba, Afghanistan) and murdering them by the hundreds of thousands (Iraq), or even starting genocidal programs (the Balkans, Darfur, Congo) the rest of the world must sit back and do nothing. Quote: Would the world be a better place if every country in it were to adopt the Western version of governance? Yes or no? Phred
| |||||||
|
I watch Fox News ![]() Registered: 03/23/06 Posts: 2,946 |
| ||||||
|
Hey nigga! Read this.
AmericanCivilWar.com DIXIE'S CENSORED SUBJECT BLACK SLAVEOWNERS By Robert M. Grooms © 1997 (THIS ARTICLE IS COPYRIGHTED AND IS PROVIDED HERE COURTESY OF THE BARNES REVIEW) In an 1856 letter to his wife Mary Custis Lee, Robert E. Lee called slavery "a moral and political evil." Yet he concluded that black slaves were immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, socially and physically. The fact is large numbers of free Negroes owned black slaves; in fact, in numbers disproportionate to their representation in society at large. In 1860 only a small minority of whites owned slaves. According to the U.S. census report for that last year before the Civil War, there were nearly 27 million whites in the country. Some eight million of them lived in the slaveholding states. The census also determined that there were fewer than 385,000 individuals who owned slaves (1). Even if all slaveholders had been white, that would amount to only 1.4 percent of whites in the country (or 4.8 percent of southern whites owning one or more slaves). In the rare instances when the ownership of slaves by free Negroes is acknowledged in the history books, justification centers on the claim that black slave masters were simply individuals who purchased the freedom of a spouse or child from a white slaveholder and had been unable to legally manumit them. Although this did indeed happen at times, it is a misrepresentation of the majority of instances, one which is debunked by records of the period on blacks who owned slaves. These include individuals such as Justus Angel and Mistress L. Horry, of Colleton District, South Carolina, who each owned 84 slaves in 1830. In fact, in 1830 a fourth of the free Negro slave masters in South Carolina owned 10 or more slaves; eight owning 30 or more (2). According to federal census reports, on June 1, 1860 there were nearly 4.5 million Negroes in the United States, with fewer than four million of them living in the southern slaveholding states. Of the blacks residing in the South, 261,988 were not slaves. Of this number, 10,689 lived in New Orleans. The country's leading African American historian, Duke University professor John Hope Franklin, records that in New Orleans over 3,000 free Negroes owned slaves, or 28 percent of the free Negroes in that city. To return to the census figures quoted above, this 28 percent is certainly impressive when compared to less than 1.4 percent of all American whites and less than 4.8 percent of southern whites. The statistics show that, when free, blacks disproportionately became slave masters. The majority of slaveholders, white and black, owned only one to five slaves. More often than not, and contrary to a century and a half of bullwhips-on-tortured-backs propaganda, black and white masters worked and ate alongside their charges; be it in house, field or workshop. The few individuals who owned 50 or more slaves were confined to the top one percent, and have been defined as slave magnates. More here http://americancivilwar.com/auth -------------------- http://www.theamericanright.com/ http://www.cnbc.com/id/15838446 http://www.climatedepot.com
| |||||||
|
Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 18 days |
| ||||||
|
kriminalelement writes:
Quote: But it need not be embedded in the law of the land. Attitudes are one thing, legislation another. Quote: I think you use "patronizing" differently from the rest of us. How is coming to the aid of a thoroughly oppressed and dominated populace by removing the source of their oppression and facilitating free democratic elections so the populace can actually achieve sovereignity "patronizing" them? Note that I don't say the Western countries or any countries at all have the obligation to come to their aid -- it is perfectly acceptable to me to sit on our hands and do nothing. It's not our fault they're in the plight they are. Sucks to be them, but hey... shit happens. But I do say that those who claim that (for example) the Allies had no right to invade Hitler's Europe in 1944 are mistaken. Quote: It is true that countries which have adopted the Western model of governance (or had it forced upon them) differ from one another. There is a lot of difference between the way things are done in France and the way they're done in Japan. What's your point? Phred
| |||||||
|
I watch Fox News ![]() Registered: 03/23/06 Posts: 2,946 |
| ||||||
|
June 15, 2006:
Bill Gates announces that he will leave Microsoft to persue a role playing Santa Claus to third world nations (which remain impoverished because so much of world resources have been handed over to Microsoft). It was the meteor explosiion on the Moon last month, and the Norway crater last week, that made an impact on Mr. Gates. Following the Indian Ocean "Tsunami" meteor a year and a half earlier, astronomers are now aware that the Earth is entering into a prolonged period of increasing bombardments from a hail storm of space rocks that are starting to swarm past our planet. While this information is concealed from us, the handful of moguls who control our governments are all aware of the situation. Any casual search of the web will reveal the number of billionaires who today are racing like madmen to follow Paul Allen's example and errect their own private space crafts as escape vehicles to the space station, where they'll all watch us perish from impacts, safely aboard their orbiting penthouse suites. June 25, 2006: The third, and most bizarre, reaction to the Moon and Norway explosions, came from Warren Buffet, who, in a fit of religious "born-again-ness," became delusional and was "relieved" of his $30 billion fortune by Bill Gates. These people realize that as the Rock nears, money will become worthless. And as masses of their victims realize that it was because of the hoarding of world resources among the so-called "rich" that we have no defense against asteroids, people like Gates and Buffet will be hunted down by the waiting crowds. September 19, 2006 CNN reports an Associated Press story: "Scientists: We Must Return to the Moon…A panel of scientists strongly endorsed NASA's plans to return to the Moon, saying in a report Tuesday that lunar exploration will open the way toward broader studies…'The moon is priceless to planetary scientists,' declared the special National Research Council panel of the National Academy of Sciences. The scientists were asked to evaluate and give guidance to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's plans for…human exploration of the Moon over the next two decades. "President Bush two years ago vowed to return astronauts to the Moon and establish an 'extended presence there'…He called on NASA to devote $12 billion over five years for the beginning of the program with a goal of landing on the moon between 2015 and 2020…The Academy panel said the moon…provides great opportunities for a sustained program…'Only by returning to the Moon to carry out new scientific exploration can we hope to close the gaps in understanding'…the 15-member panel said. Among the priorities the panel outlined were determining the composition and structure of the lunar interior, better understanding the lunar atmosphere, evaluating the Moon's potential as 'an observation platform'…Among the priorities the panel outlined were…better understanding the lunar atmosphere, [and] evaluating the Moon's potential as 'an observation platform.' "Tuesday's report was described as interim, with a more detailed report to be released in mid-2007…Two weeks ago, NASA announced it had awarded Lockheed Martin Corp. the multibillion-dollar contract to build the Orion manned lunar space craft. NASA anticipates building eight of the reusable spaceships through 2019, replacing the space shuttle." [NOTE: For the past two years the public has been brain-trained by dominator media to believe these scientists ARE CERTAIN that Apophis (a/k/a Jimi's "Electric Love" asteroid) will miss Earth. Media has been ORDERED to persuade us this is the case because a load of billionaires need to keep everyone's morale and production up so we can follow orders to build their escape vehicles and condos on the Moon and Space Station, from where they'll all watch us perish after the impact. Look at the next sentence in this report:] [NOTE: Moral of the Story: WE'RE TOAST! This U.N. effort is a double-layered play charade staged to sway our opinions and attitudes towards upcoming massive expenses. These "treaty meetings" are a desperate attempt at pre-disaster "damage control" - the bottom line is that they already know the Rock is coming and are preparing to allocate all world resources and funds into special projects aimed to save a handful of "billionaires" who're pulling strings behind the scenes. These "U.N." meetings will be closed door with an agenda to spell out ways that populations of nations will be enslaved/removed and at which intervals leading up to the month of impact. The trick is: the massive expenses that are about to be diverted must appear to the public as if there are "results" that are keeping the situation under control. It must appear to everyone that NASA will save us. But the reality is that all of the funds are going into escape vehicles and safe havens on the Space Station and Moon for the super "rich." The really disgusting thing is how they've used their media to so dumb down the herd to obsess on "celebrities" that, if you explain to Joe-six pack on the street that these billionaires are all going to save themselves at everyone else's expense, cheerfulized Mr. six-pack will slobber back at you (Fred Flintstone voice:), "Gee, reeeeaaal winners, I'm soooo impressed, lemme shine yer shoe, more power to ya, God bless ya, baby, we're NUUUUMBER ONE!!!" (with erect index finger pointing towards heaven).] [NOTE: The "search" for life on Mars is a disguised re-enactment of the Noah's Ark effort - build a safe haven where a few of our species might survive the long term unlivable conditions that will envelop Earth after the Rock hits. Build bases on the Moon and Mars for a few billionaires to inhabit while the rest of us perish.] [NOTE: Michael Griffin is also the Bush Administration's think-tank point man who was used to announce that NASA had "made a mistake" by ending its Moon missions in the 1970s. That announcement is related to Griffin's new statement about the climate because Griffin's relaxed attitude about the future effects of global warming reflects the concealed policy that our leaders are not concerned with saving Earth's atmosphere - they realize the atmosphere is going to intercept an asteroid and become veiled for decades with impact-winter debris, so Griffin's unstated hidden priority is really Bush's "Noah's Ark" project - build bases on the Moon to shelter the world's billionaires before the asteroid hits, and conceal news of the coming impact from the sheeple herd of workers whose tax money will pay for building condos on the Moon for the "super-rich." This "hidden spin" is actually hinted at in the ABC News paragraphs below:] [NOTE: NOT ANY MORE! Hansen doesn't seem to get it - ESCAPE FROM EARTH FOR BILLIONAIRES is today "central to NASA's science."] [NOTE: - RIGHT! RIGHT! - C'mon - where's Fred Flintstone? It's obvious that dominator mass media realizes their Mr. Potato Head audience will just sit back and say, 'but yes, let's stop funding atmosphere clean up to save our biosphere and instead spend all our energy and resources to build condos on the Moon for billionaires! What could be more sheeple?] http://www.rockprophecy.com/time -------------------- http://www.theamericanright.com/ http://www.cnbc.com/id/15838446 http://www.climatedepot.com
| |||||||
|
I watch Fox News ![]() Registered: 03/23/06 Posts: 2,946 |
| ||||||
|
-------------------- http://www.theamericanright.com/ http://www.cnbc.com/id/15838446 http://www.climatedepot.com
| |||||||
|
Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 18 days |
| ||||||
|
gluke_bastid writes:
Quote: Did the imperial feudal state of Japan provide any sort of evidence that would suggest an invasion by a democracy would create a democracy? How much evidence was there that the Afghanis and Iraqis would embrace a democratic form of government? Yet both did. Judging from their voter turnouts, more enthusiastically than the average American does. Quote: Morality. Note that "right" is not synonymous with "obligation". Quote: Nope. Quote: If by "democracy" you refer to the system of governance currently practiced by the Western nations, and not Democracy in it's purest sense of majority rule trumps all, then the benefits of having as many countries as possible adopt that type of governance are apparent -- the most obvious benefit being that such countries do not start wars with one another. Quote: Why do you think that? There was always a very real risk Afghanis or Iraqis would choose the most theocratic possible form of constitution run by nothing but Islamic clerics. Yet they were allowed to make the choice anyway. Quote: Offhand I can't think of a country whose old government was ousted forcefully by a Western nation or nations, and a democratic form of government set up, where that government subsequently collapsed. But that may be a memory lapse on my part. I'm not as young as I once was. I'm sure you'll be able to provide us several examples, though. Quote: Oh, please. The US lacks socialized medicine because its freely elected Congress has decided not to enact the legislation required to set it up, not because the people of the US are being oppressed. There is a gigantic difference between the very paradigm of governance in place in a country (freedom vs totalitarianism, for example) and the level of services that government chooses to provide its citizens. Try again. Phred
| |||||||
|
Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 18 days |
| ||||||
|
Virus_with_Shoes writes:
Quote: I am certainly no fan of the American mainstream media (MSM) but you are projecting, here. The media doesn't call Iraqis insurgents and terrorists, it calls the folks attacking Iraqi civilians, Iraqi security forces (army and police) and Iraq's coalition allies insurgents and terrorists. At this stage of the game, many and perhaps most of those doing this attacking aren't even Iraqis, but foreigners. Certainly almost none of the suicide bombers are Iraqi. Quote: Does calling a rapist a rapist dehumanize him? How about calling a burglar a burglar? Look, the fact is, those making these attacks are terrorists. They are enemy combatants. And again, they're not even Iraqi. Quote: The Iraqis have their country back. It was seized from Hussein and handed back to the Iraqis several years ago. It is governed by Iraqis democratically elected according to the constitution drawn up by democratically elected representatives and ratified in a democratic national referendum. The so-called "foreign invader" will leave the instant the democratically chosen government of Iraq requests they leave. Phred
| |||||||
|
Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 18 days |
| ||||||
|
wps writes:
Quote: You'll really have to do a search of the old posts to confirm this (the oldtimers in this forum will remember this, though), but I've said here perhaps a hundred times by now (and I'm saying it again now) that even after all that has occurred, I remain unconvinced it was the correct course of action for Spain, Australia, Italy, England, the United States and others to resume hostilities in Iraq at the time they chose to do so, for the very reason you mention. If I were one hundred per cent convinced Hussein was a threat to any of those countries, I would not have objected. But I am not a hundred per cent convinced Hussein's Ba'athist Iraq was a threat to all those countries. I'm not even a hundred per cent convinced it was a threat to any of them. This is the same reason I have long maintained it was wrong (in the sense of being immoral) for the US to have invaded Hitler's Europe in 1944 -- it was a waste of taxpayers money and of American lives (don't forget there was a draft in World War II as well, which makes it even worse than Iraq in 2003) to go after a bad actor who was no threat to the US. However, my objection to the spending of taxpayer dollars on the project does nothing to invalidate the benefits of having Iraq a democratic country. Incorrect actions can sometimes yield beneficial consequences. Phred
| |||||||
|
Prince of Bugs ![]() Registered: 10/08/02 Posts: 44,175 Last seen: 3 months, 10 days |
| ||||||
|
Democracy is the greatest system in the world, but that does not mean we should force it upon other countries. Democracy best runs when the social, cultural, and economic institutions are in place before the adoption of democracy.
Regarding your strawman about WWII. Germany had violated the sovereignty of numerous countries, who requested help from the United States. This is far different from invading a country and introducing democracy down the barrel of a gun.
| |||||||
|
Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 18 days |
| ||||||
|
Redstorm writes:
Quote: We are not obligated to, no. But in the case of certain countries, we (and any other free countries) most certainly have the right to. Quote: Correct. But that begs the question of whether a democracy running at less than its theoretical best is a better alternative than (for example) a totalitarian and genocidal slave pen. Don't let "perfect" get in the way of "vastly better". Quote: And the Taliban had violated the sovereignty of Afghanistan. Hussein had violated the sovereignty of Iraq. Did Vichy France request the aid of the Allies? No, it did not. Did the governor of Poland request the aid of the Allies? No he did not. Quote: You are confused as to which entities have the moral legitimacy to request outside assistance. Phred
| |||||||
|
I watch Fox News ![]() Registered: 03/23/06 Posts: 2,946 |
| ||||||
|
Read this for more insights.
http://ghettobraggingrights.word -------------------- http://www.theamericanright.com/ http://www.cnbc.com/id/15838446 http://www.climatedepot.com
| |||||||
|
Pastor of Muppets Registered: 01/25/07 Posts: 3,707 Loc: Zuid-Holland, Ne |
| ||||||
Quote: Here are a few greatest hits of the US attempts to build a nation and not being welcomed with open arms: Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Haiti. There are in fact hundreds of more examples of the US doing this and in many of these examples the US actually helped overthrow a democratically elected government in order to install a US-friendly, business-friendly tyrant. Quote: In short, yes. We haven't been invading the countries we've been invading out of an altruistic desire to help their enslaved peoples. We've always had an ulterior geopolitical or economic objective, in any case you can bring to mind. So according to your argument we should invade Sudan, North Korea, Cuba, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Iran and several of the former Soviet Socialist Republics? That's preposterous... where would you like to get this money from? Let's throw another few hundred thousand American soldiers into the meat grinder while we're at it. Unless these states pose a security threat to their neighbours or other states, we should leave them to their own devices, because quite frankly, the US military sucks at nation-building. Let's also not forget that the US has a track record of installing some of these murderous thugs in power so we hardly have the credibility to be doing this and have the world think we're acting out of generosity. Quote: Yes, I've already told you my position on Western democracies and that I think it is the most stable, successful system however, you are missing the point. It's a terrible idea to go around the world trying to turn every state into a Western democracy by invading them and using force to change them. Not only is it a bad idea but it is a stupid and dangerous idea. My question to you: how would you propose bringing Western democracy to the other nations? Are you willing to send a few more hundred thousand Americans to their graves? How about an unwinnable series of wars that would last for hundreds of years and bankrupt the country? Edited by Virus_with_Shoes (02/09/08 12:19 PM)
| |||||||
|
Stinky Bum Registered: 12/20/00 Posts: 3,322 Loc: Charm City Last seen: 5 years, 3 months |
| ||||||
Quote: Nope. But when they decided to bomb our navy and entered into an alliance with other facist nations intent on invading the world, they didn't give us much of a choice. We had to defend our democracy and the logical path to victory was to depose their government. Quote: It is great that so many Iraqis have come out to vote. As I pointed out before, many many civilians in an invaded country are going to be excited about what the invading army offers and brings. However, if the will of a people and the majority of support for democracy is smaller than the ability of an armed and organized counter-democratic force to assume control and suppress those who are voting, you don't really have a democracy. The voters of Iraq are good people, and are stuck between an occupying force and an insurgency, both hell bent on telling them what is best for them. Iraq is light years away from a stable democracy. Quote: So you're telling me that the US has a moral obligation to bring a similar style of government to other countries? I agree with you that we have a pretty great system that allows people a lot of freedom, but I don't agree with you that we are morally obliged to assert dominance over other nations. You are on very slippery ground when you base your foreign affairs on the same ground as Jihadists, who are morally obliged to bring us to Allah. How can you be so sure there is a difference between them and us if you are basing your argument on the same grounds that they are? I'm speaking on theoretical grounds here. Quote: Sure it does, as long as you believe that democracy is the rule of the people. Quote: First of all, I do believe in democracy. Vehemently. Rule of the people trumps all. It is the only way to keep power in check. Nothing else has ever worked, and as far as I can tell nothing else will. It keeps the state in check, it keeps corporations in check, it keeps schools in check. Everything. It is not the military victories of the 20th century that have put America and Europe where they are now. It is the triumph of democracy itself, the success of liberty and civil rights. The desire of people to rule themselves and support governments that allow them to do so. Secondly, you are again basing your logic on easily shaken grounds. Jihadists also want to see a world government...of theocratic fundamentalism. Under that, there would also be no wars between countries. Had Hitler succeeded, there would be no wars. Had Alexander the great succeeded, there would have been one world empire with no wars. See where I am going? The answer as to how to create a stable, sovereign democracy and how to create a peaceful global international community are one and the same: Revolution. Imperialism has failed to succeed for millenia. Revolution has succeeded where imperialism has failed and we have seen in the past that it is infectious. Quote: That's because forcefully ousting a country's government and "setting up a democracy" doesn't really work. I consider Afganistan and Iraq failures, because how are they sovereign democracies if our troops are there? India was not a democracy until it revolted against Britain after 100 years of occupation, so there's a good example of how the occupying "democracy" was holding back an actual democracy. There are more examples of this in Africa than I can think of but include Mozambique, Algeria and arguably, South Africa, as only recently was there a succesful revolution against apartheid. Quote: I don't have time to respond to this right now, but I find it interesting. Phred -------------------- Society in every form is a blessing, but government at its best is but a necessary evil - Thomas Paine
| |||||||
|
Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 18 days |
| ||||||
|
Virus_with_Shoes writes:
Quote: Somalia was a UN operation, not a US operation. The US never invaded Haiti in order to install democracy. The invasion of Afghanistan was likewise not a US operation, but a NATO operation with UN approval, where the people of Afghanistan (as opposed to their illegitimate "masters") did in fact welcome the removal of their oppressors, then did in fact elect themselves a democratic government. Same with Iraq -- the Iraqis did in fact embrace democracy. Surely you remember the criticisms that the problem wasn't that free elections weren't being arranged in Iraq, but that they were taking too long to be arranged. Once again, I ask you to provide examples of efforts to install the Western form of governance in countries who hadn't invited us. Quote: So once a murdering little thug like Idi Amin or Saddam Hussein claws his way to the top, no other nation may rightfully come to the aid of the people within the borders of the country (or countries -- see Kuwait) he has stolen? His legitimacy as "sovereign" depends solely on the fact that he holds the reigns of power regardless of how he seized them and regardless of what he does with them? This view is just another of the many many reasons why the United Nations is such a laughably bogus organization. Quote: I have stressed several times now in this thread, and many times in past threads I know you have read, that we (free nations) have the right to invade such totalitarian cesspits as North Korea but not the obligation. I fail to understand the difficulty you are having grasping the difference between "right" and "obligation". I really don't know what more I can say to help clarify the difference for you. Quote: Why the caveat that these countries pose a threat to their neighbors? Who determines whether they do or not? And what makes the lives of the "neighbors" more sacrosanct than the lives of the people within that country's borders? Why is it unacceptable to intervene when the government of Sudan slaughters hundreds of thousands of its constituents, but acceptable to intervene when it starts slaughtering the constituents of Chad? Quote: Pretending for the sake of argument that this is true (and it isn't, but let's pretend) then isn't the moral thing to do to clean up our mess? To man up and de-install the murderous thug? Quote: To the ones which pose a threat to the US? Invade them, depose their governments, set up a Western form of governance. To the ones which don't pose a threat to the US? Not my problem. The citizens of those countries are on their own. I wish them the best of luck, but hey... shit happens. The US had no business intervening in the whole Yugoslavian mess. Serbia and Kosovo and all the rest of them posed no threat to the US. That was Europe's problem, not the US's or even the UN's. Phred
| |||||||
|
Prince of Bugs ![]() Registered: 10/08/02 Posts: 44,175 Last seen: 3 months, 10 days |
| ||||||
Quote: Other than Japan, I'm still waiting for an instance of this definition to occur. If we are to start, I'd think Saudi Arabia would be a good place.
| |||||||
|
Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 18 days |
| ||||||
|
gluke_bastid writes:
Quote: So despite the fact there was no indication to think Western democracy would "take" with a people possessed of deeply-held traditions centuries old of submission to the elite (samurai class) and complete and instantaneous obedience to the Emperor, the Japanese took to Western democracy like fish to water. Why do you believe the North Koreans would not likewise do so? Their neighbors to the South certainly show no difficulty in embracing it. Quote: But in Iraq, that didn't happen. The voters (three times now) defied the 'splodeydopes and turned out in very large percentages to vote. Quote: So England during the Irish troubles wasn't a stable democracy? Israel is not a stable democracy? Your way of looking at things is skewed as hell. Iraq is a stable (albeit not particularly strong from a security standpoint as of today) democracy being attacked by folks who don't want it to be a stable democracy. Those people are being eliminated steadily. Quote: Good grief! *smacks forehead* No, I have said over and over and over that the US has the right but not the obligation. Remember these quotes from this thread alone? -- "Note that I don't say the Western countries or any countries at all have the obligation to come to their aid -- it is perfectly acceptable to me to sit on our hands and do nothing." -- post 799921 "We are not obligated to, no. But in the case of certain countries, we (and any other free countries) most certainly have the right to."-- post 7999382 Quote: We are not morally obliged to. We have the right to, but not the obligation to. Quote: No it doesn't, especially if you believe democracy is the rule of the people. Was Iraq being run by the rule of the Iraqi people? Nope. Was Afghanistan being run by the rule of the Afghani people? Nope. Iraq was being run by a murderous thug with no right whatsoever to hold the reigns of power. Afghanistan had been hijacked by a bunch of religious nutbars from Pakistan. Afghanistan's "government" in 2001 was recognized as the legitimate government of that poor country by exactly three countries in the world: one of which -- Pakistan -- wanted also to withdraw its recognition of legitimacy but was persuaded not to in order that a diplomatic channel could be kept open. Quote: Interesting admission. So you would have been just fine with that whole slavery business had you lived a hundred and fifty years ago. And you're okay with marijuana and mushrooms being illegal, and with gays not being allowed to marry each other. Okey dokey, then. Quote: But I don't want to see a world government. I merely point out (to your agreement) that the world would be a far more enjoyable place if all countries adopted the Western model of governance. I'm not saying there should be one big government. I'm content with 190 or so separate governments, so long as each they respect individual human rights. Quote: Revolution is "the" answer? Hardly. The result of most revolutions is continuing revolution. See the history of France as just one example. Or hell, toss a dart over your shoulder at a map of South America. On the other hand, Japan's forced democracy stuck the first time. So did Germany's (remember, we are speaking of the Western form of democracy we know today, not Hitler's fascist "democratic" Thousand Year Reich). Germany's democratic government wasn't installed as a result of imperialism practiced by those who installed it. When the German government was on its feet, the Allies went home. Well, the USSR didn't, but you know what I mean. When the Japanese government was on its feet, those who had forced democracy on Japan went home. They'll go home in Afghanistan one day, too, and in Iraq. Quote: Except in Japan and Germany and Afghanistan and Iraq and the Balkans, apparently. Quote: So much for Ireland during "the troubles" then. For that matter, so much for France of today -- see the hundred or so cars burned every single night of the year, and the hundreds of sectors of France designated by the French government as "no-go" zones: zones too lawless for even police to patrol. Was Ireland a sovereign democracy? Is France a sovereign democracy? Iraq and Afghanistan are in fact as much sovereign democracies as Ireland was or France is, they're just sovereign democracies under attack by folks who don't want them to remain sovereign democracies. At the moment the governments of those countries do not possess security forces strong enough to provide reasonable levels of security for their citizens, but that need not be a permanent state of affairs. Phred
| |||||||
|
Pastor of Muppets Registered: 01/25/07 Posts: 3,707 Loc: Zuid-Holland, Ne |
| ||||||
Quote: I've already given you plenty of examples. Of the ones I have given you so far, some of them have been under the banner of the UN but the forces involved have been overwhelming US. The US has spearheaded all of these interventions both in the UN Security Council and in actual military execution. Your claim that the US never invaded Haiti to attempt to install democracy is simply not true. In 1994, the US carried out a mission to attempt reinstall a democratic government after a military junta had taken the reigns of the country. Guess what the name of this operation was? OPERATION UPHOLD DEMOCRACY! As for Iraq, the burden of proof is on you to show that we were somehow invited in to their country. Invited by whom? They embraced democracy? Hardly. The Shiites embraced the US deposing the Sunni leader Saddam and then the entire country lapsed into anarchistic chaos, not democracy. Sure an election or two was had and this was a good sign but the country has not held a trajectory towards a stable democracy since. Quote: Yes, that's right. No other country may "rightfully" invade that country, regardless of how much of a repressive, evil regime it is. It is a violation of international law, just like the Iraq War was. Unless that state has invaded another state or violated its sovereignty then no country has the "right" to invade. Once Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, he violated the sovereignty of another nation which is why the Gulf War was justified. When that line is crossed it becomes an international issue and intervention is legal and justified. It's called international law...look into it. Quote: We are in agreement about Iraq but not about Hitler's Europe. You're neglecting the fact that the US did not initiate war with Germany, it was BROUGHT to the US by Japan attacking Pearl Harbour and because of the Axis alliances, the US was brought into war with Germany. Quote: Please read some history. This is historical fact and it is not up for debate that the United States, either with its military or CIA-led coups have done this all over the world. Here is a very brief list of some of these thugs the United States installed: General Augusto Pinochet (Chile, 1973)- 3000 murdered General Jorge Rafael Videla (Argentina, 1976)- 30,000 murdered Suharto (Indonesia, 1965)- 500,000 murdered ...and the best for last...SADDAM HUSSEIN! Check it out! Rumsfeld's just gave Saddam the keys to the city of Detroit! Damn, how times have changed. Man up and remove these murderous thugs? I've got news for you Phred. We put them there and keep them there on purpose! We have no interest in removing them unless they stop working in our interest or do something crazy like nationalise foreign oil (see the Iran coup of 1953). Quote: You may have stressed this in past threads but that doesn't make it any more correct. Edited by Virus_with_Shoes (02/09/08 02:41 PM)
| |||||||
|
horrid asshole Registered: 02/11/04 Posts: 81,741 Loc: Fractallife's gy Last seen: 7 years, 7 months |
| ||||||
|
The US did not nor could it ever have "installed" any of those thugs. Your notion of American omnipotence in these matters is stunningly childish.
Which is it? Do you want us all over the place taking out thugs? Or don't you? Should we just do the turtle and have nothing to do with any other nation at all? If not, will you please submit a list of approved regimes so that I can point out how they have been rather thuggish themselves.
| |||||||
|
Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 18 days |
| ||||||
|
Virus writes:
Quote: You have given me examples, but not examples of what I asked for. Quote: I am well aware of that operation. As you may already know, I live right next door to Haiti, in the Dominican Republic, and I'm willing to wager a very large sum of money I know more about Haitian history -- especially Haitian history since the time I arrived in the DR two decades ago -- than any other regular poster to this forum. So many things wrong with your example of Haiti. First of all, the operation to which you refer wasn't to force democracy on Haiti. Democracy had already been established in Haiti, it's just that the democratically elected head of the Haitian government had been ousted by a military coup. The man was a stone loony, but that's another story. The more critical error you make is in asserting the US invaded Haiti in 1994. They didn't. Operation Uphold Democracy was completed through diplomatic methods, not miltary ones. No invasion. Quote: By the Iraqis foolish enough to have taken GHW Bush at his word in 1991. Or rather, by the surviving members of that group not murdered by Hussein. As well, members of Ba'athist opposition groups and Iraqi exiles. Quote: They surely did embrace democracy. Two elections and a nationwide referendum in less than three years -- all scrupulously democratic, all with high turnout, all in the face of credible threats of extreme violence. American voters feel "disenfranchised" if the lineups at the polling stations leave them standing in the rain for more than fifteen minutes. Iraqi voters face the very real threat of being blown up by the figure in the Burqa behind them in line. Or kidnapped and tortured by some Yemeni fanatic who slipped across the border from Syria before the indelible purple ink which marks them as a target for days can fade to the point of inconspicuousness. Anyone who claims people eager to vote under these conditions are not people who embrace democracy is someone who cannot be taken seriously. Quote: I already told you I was aware your position is the same as that of the UN. I merely point out how absurd a position it is. Quote: It was correct for the US to go to war with Japan. Japan had already demonstrated itself to be a threat to the US. Germany, however, was no threat to the US. Hitler reluctantly made a pro forma declaration of war on the US because if he did not he would have lost Japan as his ally, something he most definitely did not want to see. But Hitler had neither the inclination nor the ability to actually attack the US. Just because someone declares war on you doesn't mean you have to invade the countries he has captured. I have covered this thoroughly in past threads. If you want to continue this tangent, go ahead and bump one of those threads. I'll happily pursue it there. Quote: Videla wasn't installed by the US or by the CIA. Neither was Suharto, and certainly Hussein wasn't. I don't know why you are trotting out these tired old canards. It weakens the tiny argument you have. I will concede that there was CIA involvement in Pinochet's rise to power, but claiming he was "installed" by the US is an exaggeration. Phred
| |||||||
|
Prince of Bugs ![]() Registered: 10/08/02 Posts: 44,175 Last seen: 3 months, 10 days |
| ||||||
|
Afghanistan and Iraq are not yet viable sovereign democracies because there is no sign that they would last if we left. It's a little early to be calling for cries of total success when we are propping the democracy up. If we leave and they can continue to uphold the rule of law while protecting individual rights, I will whole-heartedly agree with you.
Edited by Redstorm (02/09/08 03:03 PM)
| |||||||
|
Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 18 days |
| ||||||
Quote: In the case of Afghanistan, big whoop. The country has never been under a single "sovereign" government in all its recorded history, probably. There are few people more fractious than Afghanis. There's always tribes fighting tribes, warlords fighting warlords. And yeah... the Taliban might retreat into Pakistan, rebuild itself, then surge into Afghanistan again and take down the Afghani government. That doesn't make it any less of a government than Norway's government was in the Forties. Quote: But that's just it -- we aren't propping "democracy" up. The 'splodeydopes aren't storming government buildings or army barracks or capturing radio stations and television studios. They're mostly self-detonating in bazaars, and occasionally blowing up a pipeline or electrical transmission line. The Iraqi people support their government. Quote: Uphold it as successfully as whom? As France? As England/Ireland during the troubles? As Israel today? Phred
| |||||||
|
Pastor of Muppets Registered: 01/25/07 Posts: 3,707 Loc: Zuid-Holland, Ne |
| ||||||
Quote: Resort to ad hominem attacks and call people childish when you disagree with them... great tactic. By no means refute me with evidence, god forbid. US complicity in these coups is on record and documented. Get off your ass and do some reading. Project FUBELT, more commonly known as Track II, was declassified by the government in 1998 and shows a concerted effort by the US government to depose Salvador Allende's government and to prop up Augusto Pinochet. http://www.gwu.edu/%7Ensarchiv/N Within those pages you'll some pretty lurid stuff, including handwritten notes by CIA director Richard Helms recording the orders of president Nixon to foster a coup in Chile. This is just one example but all of the coups I have referenced are well-documented and on the record. We've even been chastised by the International Court of Justice in the Hague for "unlawful use of force" and violating Nicaragua's sovereignty during the 1980s when we propped up the Contras. Quote: When have I ever said that we should be all over the world taking out thugs? I'll tell you when...never. These are not my words and must be those of some imagined straw man. Kick his ass for me when you get the chance. "Do the turtle and have nothing to do with any other nation at all?" Hmmm...haven't said this either. Beat that straw man! We should be engaging in trade and diplomatic relations with countries. There's more to international relations than invading other countries and it's discouraging that you don't see that. The only countries we should be fighting are those that pose an imminent security threat to us. Point one out for me if you please.
| |||||||
|
horrid asshole Registered: 02/11/04 Posts: 81,741 Loc: Fractallife's gy Last seen: 7 years, 7 months |
| ||||||
|
You cite several examples wherein the US government has acted to assist one faction against another. Sometimes they succeed in helping that faction attain power. Sometimes they don't. The idea that that constitutes an "installation" by the US government is semantically incorrect. The idea that the US government is capable of doing that through clandestine means is childish. Describing an idea held by you to be childish does not constitute an ad hominem attack. Grow up.
Just answer the questions. Your high dudgeon is pointless. Isn't engaging in relations with thug governments support for that group of thugs? Wouldn't that be considered a "propping up" and a legitimizing of the thugs? That seems to be a common corrolary of those who think the CIA installed a certain thug.
| |||||||
|
Pastor of Muppets Registered: 01/25/07 Posts: 3,707 Loc: Zuid-Holland, Ne |
| ||||||
Quote: We disagree. I'll support sovereignty and the rights of nations while you continue to support neoconservative, imperialistic policies. I'm still a bit confused about your position on foreign interventions. You mention a country having the right but not the obligation to depose a foreign dictator that has not invaded other countries. In what situation do you believe a coup or invasion should be carried out and from where does this "right" derive? Edited by Virus_with_Shoes (02/09/08 05:06 PM)
| |||||||
|
Pastor of Muppets Registered: 01/25/07 Posts: 3,707 Loc: Zuid-Holland, Ne |
| ||||||
Quote: Sorry, I got a bit carried away there. Normally I keep my cool but I lost it there for a second. At any rate, maybe "installation" was too strong of a word to use but the fact still remains that via direct support (e.g. military training or supply of arms) many of these thugs came to power, where it would have not previously been possible without US support. The point I was making is that it is destructive to do this around the world with such reckless abandon as it creates blowback and instability. I have already answered your questions. We shouldn't make it our business to go around attempting to depose thugs and again, this is not even our motivation for invading countries in the first place. It all comes down to where our economic and geopolitical interests lie. We should be trading and being diplomatic with countries that aren't a direct threat to us. This is not being a turtle. However, in some examples where there are blatant human rights abuses but no countries have been invaded other tactics such as trade embargoes and refusing diplomatic recognition make more sense. There are other routes than military invasion or intervention. Where you are misunderstanding me is that you seem to think that just because I am not in favour of invading countries means that I think we should befriend rogue states with terrible human rights violations. Not saying that at all. Although in practice we tend to befriend human rights violators, especially if there are economic interests at stake. The US has kept normal relations with Saudi Arabia and China for this very reason. What do you think our policy should be in the world? That of nation-building or non-interventionist? Edited by Virus_with_Shoes (02/09/08 05:08 PM)
| |||||||
|
horrid asshole Registered: 02/11/04 Posts: 81,741 Loc: Fractallife's gy Last seen: 7 years, 7 months |
| ||||||
|
Neither and both. We should act for our interests. Intervention can sometimes be in our interests. A close cost benefit analysis needs to be made every time and an assessment of level of interaction, engagement and, yes, interference should be included along with all repercussions.
| |||||||
|
Pastor of Muppets Registered: 01/25/07 Posts: 3,707 Loc: Zuid-Holland, Ne |
| ||||||
|
Very quickly...
Quote: I'll give you and zappa that point about "installed" being too strong a word. Aided, abetted and facilitated would me more appropriate. This is semantics... the point remains but the language was perhaps too strong. Saddam was aided into power by the CIA because he was seen as a staunch ally and virulent anti-communist. This very reason accounts for most of the dictators we helped into power and supported throughout the Cold War including the Shah of Iran. http://www.upi.com/International Quoted from article: "While many have thought that Saddam first became involved with U.S. intelligence agencies at the start of the September 1980 Iran-Iraq war, his first contacts with U.S. officials date back to 1959, when he was part of a CIA-authorized six-man squad tasked with assassinating then Iraqi Prime Minister Gen. Abd al-Karim Qasim." Same deal with Suharto in Indonesia. Seen as another battle in the Cold War and the US did everything it could to prevent the country from falling into Communist hands. Here's a pretty interesting article about it from Pacific Affairs with plenty of citations. We did in fact vastly support Suharto's rise to power and even helped the Indonesian army compile vast death lists of Communists to be executed. http://www.namebase.org/scott.ht Videla was indirectly helped into power by US-aided Operation Condor which was a campaign of assassinations and intelligence operations aimed at the "Southern Cone" states of South America. More anti-Communist stuff... Here's a quick summary from the Journal of Third World Studies. http://findarticles.com/p/articl Quote: I don't see the boundary you are drawing between when an intervention is and isn't justified. You say that my position is ridiculous yet you've also said that invasions of Nazi Europe and Hussein's Iraq weren't justified because these nations didn't pose a security threat to the US. This was the same argument I used for not invading Iraq yet somehow you are disagreeing with me, the only difference I see is that you are arguing from a security standpoint and I'm arguing from an international law perspective. I see a bit of contradiction in your posts. Can you please clarify your position.
| |||||||
|
Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 18 days |
| ||||||
|
Virus writes:
Quote: But that's just it. You don't support the rights of nations. You support the "rights" of whichever murderous thug has managed to claw his way to the top of the food chain, seize the reigns of power and enslave the inhabitants of the nation in question. Your position (and the UN's) when it comes to deciding who has a legitimate claim to speak for the people of a given nation is "might is right". Neither you nor the UN have a problem with entire nations being enslaved, and entire peoples being wiped out, as long as the enslavers accomplish their task from within their own borders. The enslavers need not even necessarily be citizens of the nation in question: all that matters to you is that they first entered the nation in a non-violent fashion. Quote: Look, people would take you more seriously if you would use words the way they are meant to be used. The US is not "imperialistic" and follows no imperialistic policies. If the US does get involved in a military operation in another country, it comes, does the job, then leaves. Empires don't do this. Is Japan a colony or vassal state of the US? Nope. How about Germany? Nope. Kosovo? South Korea? Afghanistan? Iraq? Panama? No, no, no, no and no. Quote: What part of the following did I fail to make clear? -- "To the ones which pose a threat to the US? Invade them, depose their governments, set up a Western form of governance. To the ones which don't pose a threat to the US? Not my problem. The citizens of those countries are on their own. I wish them the best of luck, but hey... shit happens." -- post 8000028 Phred
| |||||||
|
Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 18 days |
| ||||||
|
Virus writes:
Quote: It is. Your claim is that there is no process by which the head of state achieves and maintains his status as head of state which is more legitimate than any other process. Murdering your way to the top is as legitimate as being voted into the position by the populace. As long as he proclaims to the world that he runs the show and has so terrorized everyone else in the nation that none of them will claim otherwise, you and the United Nations accept his "legitimacy". Quote: Hitler's Germany most certainly posed no security threat to the US, no. Only a fool would pretend otherwise. Hussein's Iraq likewise posed no direct threat in the sense of Iraq mounting an invasion of the US or lobbing missiles across the ocean to land in Miami or Galveston. But as a base from which terror operations could be launched (using either Iraqi nationals or Islamic terrorists), Iraq most certainly did pose a threat. It's just that I am not convinced yet that this level of threat was high enough to warrant a resumption of hostilities in Iraq in March of 2003 by the actors involved. While it is true that Hussein sent an assassin to murder a former US president and it is true that he offered safe haven to bin Laden and it is true he provided housing and state pensions to other terrorists who had attacked the US in the past (1993 WTC bomber, for example), it might have been better to leave him in power and just endure the occasional inconvenience every few years while waiting for an opportunity to assassinate him, hoping whoever took over Iraq after his death could be reasoned with. Quote: No, it is not the same argument at all. You yourself see the difference. You argue that it was wrong to invade Iraq because it was "illegal" to do so (you are wrong about that, by the way -- resuming hostilities after a conditional ceasefire has remained unsatisfied for twelve years is not illegal, even under international law. But that's a discussion for another thread), I say it was a sub-optimal decision for the US to have resumed hostilities when it did for practical reasons rather than moral or legal reasons. And I have to admit that I am almost on the fence about it -- like 51% leave Hussein in power for a while longer and see what develops vs. 49% take him out in March of 2003. Phred
| |||||||
|
Prince of Bugs ![]() Registered: 10/08/02 Posts: 44,175 Last seen: 3 months, 10 days |
| ||||||
Quote: And you don't support the rights of nations or the people found within them unless granting these rights somehow benefits the United States.
| |||||||
|
Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 18 days |
| ||||||
|
Redstorm writes:
Quote: Incorrect. Show me where I have advocated violating the rights of citizens of any country. Phred
| |||||||
|
Prince of Bugs ![]() Registered: 10/08/02 Posts: 44,175 Last seen: 3 months, 10 days |
| ||||||
|
Nice try, but you can't ask me to prove what I'm not arguing. I never said you support violating the rights of any country, only that you ignore the US enforcing those rights unless it benefits them.
| |||||||
|
Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 18 days |
| ||||||
|
There is a gigantic difference between the meaning of the words "enforce" and "support".
Phred
| |||||||
|
Prince of Bugs ![]() Registered: 10/08/02 Posts: 44,175 Last seen: 3 months, 10 days |
| ||||||
|
And neither of those actions are done in regards to countries in regards to countries with repressed citizenry unless it meets some calculated interest to the United States. Example: Sudan.
It's just ridiculous to hear people saying the United States is committed to the universal expansion of democracy, when in fact, they are only committed when it suits their purpose.
| |||||||
|
Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 18 days |
| ||||||
Quote: Of course. Do you have a problem with that? Quote: Oh, please. There is a spectrum of "commitment". How committed are you to legalizing marijuana? Committed enough to risk doing twenty years in prison? The US encourages, supports, and tends to assist (sometimes openly, sometimes clandestinely) peoples struggling to establish a democratic form of governance in their countries. Sometimes that support is limited to little more than speeches and public pronouncements cheering on movements in oppressive regimes. Sometimes it amounts to more concrete support. But you as a student of politics must be aware of the restrictions the UN places on actual concrete action a government can take to support nascent democratic reformers. In my opinion, such restrictions illustrate the extreme bogosity (or bogusness or whatever the correct term might be) of that absurd organization, but to most of the people in the world -- including, unfortunately, the leaders of the US government -- the feeling is that the United Nations should be listened to on such matters. Phred
| |||||||
|
Pastor of Muppets Registered: 01/25/07 Posts: 3,707 Loc: Zuid-Holland, Ne |
| ||||||
Quote: I'm not arguing about the legitimacy a state! You are still missing my point and trying to say that I support strongmen which is a totally idiotic argument. In many instances evil regimes come to power in states around the world and it is not our responsibility as a nation to rectify this problem! Let the peoples of these nations deal with it themselves. You are twisting my argument for your own ends and skirting the issue. Quote: This is just straight up bullshit. There's a difference between not having a problem and invading the fucking country and putting in a new government. There are some atrocious things going on in Sudan right now but we would never invade them and install a new government because they are a non-entity to us both geopolitically and economically. Unless this country is a threat to US interests, we should sanction them, withdraw diplomatic recognition and isolate them in the global community. Let's get some perspective here too. YOU don't give a shit about these enslaved and oppressed people either! You yourself said that they should not be helped unless they are a threat to the US. So unless they pose a threat to the US they should be completely ignored and let to die by the millions is what you are basically saying and yet you have the audacity to say I don't care about these countries. One word sir- hypocrisy. Quote: Neocon propaganda again and a very weak, disproved argument. Al Qaeda didn't use Iraq as a staging ground until we invaded the country. Quote: For your information I'm not too concerned about not being taken seriously by the likes of you because it's quite clear you are talking out of your ass. Not an empire? Doesn't stay long? Here's a map of permanent military bases the US has around the world... Now look at the list of countries you've just given me and see if we have left any of them. The answer: no. Imperialism is not just having vassal states, it exists in many different hues. Quote: I'll take Kofi Annan's word over yours any day. At least the guy knows his ass from a hole in the wall when it comes to international relations. http://politics.guardian.co.uk/i Edited by Virus_with_Shoes (02/10/08 04:34 PM)
| |||||||
|
Pastor of Muppets Registered: 01/25/07 Posts: 3,707 Loc: Zuid-Holland, Ne |
| ||||||
Quote: The greatest part about this whole thing is that you also support this position in your own words! Your words betray you Phred... Quote: Redstorm hit the nail on the head with this one: Quote: Your position, quite frankly, is idiotic.
| |||||||
|
Pastor of Muppets Registered: 01/25/07 Posts: 3,707 Loc: Zuid-Holland, Ne |
| ||||||
Quote: Bullshit. We support governments that serve our interests and this has included brutal genocidal dictators. You've even conceded this point in admitting that the CIA was involved in Pinochet's regime in Chile. The fact that you are still trying to make this argument betrays a certain thickheaded nature and inability to listen to reason. Our actions are seldom done in the name of spreading democracy but unfailingly in the name of national interest. Quote: Are you out of your mind?! The US openly DEFIED the UN in its invasion of Iraq. How can you even begin to try to make the point that the US is in any way shape or form restricted by the UN.
| |||||||
|
Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 18 days |
| ||||||
|
virus writes:
Quote: Yes you are. You have stated repeatedly and quite emphatically that it is wrong/illegal to invade another country as long as the only thing the head of state of that country is doing is slaughtering those within his country's own borders. Quote: I don't say you "support" strongmen, I say you give their actions a legitimacy (it is wrong to stop them from murdering folks) that you refuse to give to those outside actors who would rescue those the strongmen murder. You say the US has no right to go in and help those being slaughtered in Darfur. I say the US -- and every other free country in the world -- does have that right. But I also say the US has no obligation to help the folks in Darfur, because they don't. Quote: Agreed. It isn't our responsibility. But if we choose to rectify the problem, we have a right to. Quote: I agree. Unless, of course, helping them out also reduces threats to us by a sufficient degree. Quote: Au contraire. You seem honestly unable to grasp the difference between "right" and "obligation". You and I are not talking about the same thing at all. Quote: I agree we shouldn't, for the same reasons you mention. But you are also saying we shouldn't because it is illegal. According to you, not only is it illegal for the US to overthrow the government of Sudan and liberate those poor folks getting murdered, it is just as illegal for Chad or Egypt or Libya or Eritrea or Ethiopia or Kenya or Uganda or Zaire or the Central African Republic -- all of whom border on Sudan; none of whom consider Sudan to be a non-entity to them either geopolitically or economically -- to overthrow the government of Sudan and liberate those poor folks currently being murdered. Quote: Yup. Quote: In a manner of speaking, that's correct. I feel sorry for them, but I certainly don't feel sorry enough for them to advocate sending US troops in there to rescue them. Sucks to be them, but hey... whaddya gonna do? Quote: But you don't care about them. I say there's not enough benefit to the US in helping them out to make it a good idea for the US to help them out. We can help them out, but we choose not to. You say that they cannot be helped out by the US, because it is against international law to help them out. So even if we wanted to help them out, the only way we could do so would be by breaking the law and becoming the bad guy, the aggressor, the imperialist, the dominator using twenty-first century hi-tech weaponry against hapless tribesmen on horseback. So as I have pointed out, in your inverted version of morality, all the strongman has to do is be smart enough to confine his depradations to within his own borders. He then becomes untouchable because anyone who dares to touch him must necessarily break the law, thus (in your view and the view of the UN) automatically becoming the bad guy of the scenario. Quote: This is one of the reasons your opinions are so wrong -- you are operating from faulty data. Garbage in, garbage out, as coders say. Yes, Hussein did send an assassin after a former US president; yes he harbored one of the 1993 WTC bombers, yes he harbored other terrorists such as Abu Nidal and Abu Abbas, yes he rewarded the families of Palestinean 'splodeydopes. This is all common knowledge, widely reported in the open source media and easily verifiable for anyone who wants to take the time to check it out. Quote: No it doesn't. Keeping a military base in a country at the invitation of the host government is not an act of Imperialism. Quote: If it makes you feel better to believe a thoroughly corrupt hack bureaucrat rather than people who actually do know the law, be my guest. Here's a question for you, though -- in light of the fact that the UN has never been shy about condemning the US for this or that supposed "violation", does it not strike you as odd that no UN resolution protesting the resumption of hostilities in Iraq has yet been filed? Not only that, but the UN has voted regularly since March of 2003 to legitimize the stay of the coalition forces for yet another year. What a puzzler, eh? Quote: US companies have done business in the past with countries run by dictators, yes -- as do companies from other countries all over the world. And the US government has in the past co operated with governments of countries strategic to thwarting the interests of their enemies, yes -- as do governments of other countries all over the world. However, the US also lends moral support and in some cases more practical support to peoples struggling to overthrow their oppressive governments. See their aid to the Afghanis mujahadeen in their struggle against the godless Commie oppressors as an example of the latter. Quote: Spreading democracy is in the national interest of the US. Quote: Actually, no it didn't. The coalition forces resumed hostilities in Iraq without the approval of France, true. But that is hardly the same thing as "defying the UN". Phred
| |||||||
|
Hold my beer and Registered: 01/17/08 Posts: 3,246 Loc: The Bounds of Re Last seen: 15 years, 6 months |
| ||||||
|
Times have changed brah.
--------------------
| |||||||
|
Stinky Bum Registered: 12/20/00 Posts: 3,322 Loc: Charm City Last seen: 5 years, 3 months |
| ||||||
Quote: You can't predict where democracy will take. In the case of Japan, there is a well-documented cultural tendency to avoid defeat to the last man, and then, when defeat is admitted, to wholly embrace the methods of the winner and acquesece to their superiority. Probably more important was the extent to which Japan was war torn and how long the Empire had failed to address the changing nature of Japan both at home and in the world. Indeed, the alliance with Hitler was a failed attempt to find Japan a place in the modern world. When we handed dropped the bomb on them they were ready to admit they chose the wrong side. Quote: Great. Let's see how it lasts when we aren't guarding the voting booths. Quote: Both countries developed their own democracy as oppossed to having American style democracy violently enforced upon them. Quote: If you think Iraq is a stable democracy than we are just going to have to remain in disagreement. Quote: What gives us the right? Does North Korea have the right to invade us? Quote: Quote: Interesting that you consider my support of true democracy as an "admission." Who do you believe should rule if not the people? No I am not okay with any of the things you named because I see them as violations of civil liberty, and I see it as the government's job to protect my civil liberty in court. But I do recognize that most people see it differently, and I am willing to accept that things aren't the way I would like them to be exactly because the majority disagrees with me. That is the price you pay for living in a democracy, but what you get out of it is a lot greater. Quote: Nice fantasy. As I already pointed out countless wars have been fought to realize a similar one and they have all failed. Quote: Say what you want about what is going on in France right now, but as a democracy it is in no danger. Quote: Ironically, South American history has a lot more to say about the failure of colonialism to create any type of stable governing body (my argument) than it says about your argument that imposed democracies are healthier autonomic ones. Look at the history of Guatemala. -------------------- Society in every form is a blessing, but government at its best is but a necessary evil - Thomas Paine
| |||||||
|
blarrr Registered: 06/04/04 Posts: 5,952 |
| ||||||
Quote: Well put. Japan was an island nation with a homogeneous population. The allied powers shattered that country both physically and spiritually. General MacArthur, a man who actually understood the culture of the country he ruled, was able to step into that power vacuum and with his massive ego convincingly adopt the emperor role vacated by Hirohito. He then used that power to rebuild their infrastructure, remake their society and write their constitution (which stands virtually unchanged today) leaving them with a stable democracy in five years- the same time frame of the start of the Iraq war until now. Iraq, on the other hand, is an artificial entity with borders slapped together by the colonial powers with an arrogant disregard of the history and culture of the region's inhabitants. In Iraq you actually have three countries in one whose people are being forced to live together within borders created by foreign powers. The main thing holding it together was a strongman, Saddam Hussein. When we took him out we removed the glue that held it together at gunpoint. What may ultimately be needed to keep it together is another strongman. Irony of ironies. -------------------- “The crisis takes a much longer time coming than you think, and then it happens much faster than you would have thought.” -- Rudiger Dornbusch
| |||||||
|
Pastor of Muppets Registered: 01/25/07 Posts: 3,707 Loc: Zuid-Holland, Ne |
| ||||||
Quote: The Iraq War was illegal, plain and simple. There was no mandate by the Security Council to authorise the use of force and the US did not wait around for one either. The only people in the world who disagree are the US and the UK, for obvious reasons. Even Richard Perle, probably a way bigger neocon than yourself has conceded the illegality of the invasion. Again, I'll let a well-respected source, the International Commission of Jurists do the talking: http://www.icj.org/news.php3?id_ Quoted from the press release: "The United States, the United Kingdom and Spain have signaled their intent to use force in Iraq in spite of the absence of a Security Council Resolution. There is no other plausible legal basis for this attack. In the absence of such Security Council authorisation, no country may use force against another country, except in self-defence against an armed attack." Quote: This hardly constitutes a casus belli. If you were really concerned about international terrorism you would have advocated a war on Saudi Arabia not Iraq. After all, 15 of the 19 hijackers originated from the Kingdom of Saud. Why have we not invaded? Oh that's right, they're a major trading partner. Doh! Invading Iraq was probably the dumbest place to invade if you were truly interested in quashing international terrorism. Quote: Yes, and we all remember how well THAT worked out for us...
Edited by Virus_with_Shoes (02/12/08 01:37 PM)
| |||||||
|
horrid asshole Registered: 02/11/04 Posts: 81,741 Loc: Fractallife's gy Last seen: 7 years, 7 months |
| ||||||
|
The ICJ has zero authority. None, zip, nada. I have as much authority as them to declare something illegal.
| |||||||
|
Stranger Registered: 02/04/08 Posts: 69 Loc: Adirondacks Last seen: 15 years, 7 months |
| ||||||
|
this man has the one true solution
-------------------- ... and so forth
| |||||||
|
horrid asshole Registered: 02/11/04 Posts: 81,741 Loc: Fractallife's gy Last seen: 7 years, 7 months |
| ||||||
Quote: I keep seeing this incredible bit of relativist masturbation over and over again. "We didn't do it here why should we do it there." In this particular instance it is because it is not the policy of the government of Saudi Arabia that is supporting terrorists. The government of Saudi Arabia is not funding or training attackers. The government of Saudi Arabia is helping as much as they probably can. The government of Saudi Arabia has wanted bin Laden dead for longer than we have. It was the governments of Iraq and Afghanistan that were the problems, not random street jerkoffs like we got from Egypt and SA. The fact that the anti-war crowd even bothers to make this argument speaks to the utter dearth of their ability to make any argument of substance. It is prima facie a loser. Other moronic relativism: DARFUR! FTW!
| |||||||
|
I watch Fox News ![]() Registered: 03/23/06 Posts: 2,946 |
| ||||||
Quote: I guess its no cooincidence that you tend to find the ultimate nutball wackjobs on drug forums. -------------------- http://www.theamericanright.com/ http://www.cnbc.com/id/15838446 http://www.climatedepot.com
| |||||||
|
Pastor of Muppets Registered: 01/25/07 Posts: 3,707 Loc: Zuid-Holland, Ne |
| ||||||
Quote: ...as the pot calls the kettle black.
| |||||||
|
horrid asshole Registered: 02/11/04 Posts: 81,741 Loc: Fractallife's gy Last seen: 7 years, 7 months |
| ||||||
|
At least you know you're a kettle.
| |||||||
|
Pastor of Muppets Registered: 01/25/07 Posts: 3,707 Loc: Zuid-Holland, Ne |
| ||||||
Quote: Touché.
| |||||||
|
Pastor of Muppets Registered: 01/25/07 Posts: 3,707 Loc: Zuid-Holland, Ne |
| ||||||
Quote: Well of course they have zero authority, they're an international human rights NGO that works for the EU and UN. The point I mentioned it was to show that those who are aware of international law know very well that the Iraq War was an unlawful use of force. I suppose YOU could declare something illegal but I doubt anyone would listen as you don't have a degree in law... Interesting that you didn't mention Richard Perle's admission of the war's illegality. I'd figure he'd be more on your wavelength. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/200 Quoted: "International law... would have required us to leave Saddam Hussein alone"
| |||||||
|
horrid asshole Registered: 02/11/04 Posts: 81,741 Loc: Fractallife's gy Last seen: 7 years, 7 months |
| ||||||
|
I disagree with Mr Perle's conclusions. I'm also not clear that there is even a body in existence to determine the validity of either his, mine, or any other person's views. At any rate, I don't see anybody chirping up and prosecuting any of the, what, around 50, nations that were with us. I thus conclude that it was, for all intents and purposes, quite legal.
Also, don't gloss over the fact that Perle was bemoaning what he perceived the effort's legal status to be.
| |||||||
|
Pastor of Muppets Registered: 01/25/07 Posts: 3,707 Loc: Zuid-Holland, Ne |
| ||||||
Quote: Of course he bemoaned the illegality of invading since he really wanted to go in there and kick some Iraqi ass. But that's not really the issue at hand. We're talking about whether it did or did not violate international law. Even though I may disagree with his desire to invade Iraq, I at least give him credit for calling a spade a spade...
| |||||||
|
horrid asshole Registered: 02/11/04 Posts: 81,741 Loc: Fractallife's gy Last seen: 7 years, 7 months |
| ||||||
|
And I think he was calling a hoe a shovel. Without enforcement, there is no law.
Edited by zappaisgod (02/12/08 07:30 PM)
| |||||||
|
KingOfTheHill Registered: 11/03/07 Posts: 866 Loc: VA |
| ||||||
Quote: It would be good if we could enforce the laws of the constitution upon our own government at home before even trying to enforce our laws on another country (not that that has or ever will work). Then maybe the world wouldn't view us as hypocritical bullies? -------------------- "In the beginning, I had no name. i was a shape, a snarling shadow of the Old World which slipped into this existence" - Steven Erikson "Our progress as a species rests squarely on the shoulders of that tenth person. The nine are satisfied with things they are told are valuable. Person 10 determines for himself what has value." - My good friend Za -
| |||||||
| |||||||
| Shop: |
|
| Similar Threads | Poster | Views | Replies | Last post | ||
![]() |
Republic or democracy | 1,489 | 11 | 03/05/02 06:10 PM by Agent Cooper | ||
![]() |
The Rise of Illiberal Democracy | 1,541 | 8 | 04/10/22 09:13 AM by Brian Jones | ||
![]() |
When Democracy Failed: The warnings of history | 1,218 | 15 | 03/19/04 03:59 PM by Anonymous | ||
![]() |
Kasparov: Putin is destroying democracy in Russia | 703 | 1 | 09/23/07 06:28 PM by Disco Cat | ||
![]() |
US was warned Democracy in Iraq may be "Impossible" ( |
6,613 | 79 | 08/19/03 08:29 AM by GernBlanston | ||
![]() |
Why is Israel a stable democracy and the Arab states aren't? ( |
4,141 | 103 | 08/24/06 07:25 PM by downforpot | ||
![]() |
21 US states claiming sovereignty | 1,554 | 14 | 02/20/09 05:34 PM by zouden | ||
![]() |
The United States is NOT Capitalist... ( |
16,626 | 133 | 09/28/09 11:34 AM by Phred |
| Extra information | ||
| You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa 3,821 topic views. 1 members, 10 guests and 3 web crawlers are browsing this forum. [ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ] | ||






... and so forth
Touché.

