American "freedom," American "values"

[Loren Booda]

Do these ideals of what Americans apparently believe for themselves represent their practice around the globe?

[selfAdjoint]

Do these ideals of what Americans apparently believe for themselves represent their practice around the globe?

Sometimes yes sometimes no. Even in Iraq, some good things are happening, and not all the bad things happening in Iraq are the fault of the Americans on the ground there (they may well be the fault of the Presidential administration with the connivance of Congress).

[loseyourname]

Do you mean to ask whether or not the United States' foreign policy falls in accordance with the stated ideals of the Declaration of Independence and US Constitution?

[Loren Booda]

loseyournameDo you mean to ask whether or not the United States' foreign policy falls in accordance with the stated ideals of the Declaration of Independence and US Constitution? Yes, and whether we have the freedom (right) to enforce our values (e. g., "women's rights") upon another people just because we believe to have achieved them for ourselves. When was the last time the U. S. acquiesced to change its moral code from the demands of a third-world country?

[JohnDubYa]

RE: "Yes, and whether we have the freedom (right) to enforce our values (e. g., "women's rights") upon another people just because we believe to have achieved them for ourselves."

Then you must really hate JFK. If anyone tried to enforce American values of freedom on third-world countries, it was JFK. He got 70,000 of our boys killed doing it too, along with hundreds of Cubans.

And LBJ. And just about every other President we have ever had.

The only recent presidents who refrained from such activity were Ford and Carter, and both are viewed as weak presidents.

American has long maintained that certain rights are inalienable to all people, and that any government that supresses those rights places itself in conflict with America. That is why we attacked Serbia, and Viet Nam, and Grenada, and Iraq, and...

So this is not a new thing. Like it or not, the United States views itself as the world's policeman. And most of the world would have it no other way.

[russ_watters]

loseyourname Yes, and whether we have the freedom (right) to enforce our values (e. g., "women's rights") upon another people just because we believe to have achieved them for ourselves. Are you familiar with the concept of the "Moral Imperative?"

[Loren Booda]

russ,

Please define, and who typically enforces it? Can't any country have a "Moral Imperative"? (Same prefix as "Imperialism," but sounds somewhat like Star Trek.)

[Entropy]

Do these ideals of what Americans apparently believe for themselves represent their practice around the globe?

No, really Americans could careless about anyone else in the world, esspecially those who suffer. Only when it's too there advantage will they start pushing there ideals on others.

[phatmonky]

No, really Americans could careless about anyone else in the world, esspecially those who suffer. Only when it's too there advantage will they start pushing there ideals on others.

I see.
If you are American, you must live in a box.
If you aren't American, your ignorance atleast has an excuse.

[Entropy]

I'm American. What makes you think I live in a box?

[russ_watters]

What makes you think I live in a box? Just a guess on phat's meaning, but in light of our actions in Somalia and Yugoslavia, and earlier Etheopia, its hard to believe that we care not at all for those in need.russ,

Please define... Basically, a moral imperative is the concept that if you see someone acting in a way that is morally wrong, you are duty-bound by your own morality to correct it(if you can), otherwise, your own moral convictions are suspect.

Again, Hitler is an example: seeing the Holocaust, the moral imperative required the world to step in and stop him. After WWII, the allies looked back and decided their response was insufficient. The slogan "never again" is an embrace of the moral imperative. ...and who typically enforces it? Well, here of course, is where it gets tricky. In the world today, thats one duty of the UN. The US has obviously seen the UN's response as insufficient in many cases and has taken it upon herself to act in many cases. This begs he question: what if we're wrong? Again, the duty falls on the UN to step in and stop us if we are wrong.

JohnDubya said "Like it or not, the United States views itself as the world's policeman" (and thus, designated enforcer of the moral imperative). I'd put it a little differently: Like it or not, the US is the world's policeman. The actions of other countries tell me that the rest of the world, by and large, does like it that way.

In light of recent events, how can I say that? Pretty much the entire group of western countries has dismantled their militaries over the past 10-20-50 years. Canada the best, but by no means the only example. They had a large contribution to WWII - they even had their own beach at Normandy. Today, their Navy is roughly the size of our Coast Guard and their army is a fraction of the size of our Marine Corps. The reason for this is simple: they know we will protect them if necessary. They have ceded their national defense and international power projection to us. They keep a small military out of pride and a sense that they should contribute at least a little when necessary.Can't any country have a "Moral Imperative"? Certainly. From the thread on morality in war in General Philosophy, it seems like some people believe Hitler thought that way. I'm unconvinced about the veracity of his beliefs, but his actions do tend to support the assertion that he was operating on a moral imperative to impliment his Final Solution.

[Dagenais]

I'm American. What makes you think I live in a box?

In general, Americans are ignorant to other cultures and countries, and sadly, ignorant to themselves.

Americans want others to become more like they are especially when it comes to Government. A reason why lots of Americans despise Communism.

Americans are known to be arrogant.

They tell other countries what to do, but rarely point out their own faults.

Stuff like that, makes others think you live in a box. At least it's a very nice, rich, box.

[JohnDubYa]

RE: "No, really Americans could careless about anyone else in the world, esspecially those who suffer. Only when it's too there advantage will they start pushing there ideals on others."

Nothing could be further from the truth. We had little to gain materially by protecting South Korea and South Vietnam. In fact, almost none of our military actions have been for material gain (conspiracy theories aside).

[JohnDubYa]

RE: "In general, Americans are ignorant to other cultures and countries, and sadly, ignorant to themselves."

Sounds like you are ignorant to Americans.

America IS the melting pot. We understand a lot of cultures because those cultures reside within our borders. How many Germans really understand the Hmong? But I have three Hmongs in my class, and I can tell you a lot about their culture because I talk to them about it all the time. We understand the Hispanic and Asian cultures a lot better than most Europeans.

When people disagree with others, they tend to pin the "stupid" label on them.
America is largely CONSERVATIVE relative to Europeans. Therefore Europeans think we're stupid. It's basic human nature. (Americans don't have a lot of respect for Europeans either. They tend to consider Europeans weak-willed.)

I watch a lot of Al Jazeera. (I don't speak Arabic -- my wife translates.) If you want to see ignorance, check out Arabic tv. The claptrap they fall for boggles the mind.

RE: "Americans want others to become more like they are especially when it comes to Government. A reason why lots of Americans despise Communism."

Americans despise Communism for a number of reasons. First, they consider it a threat to the notion of freedom and liberty. Second, they notice that nearly every Communist country has had enormous problems with basic lack of freedom and institutionalized cruelty.

RE: "Americans are known to be arrogant."

As opposed to, say, the French?

All cultures are arrogant. You sound arrogant, as a matter of fact, when you call Americans ignorant.

RE: "They tell other countries what to do, but rarely point out their own faults."

No country criticizes itself more than the United States. In fact, the situation with self-criticism has gotten so completely out of hand that I question whether we could win a world war today. While most countries sweep their problems under the rug, the US splashes it in headlines and takes its shots. Which is why we are taking heat for the treatment of prisoners in Iraq.

Let's consider some examples.

How critical have the Japanese been to the atrocities they committed in WWII?

How critical have many Arab nations been to their own inability to govern without fostering ultra-violence?

How critical were the Swiss towards their own involvement with the Germans in WWII? THEY SOLD OUR HIDES!

And what about the Italians and their attacks on North Africa?

And what about the FRENCH? They fired on our troops that were trying to liberate them. (Our first Medal of Honor winner in WWII was shot and killed by the French when he drove up to a French checkpoint waving the white flag of truce.)

Treachery and barbarity exist all over the world. In most countries, such actions are soon forgotten. ("Oh, that was fifty years ago!") The US is one of the few countries that reminds itself of its sordid pasts.

[the number 42]

JohnDubya said "Like it or not, the United States views itself as the world's policeman" (and thus, designated enforcer of the moral imperative). I'd put it a little differently: Like it or not, the US is the world's policeman. The actions of other countries tell me that the rest of the world, by and large, does like it that way.

In that case you guys would be very surprised at the general lack of support for the Bush administration (note: not the US in general) amongst people in the UK, and the UK is your staunchest ally. In fact Blair is likely to be forced to stand down as leader of the Labour Party before the next elections here because he is percieved as a vote-loser due to his enthusiasm for what was always a very unpopular war. I wonder what the grass-roots level feelings are in less friendly parts of the world?

Anyway, what's the difference between an unelected policeman and a vigilante?

[JohnDubYa]

RE: "In that case you guys would be very surprised at the general lack of support for the Bush administration."

I'm not surprised at all. Support would require other countries to stick their necks out to Saddam Hussein and terrorism. We have already learned from the Spanish that many countries don't have the nads to hang in there when the going gets tough. So we go it alone.

What were the foreign countries proposing to do about Saddam Hussein's brutalization of his people and his disregard for UN sanctions? No matter how you phrase it, the answer always comes up "Nothing." (Unless you consider enriching Saddam's coffers with the oil-for-food program a real blow to Saddam's power structure.)

Actions speak louder than words. What exactly have countries like France done to force Saddam Hussein to abide by UN sanctions and to stop worldwide terrorism? I am not asking about their positions on issues, but rather what have they DONE?

These countries were AFRAID. They were afraid of Saddam Hussein. And they are still afraid of terrorism. They figure that since the US will always bear the brunt of El Quaida, it isn't their problem. And as long as Saddam wasn't murdering Brits, well... so what?

[pelastration]

... to stop worldwide terrorism?
John ... why is there worldwide terrorism? Tell me.

[JohnDubYa]

RE: "John ... why is there worldwide terrorism? Tell me."

Because there are a lot of sick people who know that smashing the weak in the mouth hard enough will get them what they want. Extortion is hardly difficult to understand.

[Dagenais]

You sound arrogant, as a matter of fact, when you call Americans ignorant.



Have you seen CBC's popular show, Talking to Americans? Do you know what it portrays?

American ignorance.

I suggest you watch that before making any comments about America understanding other cultures.

There is a reason why so many countries mock the USA. Simply look at history-social study classes offered at most High Schools. State history, US History, Civics. All US oriented.

I bet most Americans don't even know how many Provinces and Territories Canada has. Or even the capitol of Canada.

[Entropy]

Nothing could be further from the truth. We had little to gain materially by protecting South Korea and South Vietnam. In fact, almost none of our military actions have been for material gain (conspiracy theories aside).

Vietnam was a futile effort to try and gain allies against communism because people were paranoid that Russia would take over the world. Seeing that 2 million Vietnamese died in that war, I'll wager are causes for warring weren't that noble. And besides I'm refer to more modern day America.

I bet most Americans don't even know how many Provinces and Territories Canada has. Or even the capitol of Canada.

Like anyone cares about Canada! You know what fact makes me really proud of American schools: Most high school students in America couldn't point to the Pacific Ocean if you showed them a globe. :surprise:

As an American high school student I can tell you our school system sucks. Last year I got out of IB courses because I'm not good at foreign language. So I got in AP physics and maths and the rest of my coarses were honors. Let me tell you I slept almost everyday in those classes because they were so damn easy (of coarse I got great grades in all of them). Seriously, this was 11th grade and people needed to review what nouns and verbs were. Argh talk about hell on Earth. Still schooling is a little better up north. But regular and honors classes in America are ridiculous. AP level or IB can still give you a pretty good education, but since you're not forced to take them only students who are serious about their education ever learn anything.

[revelator]

RE: "John ... why is there worldwide terrorism? Tell me."

Because there are a lot of sick people who know that smashing the weak in the mouth hard enough will get them what they want. Extortion is hardly difficult to understand.

Do you suppose that's the only reason?

[JohnDubYa]

RE: "Do you suppose that's the only reason?"

That's all that is necessary.

[JohnDubYa]

RE: "Have you seen CBC's popular show, Talking to Americans? Do you know what it portrays? American ignorance."

I stated a clear, detailed explanation as to why Americans are not as culturally ignorant as the world suggests, and what do I receive in return? References to a freakin' tv show.

Is that how they teach you to debate in Canada?

If the US featured a tv show called Talking to Canadians that was designed to show how stupid Canadians are, Americans would rightly condemn it as an arrogant display of xenophobic masturbation.

[Robert Zaleski]

Have you seen CBC's popular show, Talking to Americans? Do you know what it portrays?

American ignorance.

I suggest you watch that before making any comments about America understanding other cultures.

There is a reason why so many countries mock the USA. Simply look at history-social study classes offered at most High Schools. State history, US History, Civics. All US oriented.

I bet most Americans don't even know how many Provinces and Territories Canada has. Or even the capitol of Canada.
Apparently you ersatz French from Quebec don't have anything good to say about the remainder of Canada either. By the way, would you like me to identify Quebec as a province of Canada or as a separate nation....you're still trying to secede, aren't you?

[JohnDubYa]

Emphasis on the word "trying."

[Dagenais]

I stated a clear, detailed explanation as to why Americans are not as culturally ignorant as the world suggests, and what do I receive in return? References to a freakin' tv show.



It's clear you have no clue what CBC is or the integrity of their programming. At least compared to Fox or other large US networks . :rofl:

Canadians own CBC. Our taxes pay for CBC, and it represents Canada perfectly. It isn't some trash network that puts out shows like "For Love or Money" or "Real World", they broadcast political, science and candian sports shows.

CBC is a lot different than any network you've watched, and it's clear you didn't know that. It's clear you don't know a lot of things after reading your posts. You assumed that CBC was the Canadian counterpart for ABC.

Is that how they teach you to debate in Canada?



How is this a debate? I simply answered Entrophy's question. A debate has to go 2 ways, and I never agreed to one.

You simply started replying to me after I answered Entrophy. You may want to tell someone that you want to debate with them, or it'll be like you're talking to yourself.

If the US featured a tv show called Talking to Canadians that was designed to show how stupid Canadians are

You would ask us simple questions like, "Who was the first president of the United States" - the majority would give you the answer.

CBC asks, "Who was the first Prime Minister of Canada" to Americans, the small minority would give us the answer.

You'd ask Canada, "How many states in the US", and quite a few would give the correct answer.

We'd ask , "How many Provinces in Canada," and Americans would blurt something dumb out.

The same with asking something as simple as what our Capitol city is. Something Americans can't answer for Canada, but Canadians can answer for America.

Emphasis on the word "trying."

Again, you're showing ignorance to Canada. It wouldn't take much as Quebec already has a lot of political power.

Take a look at the recent list of Prime Ministers (http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/about/people/key/PrimeMinister.asp?Language=E), most are Quebecois. Of course, you didn't know that or you wouldn't have said that.

If Bloc Quebecois gets voted as the Federal Government, Quebec will have even more power. Quebec almost did segregate, a majority of Quebecois don't want that to happen therefore it didn't.

Stop making sad, uninformed comments about Quebec. You're almost as sad as Chroot when he denies what he and others say in posts then uses his Admin powers as a last attempt to gain credibility (which sadly reminds me of certain US political leaders).

We're done here. No point in discussing this with you when it's clear you don't care about Canada and you know little about it (the comment about Quebec shows). I'd really rather not have to explain to you about Quebec politics and Canadian cultures while you berate me with false and insulting 'facts' about Quebec.

Adieu!

:rolleyes:

[loseyourname]

There is a reason that many people outside of the US know of the US, but few people outside of Canada know of Canada, and it has nothing to do with education or culture or ignorance. The US is simply a more significant member of the world community. By the same token, almost any basketball fan will be able to name the starting lineup of the Los Angeles Lakers, but I'm willing to bet none can name the starting lineup of the Los Angeles Clippers.

[revelator]

By the way, would you like me to identify Quebec as a province of Canada or as a separate nation....you're still trying to secede, aren't you?

There is no current attempt by Quebec to separate, as far as I am aware.

[the number 42]

These countries were AFRAID. They were afraid of Saddam Hussein. And they are still afraid of terrorism. They figure that since the US will always bear the brunt of El Quaida, it isn't their problem. And as long as Saddam wasn't murdering Brits, well... so what?

I don't think anyone cared that much about Hussein, who except for the people locally effected was just another minor dictator. However, Bush has obvious interests in that part of the world that go beyond chivalry.

And it should go without saying that Brits get killed by terrorist bombs just same as anyone else e.g. the Brits in the twin towers.


RE: "John ... why is there worldwide terrorism? Tell me."

Because there are a lot of sick people who know that smashing the weak in the mouth hard enough will get them what they want.

This is exactly what many people think the US is doing to them. The US 'war on terror' is perhaps the single best way of recruiting new terrorists, as they feel that this is the only way of fighting back against an oppressive US.

Spraying a hornets nest with bullets is probably a good way of working out some aggression and grief, but probably is of little practical value. There is often a lot more value in tackling problems in a less emotional/more thoughtful fashion.

[JohnDubYa]

RE: "I don't think anyone cared that much about Hussein, who except for the people locally effected was just another minor dictator."

Locally affected? He may have been the most brutal, gruesome leader since Vlad the Impaler. In terms of population tortured, mutilated, and killed he ranks right up there. He was even more cruel than Stalin and Pol Pot (and that's saying something).

Saddam wasn't going to cause Britain any grief as long as no one tangled with him, I agree. But isn't that my point?

RE: "However, Bush has obvious interests in that part of the world that go beyond chivalry."

Like what? Rather than hint around, why not at least spell out the conspiracy theory?

RE: "And it should go without saying that Brits get killed by terrorist bombs just same as anyone else e.g. the Brits in the twin towers."

No doubt. But there is no doubt that the World Trade Center attack is considered an American tragedy. There were Brits that happened to be in the towers, but make no mistake about it: They were gunning for us. And they attacked our towers on our soil.

RE: "This is exactly what many people think the US is doing to them. The US 'war on terror' is perhaps the single best way of recruiting new terrorists, as they feel that this is the only way of fighting back against an oppressive US."

Not fighting back is bowing to extortion. I don't know how they handle assault where you come from, but in the US we hit back. Otherwise we are nothing more than a paper tiger.

Oh wait, the United Nations, right? The United Nations was going to settle the issue, right?

We were once a paper tiger, back when Jimmy Carter was President. You would probably have liked his approach. Too bad the rest of the world looked upon us with ridicule, especially the Arab states.

But Ronald Reagan fixed all that.

RE: "Spraying a hornets nest with bullets is probably a good way of working out some aggression and grief, but probably is of little practical value."

THE TERRORISTS ATTACKED US! I mean, what would you have done with the Japanese after Pearl Harbor? Keep in mind that you don't want to spray any bullets anywhere! That would only be acting out your aggression and grief.

RE: "There is often a lot more value in tackling problems in a less emotional/more thoughtful fashion."

Sure, when it is someone else getting attacked.

They destroyed OUR towers. It is easy for you to say that we should have been more understanding, more warm, more open, more cuddly.

You weren't so understanding, warm, open, and cuddly during the Blitz, were you? No, you fought back. (But I thought violence didn't settle anything?)

And our government and the American public supported you, just like we supported you during the Falklands Campaign when the rest of the world was all pissed off at you.

[revelator]

Too bad the rest of the world looked upon us with ridicule, especially the Arab states.

Hate to break it to ya, but I don't think this war on terror of America's has gained America any respect worldwide. And among my various circles of acquaintances, America is a bigger object of ridicule then ever (granted that means squat). My point is, I think American foreign policy has damaged the world's image of America. It'll take a good amount of diplomacy, for America to regain the world's trust and respect.

[the number 42]

Locally affected? He may have been the most brutal, gruesome leader since Vlad the Impaler. In terms of population tortured, mutilated, and killed he ranks right up there.

His brutality has nothing to do with how widespread his activities were.
Of course he was brutal, but within that region.

RE: "However, Bush has obvious interests in that part of the world that go beyond chivalry."
Like what? Rather than hint around, why not at least spell out the conspiracy theory?

Sorry, I honestly thought it was too obvious to say: "oil". And perhaps a bit of revenge for Dad too, but that might be stretching things.
Lots of people get tortured by dictators around the world on an ongoing basis, but the US doesn't intervene in every case: why not? No national interests at stake?

RE: "Spraying a hornets nest with bullets is probably a good way of working out some aggression and grief, but probably is of little practical value."

THE TERRORISTS ATTACKED US!

Yes, but Hussein didn't attack the twin towers.

John, it would be fair to say that you are one of the most intelligent contributors to PF, but it seems your emotions have got the better on this thread. But perhaps understandably so.

[phatmonky]

Sorry, I honestly thought it was too obvious to say: "oil".



Jeez, not this again :rolleyes:

[phatmonky]

Have you seen CBC's popular show, Talking to Americans? Do you know what it portrays?

American ignorance.

I suggest you watch that before making any comments about America understanding other cultures.

There is a reason why so many countries mock the USA. Simply look at history-social study classes offered at most High Schools. State history, US History, Civics. All US oriented.

I bet most Americans don't even know how many Provinces and Territories Canada has. Or even the capitol of Canada.

And yes, I've watched 'talking to Americans'. I think it's hilarious - or it would if it wasn't in the context of you not being able to understand that there are idiots in all countries. Perhaps I need to take a camera with me next time I go to Toronto. I'll upload my adventures asking Canadians things about their own history, or the US if you please.

For someone who doesn't even live here, you sure THINK you know a lot about us.

My classes in highschool began with WORLD geography, and WORLD history. Followed by US government, and WORLD Government.

In MIDDLE school we covered Texas history and US history. High level? Stop smoking your crack. You're not even here to learn about us, but rather find another soapbox to bash us from.

And while it may be hard for you to understand, out history is far more diverse and complicated than Canada's (simply speaking about the geopolitical angle). Having more courses than you are used to, devoted to learning about our country is not some sort of xenophobic training. It's a matter of learning ALL of the information.

And as many have pointed out on this board - I'm from the redneck south. And a small city in the South at that. My courses are not unusual at all.

Most probably don't know. Why should they? No offense, but it's a fair question. Considering the spotlight put on Toronto, I'm sure most think it's TO.
Do Canadians know how many states AND territories we have? I doubt that.
I love Canada, and all of my experiences there have been fully enjoyable. However, your typical rhetoric is an analgesic. Perhaps you can come up with something better soon.

[phatmonky]

Anyway, what's the difference between an unelected policeman and a vigilante?

Just because you don't understand out system of election doesn't mean that our president is unelected.

[balkan]

RE: "John ... why is there worldwide terrorism? Tell me."

Because there are a lot of sick people who know that smashing the weak in the mouth hard enough will get them what they want. Extortion is hardly difficult to understand.

lol, man... i bet you even believe most of what you're saying... it's always interesting to observe though, but i've had enough of figthing with people like you, to know that it's not worth trying to reason with you... keep it going... people like you, extremists, terrorists and insane people are sure making things better everywhere...

figth fire with fire bro! ;)

[balkan]

Just because you don't understand out system of election doesn't mean that our president is unelected.

the point was:
since nobody has elected america as the worlds policeman... you figure out the rest...

[phatmonky]

the point was:
since nobody has elected america as the worlds policeman... you figure out the rest...
my mistake then......


We are elected the policeman through other countries' inaction. And I personally hate it.

Just thinking about Iraq:
We sat throughout the 90's without really touching Iraq.
We sat another 4 years after they kicked inspectors out.

What was England, France, Germany, Russia, or China doing at this point to take care of the problem??? That was a four year window for any country in Europe to say "hey, we'll take the helm and spend our money/men/resources to make sure he doesn't become a problem". Then it would be up to us to offer a better alternative.

It didn't happen, and now everyone is unhappy with our solution :rolleyes:

[the number 42]

Just because you don't understand out system of election doesn't mean that our president is unelected.

Yes - please pay attention, phatmonky :smile:

Ironically, it brings up Bush's status as an elected leader. I know some of you are going to say "Jeez, not that trivial matter again", but at least the US can't claim to be fighting for democracy in the world.

[phatmonky]

Yes - please pay attention, phatmonky :smile:



Get off my balls. I already responded.

[phatmonky]

but at least the US can't claim to be fighting for democracy in the world.


We absolutely can be. It is not inherant in a democracy that you allow those outside of your electorate to decide what you do, no matter how much they dislike it.

[balkan]

We absolutely can be. It is not inherant in a democracy that you allow those outside of your electorate to decide what you do, no matter how much they dislike it.

??? this is a very weird sentence... please elaborate...

... you don't get elected policeman by lack of action from other civilians... that's still vigilate... "my God! he's not attacking his neighbor who has been mostly quiet for the last 5 years... i'll have to do something about it and go in, guns blazing... and if the kids are in there, to bad..."

furthermore: "i don't need no stinkin' badges, or no help from those pesky neighbors..."
^ that is, untill he finds himself in quite a mess... and now the neigbors are pissed of all the noise and of being called "pesky"...

and then, an ant, whose brothers were killed by the same vigilante some years ago, pissed on his leg...

the motion picture rights are reserved to me, my friends...

[JohnDubYa]

RE: "lol, man... i bet you even believe most of what you're saying.."

My mistake. Obviously extortion IS beyond some people's comprehension. I will be more careful about making such gross generalizations in the future.

[JohnDubYa]

RE: "Hate to break it to ya, but I don't think this war on terror of America's has gained America any respect worldwide."

Hate to break it to you, but the world wasn't going to respect the US no matter what we did. (Unless the world was wanting us to hand over our security to the United Nations -- which is essentially no security at all.)

[JohnDubYa]

RE: "What was England, France, Germany, Russia, or China doing at this point to take care of the problem???"

They were waiting to see if we would do anything about it so that they could criticize us.

[balkan]

RE: "lol, man... i bet you even believe most of what you're saying.."

My mistake. Obviously extortion IS beyond some people's comprehension. I will be more careful about making such gross generalizations in the future.

of course... extortion creates terrorism... not people fighting for their way of life or as revenge for unjustice, hunger, poverty or whatever they think their enemy has thrown at them... i get it now...
so when did osama and his gang convert from being freedom figthers to being terrorists??? you have to help me here... and exactly what was the demands when the towers blew or when about 80% of the suicide bombers killed themselves and someone else? i mean... if it's extortion you'd have to have some clear demands, right? or are most terrorists just really bad extortionists?

[balkan]

i wonder why so few people in wealthy countrys become terrorists? i mean... it would be much easier to extort rich people that way... not so far away... alot more access to rich people and buildings with important people in them...

it must be because arabs and their ilk are all evil... i mean... it can't be because their poor and hungry and blame it on someone, cause john says it isn't so, and he's very smart... he knows the meaning of the word "extortion" and i don't...
it must be because they hate so much that we have freedom, that 1 in a million might be willing to travel a long, long way to kill some of us... usually that's not neccessary though, cause we've invaded and aided quite a few countrys in the last few decades... (but that's not what they're mad about, they're just really bad extortionists)

[phatmonky]

??? this is a very weird sentence... please elaborate...

... you don't get elected policeman by lack of action from other civilians... that's still vigilate... "my God! he's not attacking his neighbor who has been mostly quiet for the last 5 years... i'll have to do something about it and go in, guns blazing... and if the kids are in there, to bad..."

furthermore: "i don't need no stinkin' badges, or no help from those pesky neighbors..."
^ that is, untill he finds himself in quite a mess... and now the neigbors are pissed of all the noise and of being called "pesky"...

and then, an ant, whose brothers were killed by the same vigilante some years ago, pissed on his leg...

the motion picture rights are reserved to me, my friends...

His statement was that we can't claim to be fighting for democracy.
One, we are a democracy, of sorts, so the prerequisite of being what we are spreading is there. The act of going against what other democracies want our democracy to do does not negate that fact that we can claim that we are fighting for democracy. In fact, as I have stated before on this board, I will laugh at all of the critics when Iraq holds it's first elections in 2005.

As for the rest of your post, about "my God! he's not attacking his neighbor who has been mostly quiet for the last 5 years".
Iraq isn't just about Iraq's neighbors. I don't remember this argument being made.

I'll just copy and paste my reasoning, that has been posted before, for supporting, and continuing to support, this war. And all of my reasonings still hold even if you remove everything said by the Bush Admin. HINT: It's a little more than "let's just go in gun blazing......"




Now, for the rest of this.
Reasons alone range from the original armistice agreement that gives us such authorization, signed and broken, by Saddam. Then there's the human rights thing the firing on US aircraft enforcing the agreed no fly zones, Resolution 1441 (and the rest of the SC resolutions).
You say "no connection between Iraq and Saddam ", and I assume you mean"no connection between Al quaeda and Saddam ". I really wish you and others would quit the lies. The 9/11 commission found that there was no working relationship between the two in any attack on the US (specifically 9/11) Which again, I don't even consider Iraq part of 9/11, but more a loose end that needs tying up..
I was shocked to find people on this board who were shocked to see this:
http://edition.cnn.com/WORLD/meast/9902/13/afghan.binladen/
(Saddam offers Bin Laden Asylum, ie, offers to harbor him). Perhaps we can just skip this as well and keep on pushing the lie that Iraq had no connection with al quaeda. I will be glad to pull the PBS documentary that explores Iraqs terrorist training rooms as well. (I posted the link recently)

Now the WMD. We know they existed because Saddam said they did, after the UN failed at their job. I also wonder if you are aware how inspections work - HINT: Inspectors don't go walking around the desert searching for them inthe ground.

And for the rest, since I've hashed this a million times. A post from before abotu this:

Keep in mind that even David Kaye says that there was evidence of WMD programs in Iraq, but they had been slowed dramatically by sanctions. The intent was still there.
WMD or not, the questions have to be -

How long would it take before a system of containment, funded primarily by the US, take to break Saddam, or future leaders', resolve to develop WMD?

On a longer timeline would containment have worked at all, considering programs were still being developed and only time was against them?

Is containment (over a democratic Iraq)better or worse for the Iraqi people?

Is containment (over a democratic Iraq) better or worse for the United States?

Is containment (over a democratic Iraq) better or worse for the rest of the world?

Is the refusal to go to war worth the possibility that WMD are being developed, or already are developed?



After pondering this all I come to the conclusion that the answer to "should we have gone to war" is an unequivocal 'yes'. There have been no other alternatives that end with:

-a liberation of an oppressed people
-a new trading partner
-a new security partner
-the ability to hold a nation, not just one man, accountable for it's actions
-the knowledge that Iraq is fully in compliance with the original ceasfire guidlines
-a catalyst for democracy in the region

The only other real alternative put forth thus far is containment and inspections.
After 13 years this accompolished none of the above, not even the original goal of simply knowing that Iraq is, in fact, in compliance with the original ceasefire agreement.


There was no other option.

[phatmonky]

if it's extortion you'd have to have some clear demands, right?

perhaps you do not watch the news?

[Entropy]

i wonder why so few people in wealthy countrys become terrorists?

Lots of wealthy people become terrorists. Osama was from a rich family.

[JohnDubYa]

RE: "of course... extortion creates terrorism... not people fighting for their way of life or as revenge for unjustice, hunger, poverty or whatever they think their enemy has thrown at them... i get it now..."

Terrorism IS extortion.

If someone wants to lead a rebel insurgency, then I understand. You arm yourself and your believers and go into battle. If you can garner sufficient support from the people, you can overcome the government's army and install your own government. If you can't garner the support, then maybe your cause isn't just after all.

That is NOT terrorism. Instead of overcoming an opponent's army, terrorists attack the innocent. They don't shoot the lieutenant; they shoot the children.

Terrorism is an act of desparation. The world considers their cause unjust. The public won't support them because they're a bunch of extremist wack-jobs. So they resort to the last tactic they have -- killing as many innocent people as they can.

RE: "so when did osama and his gang convert from being freedom figthers to being terrorists??? you have to help me here..."

I am not sure that Osama was ever a freedom fighter. I am not that privvy to his background.

"...and exactly what was the demands when the towers blew or when about 80% of the suicide bombers killed themselves and someone else? i mean... if it's extortion you'd have to have some clear demands, right? or are most terrorists just really bad extortionists?"

The demands are that the US get out of the Middle East and stop helping Isreal. That has always been the demand.

[JohnDubYa]

RE: "i wonder why so few people in wealthy countrys become terrorists?"

Easy. Wealthy countries have stable governments and police forces, and there is no public support for such activity. Also, wealthy countries have top-notch criminal investigators. The few terrorist groups we have had in this country (SLA, the Weathermen, MOVE) never gained public support and were quashed by the police.

RE: "it must be because arabs and their ilk are all evil... i mean... it can't be because their poor and hungry and blame it on someone...

Many parts of Mexico are poor and hungry, but I don't see a lot of terrorist activity. Poverty is no excuse for intentionally killing innocent people.

As for the rest, I will respond once you quit resorting to the Fallacy of Limited Options.

[balkan]

perhaps you do not watch the news?
that's the 20% who actually does demand something... rigth now, the majority of the people the us government calls terrorists doesn't make demands... maybe you don't watch the news?

[balkan]

Lots of wealthy people become terrorists. Osama was from a rich family.

compared to the amount of poor or compromized people? get real...
and osama lived in a poor and compromized land for many years (palestine)... where do those rich people live that become terrorists? i said in wealthy countrys... not "rich people"

[balkan]

As for the rest, I will respond once you quit resorting to the Fallacy of Limited Options.

go back some posts and see who started the Fallacy of Limited Options, m8... i don't bite unless people patronize me. when treated with respect in spite of different oppinion, i'm quite civilized.
typical conservatism (in regards to politics, not personality)... they can dish out, but they get offended when people strike back...

[phatmonky]

No offense dubya, but can you start using the quote feature? I'd like to respond to you but it's a ***** with the quatation marks everywhere.

[phatmonky]

that's the 20% who actually does demand something... rigth now, the majority of the people the us government calls terrorists doesn't make demands... maybe you don't watch the news?


So you admit that plenty of terrorist do make demands?
Can you cite me this 20% figure?

[JohnDubYa]

go back some posts and see who started the Fallacy of Limited Options,

I did. And you started the Fallacy of Limited Options when you posted


of course... extortion creates terrorism... not people fighting for their way of life or as revenge for unjustice, hunger, poverty or whatever they think their enemy has thrown at them..


it must be because arabs and their ilk are all evil... i mean... it can't be because their poor and hungry and blame it on someone,

[JohnDubYa]

Balkan, your first post in this thread was a blatant insult:


lol, man... i bet you even believe most of what you're saying... it's always interesting to observe though, but i've had enough of figthing with people like you, to know that it's not worth trying to reason with you... keep it going... people like you, extremists, terrorists and insane people are sure making things better everywhere...

[the number 42]

Get off my balls. I already responded.

Sorry about your balls, dude. Send me the bill for any damages :redface:

[Entropy]

compared to the amount of poor or compromized people? get real...
and osama lived in a poor and compromized land for many years (palestine)... where do those rich people live that become terrorists? i said in wealthy countrys... not "rich people"

Combine, Oklahoma City bombing, that dude from American who joined Osama, The Buffalo Six, John Walker Lindh, Jose Padilla, The Portland Six, KKK, Neo Nazi's, PETA (they ARE terrorists), pro-life extremists, the Mob (and orgainized crime), etc.

I can go on all day. There all American, and America is the wealthest country in the world. And still Osama left his wealth life to go live in Palistine.

(100th post :approve: )

[balkan]

congratz :D...

the mob? now you're far fetching...

anyway all you need to do is simple math...
btw: 90-95% of neo-nazis aren't terrorists... just stupid...
that dude from america was one guy...
The Buffalo Six, John Walker Lindh, Jose Padilla, The Portland Six ...
divide "all" those people by just the amount of cells in al queda and you'll get a very small number... need i say more?
My point with osama was exactly that his experiences in palestine nurtured the war against usa... if palestine isn't poor and compromized i don't know what is...
again, though... your argument brings us rigth back to the matter... people like kkk and extremists are figthing for something they believe really hard in, and because they're angry and want a change... now, look at the countrys where people really have something to figth for and be mad about, and then tell me they're just simple extortionists... they are people with a cause... just like the ones you mentioned... willing to go use any means to get their case through... not just crazy people who wants to get their hands on some money like previously implied...
the amount of terrorists from wealthy countrys (and don't forget, that 30 million americans get food aid every year, so it's not exactly everyone who's got everything going for them...) compared to the amount from poor and unstable countrys are ridiculously small... it's really not even debatable...

[balkan]

Balkan, your first post in this thread was a blatant insult:

damn man... i don't even remember posting that... must have been summer drunk or very tired...
i'm sure i meant what i wrote, but i apologize for the tone... it was completely uncalled for...

[JohnDubYa]

It's cool.

[JohnDubYa]

the mob? now you're far fetching...

Have you ever heard of Chicago insurance?

I agree with you on one point -- the Mob is not a political organization, and terrorists are normally associated with political activity. But there is no doubt that the Mob uses terror to extort money from innocent people.

My point with osama was exactly that his experiences in palestine nurtured the war against usa... if palestine isn't poor and compromized i don't know what is...

Historically, the Palestinians do not have nearly the same problems as the Russians when it comes to hardship. In fact, Palestinian living conditions are found all over the world, on nearly every continent. To think that such living conditions is an excuse for terrorism is ludicrous.

[JohnDubYa]

they are people with a cause... just like the ones you mentioned... willing to go use any means to get their case through... not just crazy people who wants to get their hands on some money like previously implied...

I think we know that money is not their motivation. They certainly have a cause. But their cause is no excuse for the pain they cause others.

Again, they target those that have nothing to do with their problems -- just as long as they are vulnerable. So you are dealing with the type of people who are not going to kick your *** if they feel you caused them harm; they're going to go after your mother because she is the easier target.

By the way, you are dangerously close to becoming a terrorist apologist. And that is the type of sentiment that fuels their fire.

[studentx]

Id say the major cause of terrorism today is political Islam

[balkan]

I think we know that money is not their motivation. They certainly have a cause. But their cause is no excuse for the pain they cause others.

Again, they target those that have nothing to do with their problems -- just as long as they are vulnerable. So you are dealing with the type of people who are not going to kick your *** if they feel you caused them harm; they're going to go after your mother because she is the easier target.

By the way, you are dangerously close to becoming a terrorist apologist. And that is the type of sentiment that fuels their fire.

no i'm not... but understanding the background is the first step in solving the problem...

[balkan]

Have you ever heard of Chicago insurance?

I agree with you on one point -- the Mob is not a political organization, and terrorists are normally associated with political activity. But there is no doubt that the Mob uses terror to extort money from innocent people.

Historically, the Palestinians do not have nearly the same problems as the Russians when it comes to hardship. In fact, Palestinian living conditions are found all over the world, on nearly every continent. To think that such living conditions is an excuse for terrorism is ludicrous.

those other countrys don't have an invading force that for 50 years have relentlessly tried to dispose of every non-jew in the country... and don't give me any anti-semitist remarks, people, stating the facts doesn't make you an antisemite...
you keep saying i'm excusing... i'm not excusing anything... but if you think you're going to resolve these problems with violence, you're way off base imo...

[JohnDubYa]

you keep saying i'm excusing... i'm not excusing anything... but if you think you're going to resolve these problems with violence,

It would be better if you came out and stated that terrorists are really evil people. Otherwise, I'm starting to think that you consider them sentimental favorites.

We will never resolve this problem through any means other than violence and persistence, unless you want to give them what they want. Of course, every terrorist organization on the planet then would gain newfound strength for whichever cause they espouse.

We have to fight terrorism with violence so that other terrorist organizations realize that their attempts to extort the public will only bring pain on themselves. This issue is bigger than El Quada.

[studentx]

You have to understand the islamic terrorist goal is to convert us all to Islam, that way they save us from hell in the afterlife. There can be no deals with this kind of terrorist and they dont allow themselves to feel any doubt, because doubt is a sign of shaytan and there is no negotiating about Allahs will.

[balkan]

It would be better if you came out and stated that terrorists are really evil people. Otherwise, I'm starting to think that you consider them sentimental favorites.

We will never resolve this problem through any means other than violence and persistence, unless you want to give them what they want. Of course, every terrorist organization on the planet then would gain newfound strength for whichever cause they espouse.

We have to fight terrorism with violence so that other terrorist organizations realize that their attempts to extort the public will only bring pain on themselves. This issue is bigger than El Quada.

that's called treating the symptom... and actually giving them what they want is treating the symptom as well...
you'll never be rid of terrorists unless you treat the problem that causes it... and that is poverty and suppression...
i agree that terrorists should be killed or arrested when possible, but it doesn't solve the problem. neither does killing innocents in the process of killing the terrorists (an act with the agenda to kill all who thinks like terrorists - read: quite similar to what the terrorists are doing)...
there will always be extortionists, of course, but they are quite few compared to the amount of terrorists with a real cause... and a frigthening amount of them don't care if they die, figthing for this cause, so what the hell good will killing them do, other than rid those individuals from the face of the earth? - nothing...

[balkan]

It would be better if you came out and stated that terrorists are really evil people. Otherwise, I'm starting to think that you consider them sentimental favorites.

that's such a typical either-or remark...
i consider them sentiment beings, of course... that's the whole problem... if they were rational and calm, they wouldn't be terrorists... they are fuled by emotions and their emotions are fueled by their situation... they need something to direct their feelings towards, and either they'll find it themselves, or someone like osama will point in some direction...

[studentx]

Islam is the problem, not poverty. There are poor people all around the planet, they dont turn into terrorists. None of the terrorists that were involved in 911 were poor or uneducated, neither were the men in Spain who killed hundreds.

[pelastration]

Islam is the problem, not poverty.
Extreme Islam maybe a problem, just like extreme Juduaism and extreme capitalism and imperialism may provoke extreme reactions. Such problems can not be catched with a oneliner.

[balkan]

Islam is the problem, not poverty. There are poor people all around the planet, they dont turn into terrorists. None of the terrorists that were involved in 911 were poor or uneducated, neither were the men in Spain who killed hundreds.

no, they were immigrants from a poor uneducated country, and they came to germany to get an education so they could fullfill their cause...

lemme see... you don't like people wanting to kill people with another religion/idealism or maybe people who try to force their religion/idealism on others? the what exactly do you then feel about the us of a? desperately trying to enforce "freedom and democrasy" onto the parts of the world that have different ways of life?
and don't get me bull**** about innocent people not getting killed in the process...

it's a two-way street...

[phatmonky]

no, they were immigrants from a poor uneducated country, and they came to germany to get an education so they could fullfill their cause...

lemme see... you don't like people wanting to kill people with another religion/idealism or maybe people who try to force their religion/idealism on others? the what exactly do you then feel about the us of a? desperately trying to enforce "freedom and democrasy" onto the parts of the world that have different ways of life?
and don't get me bull**** about innocent people not getting killed in the process...

it's a two-way street...

You're right, if people are living under a dictator we should just butt out. The supposed moral obligation to stop genocide or other human rights abuses is a complete fallacy. That's their 'culture' so let them have it!

While we are at it, there is also no reason to have accountability! I mean, dictators are just nice guys that are misunderstood,and I'm sure that if we just let them be, they will play nice. There's nothing in it for us to have other countries be lead by a population, rather than a single person. No real democracies have ever gone to war against each other, but that is a fluke, a coincidence. DEspite history, dictatorial regimes are just as trustworthy.

Thank you for showing me the error in my ways.
I will go write my congressman to reinstate Saddam, leave Jung Il alone, and offer up nuclear technology to everyone - you know, to level the playing field with all of the rulers of the world, rather it is a population of 1 billion, or a single man who wants to do what he pleases - it's THEIR culture, and we will stay out of it. It'll never come back to haunt us.

[studentx]

Extreme Islam maybe a problem, just like extreme Juduaism and extreme capitalism and imperialism may provoke extreme reactions. Such problems can not be catched with a oneliner.

Extreme Islam is the result of moderate muslims being moderate towards extremists.

[balkan]

You're right, if people are living under a dictator we should just butt out. The supposed moral obligation to stop genocide or other human rights abuses is a complete fallacy. That's their 'culture' so let them have it!

While we are at it, there is also no reason to have accountability! I mean, dictators are just nice guys that are misunderstood,and I'm sure that if we just let them be, they will play nice. There's nothing in it for us to have other countries be lead by a population, rather than a single person. No real democracies have ever gone to war against each other, but that is a fluke, a coincidence. DEspite history, dictatorial regimes are just as trustworthy.

Thank you for showing me the error in my ways.
I will go write my congressman to reinstate Saddam, leave Jung Il alone, and offer up nuclear technology to everyone - you know, to level the playing field with all of the rulers of the world, rather it is a population of 1 billion, or a single man who wants to do what he pleases - it's THEIR culture, and we will stay out of it. It'll never come back to haunt us.

don't do a johndubya on me and put words into my mouth, will you?
what i was doing is called contrasting!! but you obviously don't get it... ... it's about trying to make you fathom the effect your actions have on other people by showing you the effect other people have on you...

i believe dictatorships should be disposed of aswell, but trying to impose another way of life on other people is not the way... you can't force people to think like you, just like muslims can't convert you to islam by threats and violence... just the opposite...
i'm sorry, that i tried to make you think... it won't happen again...

[kat]

don't do a johndubya on me and put words into my mouth, will you?
what i was doing is called contrasting!! but you obviously don't get it... ... it's about trying to make you fathom the effect your actions have on other people by showing you the effect other people have on you...

i believe dictatorships should be disposed of aswell, but trying to impose another way of life on other people is not the way... you can't force people to think like you, just like muslims can't convert you to islam by threats and violence... just the opposite...
i'm sorry, that i tried to make you think... it won't happen again...

This is the worst sort of racism I know, the brown's/olives etc. don't want to or can't do democracy. Until they've been given a chance to make the choice of who and how they are led, you are taking their voices away with such statements. I know of no country that has become a democracy through any venue that would willingly give up their voices to a dictator.
The right to vote for your leadership is one of the most basic human rights and was voted and supported in UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948.
The relevant portion:

Article 21

1 . Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.

2. Everyone has the right to equal access to public service in his country.

3. The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.

From that piece of paper, I do NOT accept under any circumstances the "democracy is not appropriate for..." and I find racist those who dispute the participation of certain people only in the government of their countries as a full and primary HR, via "genuine elections which shall be universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or the equivalent free voting procedure" as per the UN DECLARATION FOR HR.

This is not my words, it is the most consensuated document on earth, the best signed and the best ratified and the best incorporated, at least in theory in all the legislations in the world.

Piss on you racists who can't grok the universal right TO this universal right and screw those who feel they can take it away from them because they just might not BE LIKE US!

[phatmonky]

what i was doing is called contrasting!! but you obviously don't get it... ... it's about trying to make you fathom the effect your actions have on other people by showing you the effect other people have on you...


i believe dictatorships should be disposed of aswell, but trying to impose another way of life on other people is not the way... you can't force people to think like you, just like muslims can't convert you to islam by threats and violence... just the opposite...
i'm sorry, that i tried to make you think... it won't happen again...

1>Read the thread on why middle easterners 'hate' westerners. Specifically my point about morality and relativism. The fact is, I am very aware of what we have and are doing.

2>Disposing of dictatorships is IMPOSING another way of life.


This isn't just about them either. As I have stated, it's also about the effects for us.

[JohnDubYa]

2>Disposing of dictatorships is IMPOSING another way of life.

Yes, a better way of life.

A dictatorship by its very nature removes nearly every possibility for the people to change government on their own. So when the People need help, to whom do they turn?

If there was one group of people that would have been considered unsuitable for democracy, it was the Japanese after WWII. But we installed a democracy and it has worked.

If democracy is going to take hold in the Middle East, it will have to be at the end of a gun barrel, just like with Japan. They're not going to do it on their own because the powers in control have no good reason to allow it.

[JohnDubYa]

kat has a good point -- the United Nations has long mandated that freedom is a good thing.

desperately trying to enforce "freedom and democrasy" onto the parts of the world that have different ways of life?

You can't ENFORCE freedom -- you FREE people. And freeing people was always considered a good thing. Is that now wrong?

This isn't really about taking a stance against freedom and democracy. This is all about George W. If this had been Bill Clinton, every Liberal in the US would be getting misty-eyed about the Iraqis chances for freedom and the removal of brutality. But since this is George W. we are talking about, then there must be something wrong with freedom and democracy, and Saddam wasn't really so bad. So they initiate the idea that some people are just not ready for either freedom or democracy. And kat is right, such notions are blatantly racist.

You have to give freedom and democracy a chance, do you not?

[Prometheus]

You can't ENFORCE freedom -- you FREE people.

You seem to have a strange use of pronouns throughout. When you say you, do you mean each reader individually?

And freeing people was always considered a good thing.

Such a simple interpretation.

Is that now wrong?

Is that the only option you are offering? Is it right or wrong to free people, with no other context required?

This isn't really about taking a stance against freedom and democracy. This is all about George W. If this had been Bill Clinton, every Liberal in the US would be getting misty-eyed about the Iraqis chances for freedom and the removal of brutality. But since this is George W. we are talking about, then there must be something wrong with freedom and democracy, and Saddam wasn't really so bad.

Nobody is saying that there is a problem with freedom or democracy. But you know that, don't you. There are other considerations. If Bill Clinton were in office, some of these other considerations might be considered. Since Bush does not have the intellect to consider more than one factor at a time, you tell us that there are no other considerations either.

So they initiate the idea that some people are just not ready for either freedom or democracy. And kat is right, such notions are blatantly racist.

Do you call anything that you don't like racist? I wonder what you mean by racist?

You have to give freedom and democracy a chance, do you not?

Now, you are back to telling us what we have to do. Do you really believe that there is nothing else to be considered than are freedom and democracy good and should we give Iraq a chance at them? Do you really?

[JohnDubYa]

You seem to have a strange use of pronouns throughout. When you say you, do you mean each reader individually?

People in general, hardly a strange use of the second person. When someone says "you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink," I can just picture you sitting on a curb, wondering:

What does he mean by YOU?

And, does the horse have to be a male? Can I make a female horse drink?

Such a simple interpretation.

If you think it is wrong, say so. To call it simple does not indicate whether you agree or not. After all, simple interpretations are often correct.

Is that the only option you are offering? Is it right or wrong to free people, with no other context required?

What other context do you need? In which situations do you think it is better to live under a brutal dictator like Saddam than live freely? Maybe if the population starved to death under a democracy, but that is not likely to happen in Iraq.

Let me guess: If the dictator makes the trains run on time? Is that what you are referring?

Now, you are back to telling us what we have to do. Do you really believe that there is nothing else to be considered than are freedom and democracy good and should we give Iraq a chance at them? Do you really?

Just answer the question.

[Prometheus]

People in general, hardly a strange use of the second person. When someone says "you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink," I can just picture you sitting on a curb, wondering:

What does he mean by YOU?

And, does the horse have to be a male? Can I make a female horse drink?

Wow. If only you could give this depth of thought to the topic of your posts.


If you think it is wrong, say so. To call it simple does not indicate whether you agree or not. After all, simple interpretations are often correct.

I think it is wrong.

What other context do you need? In which situations do you think it is better to live under a brutal dictator like Saddam than live freely? Maybe if the population starved to death under a democracy, but that is not likely to happen in Iraq.

Many Iraqis have died. If you could somehow ask the dead if they are better off now than under Saddam, what do you think that they might say. This wonderful democracy that you sepak of, you consider it a sure thing, don't you? You envision that by next year, the Shiites will vote for the best man, regardless of whether he is Shiite, that the Sunnis will vote for the best man, regardless of whether he is Sunni, and the Kurds will vote for the best man, regardless of whether he is Kurd. The ethnic divisions that divide the country now will disappear completely very soon, and democracy will be the greatest blessing that they ever received. how could any of them resent having an invading army impose a government on them. Historically, this has not worked well, but so what, right? You can tell us all day about how Iraq is identical to Japan at the end of WW2.

Let me guess: If the dictator makes the trains run on time? Is that what you are referring?

Wow, aren't you the guesser? Did you think this up all by yourself?


Just answer the question.

The answer is no.

[studentx]

Many Iraqis have died. If you could somehow ask the dead if they are better off now than under Saddam, what do you think that they might say.

It depends on which of the dead you ask, the hundreds of thousands murdered by Saddam, or the tens of thousands killed by the Americans.
Iraqis dont want to give up their freedom now and let Saddam back in. You are extremely blinded by anger if you believe this Prometheus

[Prometheus]

You are extremely blinded by anger if you believe this Prometheus

What a quaint way of making a point. I am not sure what your point is, but your style sure is interesting.

Why do I need to be blind or angry to think that those who died during their "liberation" might not have appreciated their sacrifice toward the greater good, as some people seem to see it.

I don't think that you are necessarily blind or angry merely because you might have an opinion that I do not share. I do think, however, that if I were to call you blind and angry, it might not lead to an increase in the quality of our communication.

So, I ask again, what is your point in this post?

[Entropy]

Iraqis dont want to give up their freedom now and let Saddam back in. You are extremely blinded by anger if you believe this Prometheus

Not really. I've seen a lot Iraqis start to question whether they would be better off with Saddam or the US.

[kat]

Nobody is saying that there is a problem with freedom or democracy. But you know that, don't you. There are other considerations. If Bill Clinton were in office, some of these other considerations might be considered. Since Bush does not have the intellect to consider more than one factor at a time, you tell us that there are no other considerations either.



Yes, we already know how Clinton brings Democracy to a country, he bombs it relentlessly for months at a time bringing death and destruction to the Balkans that makes Iraqi's deaths from Americans look miniscule. Furthermore, you're probably correct..Bush was too stupid to realize that it would have been far more beneficial to him if he had Bombed the **** out of them for a few months and then "enforced" democracy like Clinton. That way by the time elections came along Iraq would have been old news.

[kat]

Not really. I've seen a lot Iraqis start to question whether they would be better off with Saddam or the US.
I had no idea you had been in Iraq, did you get pictures? :biggrin:

[JohnDubYa]

Many Iraqis have died. If you could somehow ask the dead if they are better off now than under Saddam, what do you think that they might say.

I don't know. I suppose we will never know, will we?

But as someone else pointed out, Saddam killed far more, and with the US intervention the violence could stop. It definitely was not going to stop without direct intervention, unless you think Saddam's sons were going to be any better than their father in terms of civil rights.

This wonderful democracy that you sepak of, you consider it a sure thing, don't you?

No, but Saddam's terror was a sure thing, wasn't it?

We now have the chance for the Iraqis to maintain a stable democracy. It may not work out, but they at least have the chance.

Your solutions would have given them no chance at all. They would live under a sure thing -- a brutal dictatorship. Frankly, I prefer uncertainty to that form of certainty.

You can tell us all day about how Iraq is identical to Japan at the end of WW2.

If it worked in Japan, it MIGHT work in Iraq. The two are not that dissimilar. Neither country had any history whatsoever of democracy. Both were hotbeds of religious fanatacism and suicide missions. Both lost wars and had to endure US occupation.

Japan is a much more homogenous country, to be sure. Iraq's inhomogeneity will be one hurdle that will have to be overcome. But it is not an insurmountable hurdle.

[Entropy]

I had no idea you had been in Iraq, did you get pictures?

Opps, I didn't mean to imply I had been there. Its just what I heard off the news. If you consider that a creditible source. :wink:

[Prometheus]

I don't know. I suppose we will never know, will we?

True. It is certainly quite possible that the people who died in the US invasion will think that they are better off.

We now have the chance for the Iraqis to maintain a stable democracy. It may not work out, but they at least have the chance.

So, having the chance is everything, is it? We are imposing the chance on them, and if it fails, then at least we gave them the chance.

Your solutions would have given them no chance at all. They would live under a sure thing -- a brutal dictatorship. Frankly, I prefer uncertainty to that form of certainty.

So, are you proposing that we use force to give this wonderous chance to every country in the world that we deem needs it?

If it worked in Japan, it MIGHT work in Iraq.

MIGHT? Again, the possibility is everything. is it? Who cares what our allies think, who cares about the cost, and who cares about the other ramifications? You only care about the well-being of the Iraqi people. You truly are a saint.

The two are not that dissimilar. Neither country had any history whatsoever of democracy. Both were hotbeds of religious fanatacism and suicide missions. Both lost wars and had to endure US occupation.

Japan was not a hotbed of religious fanatacism, and any analogy between Kamikaze suicide missions and what is happening in the Middle East is ludicrous, in my opinion. Do you know about the Kamikaze, and are you making this analogy from a position of understanding, or are you guessing based on generalized assumptions? Also, their background in democracy aside, Japan did have a hsitory of far greater social order than the Middle East, did it not?


Japan is a much more homogenous country, to be sure.

To be sure.

Iraq's inhomogeneity will be one hurdle that will have to be overcome.

That does make them quite dissimilar, does it not?

But it is not an insurmountable hurdle.

And you know this for a fact?

[cragwolf]

Yes, we already know how Clinton brings Democracy to a country, he bombs it relentlessly for months at a time bringing death and destruction to the Balkans that makes Iraqi's deaths from Americans look miniscule.

What are you talking about? The NATO bombing of Serbia? According to Human Rights Watch, no friend of the US government, about 500 civilians died in Serbia as a result of NATO bombing. The number of civilians killed in Iraq (according to various sources) is at least 5000, and possibly as high as 10,000. At least a couple of thousand were killed during the initial phase of the invasion (i.e. from the start of the invasion up to the point Bush declared victory). This number is not "miniscule", neither absolutely, nor relative to NATO bombings in the Balkans.

[JohnDubYa]

So, having the chance is everything, is it? We are imposing the chance on them, and if it fails, then at least we gave them the chance.

A chance is the best one can ask for. That is why when they call a country "The Land of Opportunity" it is generally agreed to be a compliment.

Opportunity is better than no opportunity, do you agree?

So, are you proposing that we use force to give this wonderous chance to every country in the world that we deem needs it?

Nope, we are under no obligation to help every country, nor do we have the necessary resources. Each situation has to be considered on a case-by-case basis. I have no problem with that.

MIGHT? Again, the possibility is everything. is it? Who cares what our allies think, who cares about the cost, and who cares about the other ramifications? You only care about the well-being of the Iraqi people. You truly are a saint.

Nothing prevented the allies from helping give the Iraqis the chance they needed.

Now, if aiding Iraq caused the people in Germany to suffer, you would have a point. But as it stands, they were not harmed in this situation whatsoever. So why should I be worried about them?

Japan was not a hotbed of religious fanatacism, and any analogy between Kamikaze suicide missions and what is happening in the Middle East is ludicrous, in my opinion. Do you know about the Kamikaze, and are you making this analogy from a position of understanding, or are you guessing based on generalized assumptions?

I am fairly knowledgeable about the Kamikaze, having read Saburo Sakai's autobiography. Are the two situations identical? Are two situations ever identical? Is equivalence the standard that must be reached in order to compare two situations?

Also, their background in democracy aside, Japan did have a hsitory of far greater social order than the Middle East, did it not?

Define what you mean by social order. On the individual family scale, probably not.

J: Iraq's inhomogeneity will be one hurdle that will have to be overcome.

That does make them quite dissimilar, does it not?

To you, any difference between the two cultures is going to be called a huge dissimilarity and thus be considered an insurmountable problem. You simply do not want to entertain the notion that Iraqi democracy has a chance, that's all, because it doesn't coincide with your anti-Bush agenda.

If Iraqi democracy really did take hold, it would ruin your day. Because your stance is not based on what is best for the Iraqi people, but what is worst for George W. Bush.

[studentx]

What a quaint way of making a point. I am not sure what your point is, but your style sure is interesting.

Why do I need to be blind or angry to think that those who died during their "liberation" might not have appreciated their sacrifice toward the greater good, as some people seem to see it.

I don't think that you are necessarily blind or angry merely because you might have an opinion that I do not share. I do think, however, that if I were to call you blind and angry, it might not lead to an increase in the quality of our communication.

So, I ask again, what is your point in this post?


My point was this.
Sure Iraqis didnt like the war, they didnt like to lose friends and family. But we werent talking about the war or liberation. We were talking about democracy , regardless of the way it is implemented or what happened before it, we are talking about NOW.
Today few iraqis would vote to live under Saddam again, they rather be free. And you are blinded by anger over the war if you believe otherwise.

[balkan]

From that piece of paper, I do NOT accept under any circumstances the "democracy is not appropriate for..." and I find racist those who dispute the participation of certain people only in the government of their countries as a full and primary HR, via "genuine elections which shall be universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or the equivalent free voting procedure" as per the UN DECLARATION FOR HR.

This is not my words, it is the most consensuated document on earth, the best signed and the best ratified and the best incorporated, at least in theory in all the legislations in the world.

Piss on you racists who can't grok the universal right TO this universal right and screw those who feel they can take it away from them because they just might not BE LIKE US!

i never said that! read once again:
you cannot force it upon people who are not used to it and you don't have the rigth to force it on others, just because it's your perception... what gives you the right?
it's a principle that has to be taught and nurtured, not enforced... democrasys have been created several times with UN supervision when the people were ready for it...

the ideal of a good idea, is that it can be taught, and won't have to be enforced on people... thinking people will just convert instantly and use democrasy for all good purposes is naive...

so piss on you for putting words into my mouth...

[JohnDubYa]

you cannot force it upon people who are not used to it

We've done it before, and it worked.


the ideal of a good idea, is that it can be taught, and won't have to be enforced on people... thinking people will just convert instantly and use democrasy for all good purposes is naive...

Tell it to the Japanese.

And Panama is today a democracy. How did that happen? I thought Noriega -- another brutal dictator -- was in power. Oh, we invaded his country and arrested him. Sound familiar? Care to explain how that is possible given your pessimism?

[balkan]

And Panama is today a democracy. How did that happen? I thought Noriega -- another brutal dictator -- was in power. Oh, we invaded his country and arrested him. Sound familiar? Care to explain how that is possible given your pessimism?

and what a wonderfull democrasy it is :) everyone is happy :)

[balkan]

your answers really show that you're incapable of putting yourself in other peoples shoes, JohnDubYa... that's what people mean when they talk about americans being ignorant to the outside world...

would you like to be invaded by a muslim country and have your government converted to one governed by the koran? considering that many muslim believes this way of government to be the rigth one, who are you to say no as long as it works?
many atheists believe that global atheism would relieve the world of alot of problems. would religious people enjoy having atheism forced upon them? would atheists enjoy having religion enforced upon them? would the attempt at doing it cause conflict? you bet it will...
is it rigth to invade another country because it is based on religion or atheism and you want either side converted?

but i know... you're rigth and that's what makes the big difference... just the thought of the koran being the true religion is rediculous :rolleyes: of course christianity is the rigth religion... wonder if some muslim people have the opposite idea? wonder how you would respond to their attempts to convert you to islam?

[kat]

i never said that! read once again:
you cannot force it upon people who are not used to it and you don't have the rigth to force it on others, just because it's your perception... what gives you the right?
it's a principle that has to be taught and nurtured, not enforced... democrasys have been created several times with UN supervision when the people were ready for it...

the ideal of a good idea, is that it can be taught, and won't have to be enforced on people... thinking people will just convert instantly and use democrasy for all good purposes is naive...

You're being naive. Democracy has always been enforced. It's been enforced either by the elites or by gunpoint. Furthermore, noone here has said anything about people just converting instantly. In fact, historicly it has often been just the opposite, resisted and treated with suspect only to later be embraced by the populous. Nor has anyone said that democracy is always used for all good purposes, human nature is such that there is always going to be an element within it willing to abuse systems that allow them freedoms, that doesn't dissallow the right to a democratic system as a BASIC human right.

I find at this stage that it's absolutely ridiculous to have to advocate for the goodness of democracy as system, as opposed to dictatorships, totalitarianisms and authoritarianisms of all sorts.

I'd find it as ridiculous to have to be advocating basic schooling for children as opposed ot leaving children unschooled and illiterate... or advocating medical care as opposed to "letting nature run its course" even if it kills them all for lack of vaccination and sanitary conditions.

I find it difficult to believe that democracy, a basic Human Right already inside the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948, has to be explained and re-explained, and reasoned over and over, as better and more desirable than the other political totalitarian offers.

It is not only the mass of misery, hunger, disease, underdevelopment, persecutions, absolute demolition of what HR are about that all those dictatorships have brought to their populations as compared with the net improvement enjoyed by populations that have democratically something to say about their present and their future...

What I find most serious and most allarming is that democracy has to be defended against those who enjoy it, who think it is "best for them", who would not be willing to live under the political aura that created "Saddamish conditions" for one week... and who don't manage to sum up that minimum of the necessary empathy, that minimum of the human capacity to get into someone else's shoes, and understand that in the same manner "whites" in the USA enjoy democracy and could not even conceive daily life without, it is as much as HR of others, less lucky politically/historically, deserve as much that democratic, that participative, that HR comfort.

[kat]

What are you talking about? The NATO bombing of Serbia? According to Human Rights Watch, no friend of the US government, about 500 civilians died in Serbia as a result of NATO bombing. The number of civilians killed in Iraq (according to various sources) is at least 5000, and possibly as high as 10,000. At least a couple of thousand were killed during the initial phase of the invasion (i.e. from the start of the invasion up to the point Bush declared victory). This number is not "miniscule", neither absolutely, nor relative to NATO bombings in the Balkans.
:redface: Yes, yes..sorry. Although, I don't agree with your numbers I was dramatizing. But, nonetheless, you get the picture.

[studentx]

your answers really show that you're incapable of putting yourself in other peoples shoes, JohnDubYa... that's what people mean when they talk about americans being ignorant to the outside world...

would you like to be invaded by a muslim country and have your government converted to one governed by the koran? considering that many muslim believes this way of government to be the rigth one, who are you to say no as long as it works?
many atheists believe that global atheism would relieve the world of alot of problems. would religious people enjoy having atheism forced upon them? would atheists enjoy having religion enforced upon them? would the attempt at doing it cause conflict? you bet it will...
is it rigth to invade another country because it is based on religion or atheism and you want either side converted?

but i know... you're rigth and that's what makes the big difference... just the thought of the koran being the true religion is rediculous :rolleyes: of course christianity is the rigth religion... wonder if some muslim people have the opposite idea? wonder how you would respond to their attempts to convert you to islam?

Balkan, we dont enforce religion. We are talking about politics here.
Nobody is forcing Iraqis to be christian, so what dream are you talking about?
The people in Iraq have been enforced many things in the past decades, was this ok with you? I assume not, so what do you suppose to do to stop this? Free them perhaps so they can make their own choices? OHNO! We have no right to set them free so they can make their own choices, because we are changing their lifestyle :uhh:
Do you seriously think Iraqis today would give up their freedom and ask Saddam back or some other dictator, than you opened your mind so far that it fell out.

[Entropy]

your answers really show that you're incapable of putting yourself in other peoples shoes, JohnDubYa... that's what people mean when they talk about americans being ignorant to the outside world...

would you like to be invaded by a muslim country and have your government converted to one governed by the koran? considering that many muslim believes this way of government to be the rigth one, who are you to say no as long as it works?
many atheists believe that global atheism would relieve the world of alot of problems. would religious people enjoy having atheism forced upon them? would atheists enjoy having religion enforced upon them? would the attempt at doing it cause conflict? you bet it will...
is it rigth to invade another country because it is based on religion or atheism and you want either side converted?

but i know... you're rigth and that's what makes the big difference... just the thought of the koran being the true religion is rediculous of course christianity is the rigth religion... wonder if some muslim people have the opposite idea? wonder how you would respond to their attempts to convert you to islam?

Are you saying the new government in Iraq is based off Christianity?

[balkan]

Are you saying the new government in Iraq is based off Christianity?

for Gods sake! is putting words into peoples mouth a hobby in this place? is this how you make sure you don't ever loose an argument?
i was trying to show an example! did i say it was an atheist government? no... wonder why you didn't ask me if i said that as well... see, that would've been a contradiction and then you wouldn't have to listen to anything i said at all...

[Entropy]

for Gods sake! is putting words into peoples mouth a hobby in this place? is this how you make sure you don't ever loose an argument?
i was trying to show an example! did i say it was an atheist government? no... wonder why you didn't ask me if i said that as well... see, that would've been a contradiction and then you wouldn't have to listen to anything i said at all...

Gez, who lit the fuse on your tampon? A simple "no" would due. I was just asking a question.

[JohnDubYa]

and what a wonderfull democrasy it is :) everyone is happy :)

Panama is far better off today. Human rights abuses have dwindled dramatically since Noriega left power. Corruption has diminished. They even elected a female President for the first time in the country's history.

So are you saying that Panama is worse off today than under Noriega? Seriously?

[JohnDubYa]

would you like to be invaded by a muslim country and have your government converted to one governed by the koran?

The government installed in Iraw is not governed by the Bible. So your analogy is based on a false premise.



is it rigth to invade another country because it is based on religion or atheism and you want either side converted?

No. We're not trying to convert Muslims into Christians. This is a straw man you created.

[cragwolf]

:redface: Yes, yes..sorry. Although, I don't agree with your numbers I was dramatizing. But, nonetheless, you get the picture.

No problem, I don't have complete confidence in those numbers either. When it comes to casualty figures, nothing is written in stone. We can just come up with plausible estimates or ranges. The error bars are often very large.

[balkan]

The government installed in Iraw is not governed by the Bible. So your analogy is based on a false premise.

No. We're not trying to convert Muslims into Christians. This is a straw man you created.

no, it's called a freaking parallel... did i mention iraq even once? how many times do i have to say that?

if you would feel fine about, hypothetically, being invaded by a communist country and forced to take on their ideals, then i can see why you can't grasp the parallel...

i think it is very wrong to force another idealism on people... it should be their choise... i've tried to make you see, that you would oppose such a behaviour yourself, but i know, you're right and they're wrong, so that makes the entire difference, and gives you carte blanche to do whatever you want...

so, you want to kill everyone that doesn't want democrasy? sounds like a great plan...

[balkan]

You're being naive. Democracy has always been enforced. It's been enforced either by the elites or by gunpoint. Furthermore, noone here has said anything about people just converting instantly. In fact, historicly it has often been just the opposite, resisted and treated with suspect only to later be embraced by the populous. Nor has anyone said that democracy is always used for all good purposes, human nature is such that there is always going to be an element within it willing to abuse systems that allow them freedoms, that doesn't dissallow the right to a democratic system as a BASIC human right.

I find at this stage that it's absolutely ridiculous to have to advocate for the goodness of democracy as system, as opposed to dictatorships, totalitarianisms and authoritarianisms of all sorts.

I'd find it as ridiculous to have to be advocating basic schooling for children as opposed ot leaving children unschooled and illiterate... or advocating medical care as opposed to "letting nature run its course" even if it kills them all for lack of vaccination and sanitary conditions.

I find it difficult to believe that democracy, a basic Human Right already inside the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948, has to be explained and re-explained, and reasoned over and over, as better and more desirable than the other political totalitarian offers.

It is not only the mass of misery, hunger, disease, underdevelopment, persecutions, absolute demolition of what HR are about that all those dictatorships have brought to their populations as compared with the net improvement enjoyed by populations that have democratically something to say about their present and their future...

What I find most serious and most allarming is that democracy has to be defended against those who enjoy it, who think it is "best for them", who would not be willing to live under the political aura that created "Saddamish conditions" for one week... and who don't manage to sum up that minimum of the necessary empathy, that minimum of the human capacity to get into someone else's shoes, and understand that in the same manner "whites" in the USA enjoy democracy and could not even conceive daily life without, it is as much as HR of others, less lucky politically/historically, deserve as much that democratic, that participative, that HR comfort.

i don't question the idea myself... i don't question any of the basic rigths you mentioned... i'm questioning the way it is "enforced"... you don't have to defend anything, like i've said before, so i wonder why you keep doing it... is it to avoid the question of the enforcement policies?

a few other basic rights, i believe:
the rigth to live in peace
the rigth to a different oppinion
the freedom of choise
religious freedom
the rigth of a sovereign nation not to be attacked by another country

it doesn't matter what is "better", what does matter, is letting people choose, and not deciding for them. and definitely not when it includes unneccessary killing of innocent people...

[Loren Booda]

What's to prevent a "democratic" Iraq to vote-in a permanent, divisive and backward theocracy - do we, a la communism, then establish a "consensus" for them?

[Prometheus]

A chance is the best one can ask for. That is why when they call a country "The Land of Opportunity" it is generally agreed to be a compliment.

Opportunity is better than no opportunity, do you agree?

There you go again, phrasing your question in simplistic black and white.


I am fairly knowledgeable about the Kamikaze, having read Saburo Sakai's autobiography. Are the two situations identical? Are two situations ever identical? Is equivalence the standard that must be reached in order to compare two situations?

Nice way to generalize my question out of existence. Who cares how different they are, since nothing is ever identical. Nice move.


To you, any difference between the two cultures is going to be called a huge dissimilarity and thus be considered an insurmountable problem.

Would you like me to start putting words in your mouth too? Perhaps you would appreciate it, since you do it so much.

You simply do not want to entertain the notion that Iraqi democracy has a chance, that's all, because it doesn't coincide with your anti-Bush agenda.

Very intellectual of you. I am against the war in Iraq, and to you this qualifiies as part of my anti-Bush agenda. Talk about black and white thinking.

If Iraqi democracy really did take hold, it would ruin your day.

Thank you for telling me what I would think. You use your simplistic thinking to tell me how I would think in a given situation. Aren't you the clever one.

Because your stance is not based on what is best for the Iraqi people, but what is worst for George W. Bush.

You seem to be able to think to the same tremendous depth as Bush. You pretend to care about the Iraqi people. Sure. We believe you. There is nothing else in the world that has any impact on this situation but the welfare of the Iraqi people. Sure, let's boil it down to what is best for the Iraqi people, in your opinion. And then, you have the gall to tell me that my only motivation is to do what is worst for Bush, while you only care about the Iraqi people.

Perhaps you really are this shallow of a thinker. It might behoove you to recognize that there are other people who can think a little more deeply than your shallow self-serving method of putting words in other people's mouth and then attacking the words that you put there.

It certainly is easier to look at the world in simplistic black and white. Far be it for me to tell you to learn how to think.

[JohnDubYa]

Speaking of "putting words in one's mouth":

There is nothing else in the world that has any impact on this situation but the welfare of the Iraqi people.


I never said that, but I will say this: We are giving the Iraqis a chance to live freely. That is better than not giving them any chance at all.

[kat]

i don't question the idea myself... i don't question any of the basic rigths you mentioned... i'm questioning the way it is "enforced"... you don't have to defend anything, like i've said before, so i wonder why you keep doing it... is it to avoid the question of the enforcement policies?

a few other basic rights, i believe:
the rigth to live in peace
the rigth to a different oppinion
the freedom of choise
religious freedom
the rigth of a sovereign nation not to be attacked by another country

it doesn't matter what is "better", what does matter, is letting people choose, and not deciding for them. and definitely not when it includes unneccessary killing of innocent people...
It certainly does matter what is better, letting people choose how they are led IS democracy. Without it, the only people who are choosing are the tyrants and elites.
You've stated:

you don't like people wanting to kill people with another religion/idealism or maybe people who try to force their religion/idealism on others? the what exactly do you then feel about the us of a? desperately trying to enforce "freedom and democrasy" onto the parts of the world that have different ways of life? This is one of several times in this thread you have made a parrallel between religion and democracy. I have pointed out that Democracy is a very BASIC human right as supported UNIVERSALLY by the U.N. Furthermore, it has almost always been enforced by the Elites of a society or at the end of the barrel of a gun.(I'm trying hard to think of a one instance where this wasn't the case) Tyrants and Elites who profit from dictatorships very seldom give it up willingly. Untill the populous has an opportunity to vote for their leadership someone IS choosing for them! and worse yet, when you infer as you did earlier in this thread that they are not "ready". Do you now how many times and in regards to how many oppressed people these same words have been used?! Sharmuta! let them speak for themselves with their votes!
Double sharmuta for ignoring that more Iraqi's were dying under Saddam's brutal dictatorship then they are now as they are moving into a democracy and voting for their own leaders.

[phatmonky]

the rigth of a sovereign nation not to be attacked by another country


Where is this right written?
Every sovereign nation has the right to attack and defend itself, and thus reap all consequences that come from.

[phatmonky]

What's to prevent a "democratic" Iraq to vote-in a permanent, divisive and backward theocracy - do we, a la communism, then establish a "consensus" for them?


Has any democracy ever done this before?
We have already stated that if they want a theocracy, they can have it - althought that WAS after that large poll of Iraqis in which almost none wanted a theocracy.

[JohnDubYa]

To install a democracy, you either need an armed populace or external force. Almost every democracy that I can think of was created from violent overthrow.

The US was formed with an armed populace (one of the reasons the Second Amendment was so important to the Founding Fathers). Thousands died in the Revolutionary War.

The French had an armed populace as well. The French Revolution was particularly violent.

When the average citizen is unarmed and the ruler brutal, it usually takes a foreign power to overthrow him. Examples are numerous.

[balkan]

This is one of several times in this thread you have made a parrallel between religion and democracy. I have pointed out that Democracy is a very BASIC human right as supported UNIVERSALLY by the U.N. Furthermore, it has almost always been enforced by the Elites of a society or at the end of the barrel of a gun.(I'm trying hard to think of a one instance where this wasn't the case) Tyrants and Elites who profit from dictatorships very seldom give it up willingly. Untill the populous has an opportunity to vote for their leadership someone IS choosing for them! and worse yet, when you infer as you did earlier in this thread that they are not "ready". Do you now how many times and in regards to how many oppressed people these same words have been used?! Sharmuta! let them speak for themselves with their votes!
Double sharmuta for ignoring that more Iraqi's were dying under Saddam's brutal dictatorship then they are now as they are moving into a democracy and voting for their own leaders.

explain turkey to me then, if change has always come at the end of a gun? change can also come slowly by support and incitement from other countrys. or by the elite.
untill now, bush have matched the death toll of the last five years of saddams rule... Sharmuta to you for ignoring that fact!

and the polls speak for them selves. if the iraqi people were to select a leader, it would be a highly religios one, a shia muslim... i really don't remember his name, maybe someone else do... and that guy would basically be the worst thing happening to a democrasy... so usa is not going to let them pick their own leaders, the leaders will be picked by the usa and, maybe the iraqi will be allowed to pick one of them... sharmuta for calling that a democrasy!

[balkan]

To install a democracy, you either need an armed populace or external force. Almost every democracy that I can think of was created from violent overthrow.

The US was formed with an armed populace (one of the reasons the Second Amendment was so important to the Founding Fathers). Thousands died in the Revolutionary War.

The French had an armed populace as well. The French Revolution was particularly violent.

When the average citizen is unarmed and the ruler brutal, it usually takes a foreign power to overthrow him. Examples are numerous.

in the past days, yeah... but in the late 18's lots of democrasys evolved quite peacefully... i'm sorry to hear you don't know your history.
btw... the us soldiers knows very well, that the iraqi populace is anything but unarmed...
Both facts leaves this "To install a democracy, you either need an armed populace or external force." looking quite foolish...

[russ_watters]

untill now, bush have matched the death toll of the last five years of saddams rule... Maybe if you only include direct murders of Saddam's and leave out the purposeful starving of his own people. Include the whole toll and Saddam wins by several hundred thousand.

edit: also, you need to subtract most of the civilian deaths of the past year and a half from the American column and add them to Saddam's toll. Stationing tanks in civilian areas (for example) means any civilian deaths resulting from an attack on those tanks are on Saddam's toll.

[balkan]

Maybe if you only include direct murders of Saddam's and leave out the purposeful starving of his own people. Include the whole toll and Saddam wins by several hundred thousand.


note: i was talking per year "quota"...
saddam is the winner though... i give him an 8 out of ten... "and i hear he's a really modest guy aswell, hank..."

[JohnDubYa]

in the past days, yeah... but in the late 18's lots of democrasys evolved quite peacefully... i'm sorry to hear you don't know your history.

Do you ever provide evidence to back your claims? How about some examples so that we can examine them?

Japan's democracy was certainly installed at the barrel of a gun.

So was Germany's (in both instances).

So was Panama's.

Also Grenada.

[kat]

explain turkey to me then, if change has always come at the end of a gun? . Huh? Please quote the phrase where I have said "change has always come at the end of the gun"change can also come slowly by support and incitement from other countrys. or by the elite. and that support and incitement from other countries culiminates into what actions that directly create a democracy?


untill now, bush have matched the death toll of the last five years of saddams rule... Sharmuta to you for ignoring that fact! support this with links, facts and figures please.

and the polls speak for them selves. if the iraqi people were to select a leader, it would be a highly religios one, a shia muslim... i really don't remember his name, maybe someone else do... and that guy would basically be the worst thing happening to a democrasy... so usa is not going to let them pick their own leaders, the leaders will be picked by the usa and, maybe the iraqi will be allowed to pick one of them... sharmuta for calling that a democrasy! *boggle* questions for you, who is Lakhdar Brahimi? and what recent action is he known for? who does he represent?

[JohnDubYa]

Sure, I'll explain Turkey:

http://www.turizm.net/turkey/history/ataturk.html

"First with skirmishes , in time with proper army troops, Ataturk and his army friends' armies started fighting the enemy. Ankara was chosen to be Ataturk's headquarter for its central location and the seeds of a new country were planted there. He and his friends wanted to replace the Monarchy with a Republic. The War of Independence took some three years and by the end of the year 1922, all of the invaders had left the country. The Ottoman Sultan fled in a British boat. The birth of a new nation had begun."

And later in the 1980s...

http://www.fact-index.com/h/hi/history_of_turkey.html

"The political system that emerged in the wake of the 1960 coup was a fractured one, producing a series of unstable government coalitions in parliament alternating between the True Path Party of Suleyman Demirel on the right and the Republican People's Party of Ismet Inonu and Bulent Ecevit on the left. A coup was staged in 1971, ousting a fractured parliament under the Prime Minsitry of Demirel. Under Prime Minister Ecevit in coalition with the religious National Salvation Party, Turkey invaded Cyprus in order to prevent a coup intended to unify the island with Greece, creating a confict that to this day is still not resolved. The fractured political scene and poor economy led to mounting violence betweeen ultranationalists and communists in the streets of Turkey's cities. A paralyzed parliament and increasing death-toll prompted a coup in 1980, once again on Demirel's watch. Within two years, the military had returned the government to civilian hands, but had banned Demirel, Ecevit, and a number of other politicians from politics for life."

[balkan]

Sure, I'll explain Turkey:

http://www.turizm.net/turkey/history/ataturk.html

"First with skirmishes , in time with proper army troops, Ataturk and his army friends' armies started fighting the enemy. Ankara was chosen to be Ataturk's headquarter for its central location and the seeds of a new country were planted there. He and his friends wanted to replace the Monarchy with a Republic. The War of Independence took some three years and by the end of the year 1922, all of the invaders had left the country. The Ottoman Sultan fled in a British boat. The birth of a new nation had begun."

And later in the 1980s...

http://www.fact-index.com/h/hi/history_of_turkey.html

"The political system that emerged in the wake of the 1960 coup was a fractured one, producing a series of unstable government coalitions in parliament alternating between the True Path Party of Suleyman Demirel on the right and the Republican People's Party of Ismet Inonu and Bulent Ecevit on the left. A coup was staged in 1971, ousting a fractured parliament under the Prime Minsitry of Demirel. Under Prime Minister Ecevit in coalition with the religious National Salvation Party, Turkey invaded Cyprus in order to prevent a coup intended to unify the island with Greece, creating a confict that to this day is still not resolved. The fractured political scene and poor economy led to mounting violence betweeen ultranationalists and communists in the streets of Turkey's cities. A paralyzed parliament and increasing death-toll prompted a coup in 1980, once again on Demirel's watch. Within two years, the military had returned the government to civilian hands, but had banned Demirel, Ecevit, and a number of other politicians from politics for life."

but i thought it demanded an external force?
anyway, my point was how the country evolved on its own, which you should have discovered by now... thank you for providing proof for that :smile:

and notice how the latter was a coup, my friend... the fact that the word "military" is involved, doesn't mean there was a war... so there's no need for war, and a potent populace can make changes, which they choose themselves...
so are you saying the war on iraq is unneccessary? are you finally caving in?

[balkan]

Huh? Please quote the phrase where I have said "change has always come at the end of the gun" and that support and incitement from other countries culiminates into what actions that directly create a democracy?

support this with links, facts and figures please.

*boggle* questions for you, who is Lakhdar Brahimi? and what recent action is he known for? who does he represent?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lakhdar_Brahimi
what does that has to do with anything?? like i said, the iraqis are not allowed to choose on their own...

"Furthermore, it has almost always been enforced by the Elites of a society or at the end of the barrel of a gun.(I'm trying hard to think of a one instance where this wasn't the case) "
oh, so you don't like to being put words into your mouth (me leaving out the "elites of a society")? then i suggest you consider real hard about not doing it yourself.

btw... let me give you a few cases:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denmark
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spain
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norway
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweden
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germany <- quite unviolent workers revolution... more of an uprising really...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birth_of_the_Italian_Republic ... okay, there had just been a war, but the creation of the republic itself was quite peacefull...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_kingdom
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia - as far as i remember, no revolution... just slow change...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austria - kinda unique history there... they weren't unfamiliar with democrasy after the brief introduction to dictatorship, so that was no biggie...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belgium - who knows? :biggrin:

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

yes, indeed, very few examples of countrys adapting democrasy without war and violent revolution...

[JohnDubYa]

The point is that democracies often have to be implemented by force, and sometimes this force must come from an external source if the dictatorship is particularly brutal.

Does this sound like Iraq?

but i thought it demanded an external force?

Here is what I said earlier in this thread:

To install a democracy, you either need an armed populace or external force. Almost every democracy that I can think of was created from violent overthrow.

Nowhere do I suggest that only an external force is sufficient to install a democracy. (And why would I say it, being an American and knowing our country's history?)

anyway, my point was how the country evolved on its own, which you should have discovered by now...

I was already aware that Turkey evolved into democracy on its own. That doesn't negate anything I have said, but it does show that violence is often necessary.

Now, what does this have to do with Iraq, unless you are naive enough to think that Iraq could have evolved into a democracy of its own if we only had left it alone in the hands of the Husseins?

[balkan]

Now, what does this have to do with Iraq, unless you are naive enough to think that Iraq could have evolved into a democracy of its own if we only had left it alone in the hands of the Husseins?
well, i simply just countered your argument about a change for democrasy demanding violence... that was about ten examples there, but you cling on to turkey of course...
you said democrasy couldn't come without litterarily force it over peoples heads, and that forcing it was a great and lovely thing in your perspective... and noone else had done it different anyhow from your knowledge... well... there (in my previous reply to kat) is some knowledge about it...
actually, i'd say that iraq had the greatest potential of becoming a democrasy of all the islamic countrys in the area... it was one of the most educated middle eastern countrys and had students groups, and women attending universities and were allowed to get jobs... it was a very western oriented country, so i suspect there could be some change along with some outside influence, yes... but that's a totally irellevant question since the was has already happened...

anyway. my point was, that war is unccessary and shouldn't be used to force idealism on other people... the countrys outside of iraq are pissed because you do it, and well, your soldiers experience the other reactions on their own skin...
this thread is about why people react so strongly when you force your values on them... "why don't they want them and bla. bla. bla" ... so it's not just about iraq... it's about consequences of action and reflection upon actions...

my post was a reply to your and kats claim, nothing else...

[JohnDubYa]

well, i simply just countered your argument about a change for democrasy demanding violence... that was about ten examples there, but you cling on to turkey of course...

Weren't you the one that offered Turkey as an example in the first place?

Sometimes you can force a country into democracy through the actions of a global boycott, thus crippling the country financially (see South Africa). But the boycott by the UN was so weak and misguided that, if anything, it strengthened Saddam's power. That Oil For Weapons program was a real smooth move.


actually, i'd say that iraq had the greatest potential of becoming a democrasy of all the islamic countrys in the area...

Sure, NOW. But that is only because we forced a dictator out of power, an action you opposed.

Ask the Kurds how likely it was that Iraq was going to form into a democracy on its own with the Husseins in power.

I sometimes think that you completely misunderstand just how brutal Hussein's regime actually was. In terms of outright cruelty and control over the population, it probably eclipses Stalin's. Luckily with the USSR, power was not handed down to offspring, so at some point more reasonable politicians took over as the older leaders died. However, neither son of Saddam's was going to be any easier on the population.

anyway. my point was, that war is unccessary and shouldn't be used to force idealism on other people...

And as I said many times, we have done it before with good results. Japan is a shining example of how the US crafted a government that endured. Panama is much better off because we invaded.

I am sure you opposed the Panamanian invasion as well. Is this correct? If so, what would be the condition of Panama and its people if we had taken your advice?

And why don't we see vicious anti-American actions by Hispanics?