Is Democracy Worth the Risk of Electing Terrorists?

[Burnsys]

FOX NEWS: let's bomb a democracy back to the Stone Age

I weas reading fox news and i found this article.. i actualy can't believe they talk like this... it's very disgusting. and very very scary...

From the Frying Pan to the Fire?
Thursday, March 10, 2005
By John Gibson

The Lebanese may indeed be under the thumb of the Syrians, but it looks like quite a few of them are happy to be there.

A few hundred thousand turned up in a huge plaza in Beirut (search) to demonstrate for the continued presence of Syrian troops in Lebanon. By the way, these demonstrators were the supporters of Hezbollah (search) — the terror organization which is trying to morph into something approaching a normal political party.

Somehow that seems a bit of a stretch from where we sit. Hezbollah is, after all, an armed group engaged in armed struggle against Israel. It's engaged in suicide attacks as well as rocket attacks and is said to be an arm of the Iranian mullahs. And, evidently, the arm of the Iranian mullahs in Lebanon is protected by the Syrian Army.

So who wins in this struggle? Is it the Hezbollah demonstrators? If there were a fair and free vote tomorrow — certified by the official keeper of worldwide elections, Jimmy Carter — would the terrorists get the most votes?

That's the thing with this democracy movement. You could get people elected who hate us more than the last guys hated us. In other words, we could go from the frying pan to the fire.

Well, fine. At least we'd know; at least we'd know we tried. And if we have to bomb a democracy back to the Stone Age because it was sticking with its roots and sending terrorists to attack us, we could bomb it back to the Stone Age with a clean conscience.

You wouldn't have a bunch of Ward Churchills (search) on the air saying it was our fault and that if we'd only given democracy a chance, things would have worked out. We'd miss those people decrying the American propensity to attack first and reason later.

Look, this Bush democracy stuff is working for the moment. Nobody says it has to go perfect. Usama bin Laden could get elected somewhere. In fact, in two or three countries we call friends, I think he'd take the top spot in a landslide.

We would just have to console ourselves that democracy has given us a clear picture of exactly where our enemies stand. And we can use that picture in our targeting computers.

 

[fourier jr]

FOX didn't really say that did they?

 

[klusener]

http://www.foxnews.com.edgesuite.net/story/0,2933,149957,00.html

Burnsys is correct...

 

[misskitty]

:angry:This is disturbing and disgusting. Have any of the other networks commented on this? I disagree with article.

 

[Burnsys]

A few hundred thousand turned up in a huge plaza in Beirut (search) to demonstrate for the continued presence of Syrian troops in Lebanon. By the way, these demonstrators were the supporters of Hezbollah (search) — the terror organization which is trying to morph into something approaching a normal political party.

All demostrators againts US ocupations can be targeted as terrorists.. couse "They support Hezbollah" a terrorist organization.

So who wins in this struggle? Is it the Hezbollah demonstrators? If there were a fair and free vote tomorrow — certified by the official keeper of worldwide elections, Jimmy Carter — would the terrorists get the most votes?

i never vote for the carter center to be the official keeper of worldwide elections

That's the thing with this democracy movement. You could get people elected who hate us more than the last guys hated us. In other words, we could go from the frying pan to the fire.

People just hate america.. we don't know why, we never ask why.. they just hate us.. so we have to destroy them

Well, fine. At least we'd know; at least we'd know we tried. And if we have to bomb a democracy back to the Stone Age because it was sticking with its roots and sending terrorists to attack us, we could bomb it back to the Stone Age with a clean conscience.

no words...

Look, this Bush democracy stuff is working for the moment. Nobody says it has to go perfect.

Bush "democracy stuff" seem to be working nice in irak isn't?
Nobody says it has to go perfect... but we all know we have the nicest intentions... bull****

Usama bin Laden could get elected somewhere. In fact, in two or three countries we call friends, I think he'd take the top spot in a landslide.

Be ready, tomorrow america may attack their own democratic friends if don't win who they want..

We would just have to console ourselves that democracy has given us a clear picture of exactly where our enemies stand. And we can use that picture in our targeting computers.

Yes.. we are somenthing like god... the world is in our screen and the missiles are ready.. And democracy will tell us where the people has found who we really are and what our purpuse is.. so we are ready to eliminate them...

 

[SOS2008]

FOX didn't really say that did they?

I try to watch a spectrum of news sources to stay up with who is saying what, but I quit watching FOX News because I don't want high blood pressure. What's even more disconcerting is that FOX News often has top ratings. This means a good percentage of people in America share these views. And unfortunately CNN has changed their headline station format to increase viewership, and it's garbage now.

With regard to the topic of the article, under the old thread about "who's next, Syria or Iran?" I made note that Syria considers themselves to play a peacekeeping role in Lebanon, just as the U.S. feels they are doing in Iraq. Likewise, there are Lebanese (1/2 million in the demonstration) who are supportive of Syria's role, just as there are Iraqi's supportive of the U.S. Not to mention similarity in questioning about foreign occupation and exit strategy. This kind of hypocrisy is why everyone hates the U.S.

As for the ignorant Hawks that watch FOX News, they ARE in the stone age.

 

[misskitty]

I hope that no one here agrees with or supports this article.

 

[russ_watters]

I hope that no one here agrees with or supports this article.

I'm not a Fox watcher, but I don't see any problem other than overzealousness. If a country is run by terrorists and kills innocent civilians as a matter of policy, why shouldn't we attack? Democracy is not relevant here: Democracy or otherwise, terrorism is terrorism. In an effort to disparage democracy, people claim Hitler was popularly elected. It isn't true, but if it was, so what? Just because the majority in a country agrees with it, does that make it any less wrong?

edit: in fact, this thread implies to me something very, very, very bad about Islam. Anyone else see it?

 

[wasteofo2]

Just because the majority in a country agrees with it, does that make it any less wrong?

"Democracy is the recurrent suspicion that more than half of the people are right more than half the time."
- E.B. White

I'm beginning to wonder if there's not some better form of government where the people aren't trusted with so much power. As history has shown, the people are pretty nuts...

But then, instead of THE PEOPLE ruling, simply PEOPLE rule, and PEOPLE are usually even more nuts than THE PEOPLE, so I don't know what I can do but wait for a good Government software to come out...

 

[Burnsys]

I'm not a Fox watcher, but I don't see any problem other than overzealousness. If a country is run by terrorists and kills innocent civilians as a matter of policy, why shouldn't we attack? Democracy is not relevant here: Democracy or otherwise, terrorism is terrorism. In an effort to disparage democracy, people claim Hitler was popularly elected. It isn't true, but if it was, so what? Just because the majority in a country agrees with it, does that make it any less wrong?

edit: in fact, this thread implies to me something very, very, very bad about Islam. Anyone else see it?

And who gived mr bush the power to decide what's wrong and what's ok, and then punish any country he wants, be it democratic or not, by bombing it back to the stone age...and your country have killed many more civilians by policy that any terrorist atack. you were in the army, i guess they have calculations to estimate the number of civilians kills before entering a conflict... just that you call it "Colateral Damage", but you know.. if you want to save the lives of civilians... you can't avoid killing a lot of them...
You know.. americans are americans...

 

[PerennialII]

"The stone age with clean conscience" comment doesn't really deserve anything other than pure disgust. Watching events from afar makes one easily to lose perspective ... things appear much different from the ground level, which is an unfortunate repeated error made by usually the whole western world. It would help if things were viewed from other than one's own perspective.

 

[Bystander]

Well, so much for the "first amendment support group." Folks, Fox does identify editorials. Yeah, Gibson gets a little heavy-handed at times, and he's extremely sarcastic. The sarcasm in the editorial has to do with the possiblity that we, as a nation, may find ourselves in a conflict with a nation that is governed by a terrorist group that has been "democratically" elected (the quotation marks indicate that it would be democratic in name only) --- no arguments about going to war to "spread democracy." Gibson has difficulties with arguments that we shouldn't be interfering with other peoples' choices of forms of government, and, that is the point of his piece, that they will NOT be able to sing that song for once.

 

[russ_watters]

I always have loved the irony of Liberal censorship, Bystander. One thing though:

The sarcasm in the editorial has to do with the possiblity that we, as a nation, may find ourselves in a conflict with a nation that is governed by a terrorist group that has been "democratically" elected (the quotation marks indicate that it would be democratic in name only) --- no arguments about going to war to "spread democracy." Gibson has difficulties with arguments that we shouldn't be interfering with other peoples' choices of forms of government, and, that is the point of his piece, that they will NOT be able to sing that song for once.

I actually interpreted it a little differently: even if a terrorist organization is actually democratically elected (not just in name only), we still would be justified in invading if they pose a threat. But either way you read it, I agree with it.

And who gived mr bush the power to decide what's wrong and what's ok...

"We, the People of the United States..." He doesn't just have the "power", he has the responsibility.

Re: collateral damage: We've already had discussions of the moral difference between targeting civilians and "collateral damage" and there is little ambiguity on that issue.

And do you care to expand on your implication that violence/terrorism/murder/genocide is the mainstream, majority position of Islam?

 

[misskitty]

And who gived mr bush the power to decide what's wrong and what's ok, and then punish any country he wants, be it democratic or not, by bombing it back to the stone age...and your country have killed many more civilians by policy that any terrorist atack. you were in the army, i guess they have calculations to estimate the number of civilians kills before entering a conflict... just that you call it "Colateral Damage", but you know.. if you want to save the lives of civilians... you can't avoid killing a lot of them...
You know.. americans are americans...

The people are the ones who give Bush the power to decide what is right and wrong. The people are the ones who elected him. So if the people didn't want himin power then they shouldn't have voted for him. If things get seriously out of control, and the public feels that his actions are posing a threat to national sercurity then they can petition to have him impeached. Its a long and difficult process that has only happened two or three times in the history of the United States.

 

[misskitty]

I'm not a Fox watcher, but I don't see any problem other than overzealousness. If a country is run by terrorists and kills innocent civilians as a matter of policy, why shouldn't we attack? Democracy is not relevant here: Democracy or otherwise, terrorism is terrorism. In an effort to disparage democracy, people claim Hitler was popularly elected. It isn't true, but if it was, so what? Just because the majority in a country agrees with it, does that make it any less wrong?

edit: in fact, this thread implies to me something very, very, very bad about Islam. Anyone else see it?

Thats a good point and this article is very overzealous. I'm not disputing that. I'm just a little surprised that Fox would allow something like this to be published. Its disgusting. I completely agree with what you are saying Russ, I really do.

I do see that this article is showing really aweful things about the Islamic religion.

 

[russ_watters]

Thats a good point and this article is very overzealous. I'm not disputing that. I'm just a little surprised that Fox would allow something like this to be published. Its disgusting.

Actually, I'm not surprised. Fox's slant is not any further to the right than the other networks are to the left, but their tone is much more sensational. The rhetoric is heavier.

 

[kat]

we'd know we tried. And if we have to bomb a democracy back to the Stone Age because it was sticking with its roots and sending terrorists to attack us, we could bomb it back to the Stone Age with a clean conscience.

Seems to me that was an important qualifier...
Oh, I forgot...we're supposed to ignore that...just ignore me...carry on, carry on!

 

[Burnsys]

"We, the People of the United States..." He doesn't just have the "power", he has the responsibility.

Re: collateral damage: We've already had discussions of the moral difference between targeting civilians and "collateral damage" and there is little ambiguity on that issue.

And do you care to expand on your implication that violence/terrorism/murder/genocide is the mainstream, majority position of Islam?

Ok.. and who give you (The people of the united states) the right to bomb any democratic country in the WORLD... i mean.. who in the world has voted the United States to decide what is wrong and bad... to have an authorithy over others democracys.. since this kind of statetmets, it means that any democracy (Or what people of other nations vote) is subjected to US authority. America always have the final word... not becouse they are right.. but by brute force...
Tomorrow we can vote for a president in argentina who thinks america is a terrorist nation.. (and believe me he doesn't have to search to hard to show profs of that), then he has the right and the responsability to atack and bomb your country back to the stone age?? of course there will be a little of colateral damage But you knwo, when it is YOUR family that is killed, a " Well, we didn't MEAN to" is much of a consolation is it? America have killed far far far more innocent civilians than Osdama did. A dead baby rotting in the sun by "colateral damage" or "terrorist attack" is just as dead and the family just as devestated, no matter who did the killing.

And do you care to expand on your implication that violence/terrorism/murder/genocide is the mainstream, majority position of Islam?

i think i never said that... but that sound more like america to me. let's start doing bodycounts and let's see.. America always turn to violence when can't achieve their objectives by other means... ALWAYS...

 

[Burnsys]

Seems to me that was an important qualifier...
Oh, I forgot...we're supposed to ignore that...just ignore me...carry on, carry on!

you invaded far far more countrys that terrrorist attaks in your soil...
is more.. you didn't have even 1 bomb explosion in your soil since 2001. that is 4 years! what are you talking about!??

 

[russ_watters]

Ok.. and who give you (The people of the united states) the right to bomb any democratic country in the WORLD...

The same right to self defense that every country has.

Tomorrow we can vote for a president in argentina who thinks america is a terrorist nation.. (and believe me he doesn't have to search to hard to show profs of that), then he has the right and the responsability to atack and bomb your country back to the stone age??

When was the last time the US murdered Argentinian civilians as a matter of national policy?

See, the problem here (as usual) is that you are drawing invalid parallels.

edit: and, in any case, now it appears that you agree with the article.

i think i never said that... but that sound more like america to me.

You have kinda glossed over it, but You are the one asserting that the article is wrong. The article says we should take down a democratically elected terrorist nation. So you're saying we shouldn't, right? If a government is legitimately democratically elected, that means it reflects the majority position of its citizens, right? If that government is for terrorism, then that means the terrorism must be the dominant position of the citizens.

edit: I'll go even further: if its wrong to take down a democratic terrorist nation, then you are saying that it is right to be a terrorist nation.

...you didn't have even 1 bomb explosion in your soil since 2001. that is 4 years! what are you talking about!??

That isn't what the article said. You can't change the assertion of the article and then disagree with your own made-up assertion.

 

[Burnsys]

The same right to self defense that every country has.

America goes far beyond legitimate sef defence... when did irak atack america? how many times have you been atacked in your soil and how many countrys did america invade and how many civilians did you kill?

When was the last time the US murdered Argentinian civilians as a matter of national policy?

In the 70' indirectly by helping the rise to power of a military dictatorship, and then suporting and helping it and training it... 30.000 deaths...

See, the problem here (as usual) is that you are drawing invalid parallels. You have kinda glossed over it, but You are the one asserting that the article is wrong. The article says we should take down a democratically elected terrorist nation. So you're saying we shouldn't, right? If a government is legitimately democratically elected, that means it reflects the majority position of its citizens, right? If that government is for terrorism, then that means the terrorism must be the dominant position of the citizens.

The problem is who decide which countrys are terrorist and which don't... in our case, it's america who decide, but just becouse they have the weapons. by brute force.. and by their own interest.. isn't saudi arabaia a terrorist nation??. for me, america is a terrorist nation...

edit: I'll go even further: if its wrong to take down a democratic terrorist nation, then you are saying that it is right to be a terrorist nation. That isn't what the article said. You can't change the assertion of the article and then disagree with your own made-up assertion.

No.. of course is't not ok to be a terrorist nation, what i mean is that who gives america the authority to decide who is and who is not a terrorist and then wipe the country out of the face of the world... and more when a LOT of people think america is the 1st terrorist country in the world...

 

[misskitty]

The same right to self defense that every country has. When was the last time the US murdered Argentinian civilians as a matter of national policy?

If we don't defend ourselve then no one else will. If we hadn't have responded to the bombing on 9-11 and instead have just rolled over and ignored it, then other terrorist groups would see that we let Al-Quida win. Then they think they can get away with the same thing. After that, more people would be killed and more families would be mourning the deaths of their loved ones. It seems as though outside nations like to think that Americans are uncivilized violent animals who don't care about anyhing else other than getting things done our way. This is not true. So we have just as much right to defend ourselves as Argentina, Russia, South Africa, Cambodia, India or any other nation in the world.

I can't think of a time when the United States bombed Argetina. We can't be blamed for the violence in Argentina, especially if we aren't responcible for it. If your going to blame someone for the violence then blame the rebels in your country not some outside nation (whoever it may be) who has nothing to do with it.

BTW: Russ I agree and support your opinion. I wanted to say that in case you thought I was attacking you. I'm not...

 

[misskitty]

In the 70' indirectly by helping the rise to power of a military dictatorship, and then suporting and helping it and training it... 30.000 deaths...

We were not directly responcible for that. You said so yourself. Don't go pointing fingers and blaming people for things they aren't entirely responcible for. How sure were we that that government was a terrorist group. Obviously that wasn't too clear considering we wouldn't have helped a terrorist government attack its own people.

That has been our policy since the Spanish-American War when we went into Cuba because the Spainish were inhumanly treating the Cubans.

 

[Burnsys]

If we don't defend ourselve then no one else will. If we hadn't have responded to the bombing on 9-11 and instead have just rolled over and ignored it, then other terrorist groups would see that we let Al-Quida win. Then they think they can get away with the same thing. After that, more people would be killed and more families would be mourning the deaths of their loved ones. It seems as though outside nations like to think that Americans are uncivilized violent animals who don't care about anyhing else other than getting things done our way. This is not true. So we have just as much right to defend ourselves as Argentina, Russia, South Africa, Cambodia, India or any other nation in the world.

Again. you always evoke 911 to justify any agresion to other countrys, but history tell us that you have invaded countrys much much before 911, as you can see in this link:

http://www.answers.com/topic/list-of-u-s-foreign-interventions-since-1945

and you trained alqueda...

I can't think of a time when the United States bombed Argetina. We can't be blamed for the violence in Argentina, especially if we aren't responcible for it. If your going to blame someone for the violence then blame the rebels in your country not some outside nation (whoever it may be) who has nothing to do with it.

BTW: Russ I agree and support your opinion. I wanted to say that in case you thought I was attacking you. I'm not...

Yes america can be blamed, all the military personel who directed and was part of the MILITARY DICTATORSHIP, was trained by amercian troops in the school of the americas, the same happened with the militari dictatorships of brazil, chile, ecuador, paraguay, etc etc etc.. they all happened at the same time by people trained by america in the school of americas, trained in tactics of torture, kidnaping, murder and anti guerrilla warfare... The top heads of the military dictatorships in latin amercia in the 70' where cia assets...

 

[Burnsys]

We were not directly responcible for that. You said so yourself. Don't go pointing fingers and blaming people for things they aren't entirely responcible for. How sure were we that that government was a terrorist group. Obviously that wasn't too clear considering we wouldn't have helped a terrorist government attack its own people.

That has been our policy since the Spanish-American War when we went into Cuba because the Spainish were inhumanly treating the Cubans.

You where indirectly responsable becouse there was no us marines presense in the country, but the militarys who overtrown our democraticaly elected government was trained by your goverment... It was a terrorist military dictatorship becouse they used tactics like kidnaping, torture, no legal proces, no trials, indeterminated detenctions...disapearing, even droping people from planes to the river... betwen the 30.000 disapeared where, journalist, civilians, university teachers, social workers, labor union leaders, and even students..

Edit: acording to america irak was indirectly responsable for 911, so you attaked irak too...

 

[misskitty]

Did you ever think that America might have wanted to help train your military and help your government do that you can advance in the free world? So that perhaps the 50% of the population that is below the poverty line might actually come up into the middle class and live better lifestyles. Not to mention help your economy grow internally as well as externally, by trading with more nations?

It seems as though your stuck on what we did in the 70's to try to help you. The reason we are still on 9-11 and the war is because that's a big thing for us right now. We will eventually get over it, just like we got over Pearl Harbour, the second biggest atrocity in our history.

 

[misskitty]

You where indirectly responsable becouse there was no us marines presense in the country, but the militarys who overtrown our democraticaly elected government was trained by your goverment... It was a terrorist military dictatorship becouse they used tactics like kidnaping, torture, no legal proces, no trials, indeterminated detenctions...disapearing, even droping people from planes to the river... betwen the 30.000 disapeared where, journalist, civilians, university teachers, social workers, labor union leaders, and even students..

Edit: acording to america irak was indirectly responsable for 911, so you attaked irak too...

We didn't train your people to over throw your government. They figured out how to do that by themselves. We taught them military tactics, not "Overthrow the Government 101".

 

[Burnsys]

Did you ever think that America might have wanted to help train your military and help your government do that you can advance in the free world? So that perhaps the 50% of the population that is below the poverty line might actually come up into the middle class and live better lifestyles. Not to mention help your economy grow internally as well as externally, by trading with more nations?

It seems as though your stuck on what we did in the 70's to try to help you. The reason we are still on 9-11 and the war is because that's a big thing for us right now. We will eventually get over it, just like we got over Pearl Harbour, the second biggest atrocity in our history.

To try to help me?? my god you help us enter in the free world by establishing a de facto totalitarian military dictatorship and trowing journalist in the rivers?whooow, that's what i call freedom!
I told you what the military started in the 70' they take all the most important resources of our country out of our hands and put it in control of american and european corporations and then they opened our borders so this resources can flow out of the country.. ohh. and they left us an impayable debt... with those same countrys...
yesterday Shell decide to rise oil prices... and today repsol and exoon rised them to... nothing we can do... there are no more oil companys to buy oil from... that is free market.. free market for shell repsol and exoon. we have no choice...

 

[Burnsys]

We didn't train your people to over throw your government. They figured out how to do that by themselves. We taught them military tactics, not "Overthrow the Government 101".

you are kidding right??

 

[russ_watters]

The problem is who decide which countrys are terrorist and which don't... in our case, it's america who decide, but just becouse they have the weapons. by brute force.. and by their own interest.. isn't saudi arabaia a terrorist nation??. for me, america is a terrorist nation...

As a matter of fact, the UN decided who the terrorists are. It was just that America decided to act.

No.. of course is't not ok to be a terrorist nation...

I'm glad to hear you say that. So are you now saying that you agree with the article?

...what i mean is that who gives america the authority to decide who is and who is not a terrorist and then wipe the country out of the face of the world... .

The world community was near unanamous in its support for the US against Afghanistan. The world community was also near unanamous in condemning Hussein's actions.

and more when a LOT of people think america is the 1st terrorist country in the world...

Any of those people run legitimate countries? Quite frankly, I don't care what a few crackpots and extremists think. Heck, if anything that validates the US's position: it highlights the necessity of our dominance.

Again. you always evoke 911 to justify any agresion to other countrys, but history tell us that you have invaded countrys much much before 911...

Burnsys, you started this thread. The sentence you objected to is about terrorism. You're jumping around, changing topics, because you know you can't win by sticking to the point.

I'm not going to entertain your Argentina nonsense. You said all that needs to be said: "You where indirectly responsable..." So we agree: it is not the same thing. So drop it. Stop making invalid comparisons and intentionally obfuscating the point.

 

[misskitty]

I have to say, I fully agree and support what Russ is saying. By the way, Argentina is not the only country in the world who has a massive internal debt they can't pay off. You'd be a fool to think otherwise.

 

[Burnsys]

I have to say, I fully agree and support what Russ is saying. By the way, Argentina is not the only country in the world who has a massive internal debt they can't pay off. You'd be a fool to think otherwise.

never said that.. and i was talking of EXTERNAL debt.. at least in latin america you can see that almos every country has an impayable debt...

 

[Pengwuino]

Who owns most of the world's debt anyway? ( i mean, whos been giving out all the money). Isnt it some countries that yoru average person wouldn't have ever guessed? I am feeling a bit average right now since i can't remember it myself..

 

[misskitty]

Who owns most of the world's debt anyway? ( i mean, whos been giving out all the money). Isnt it some countries that yoru average person wouldn't have ever guessed? I am feeling a bit average right now since i can't remember it myself..

That's a good question. I'm not sure. I think it might we might be tied across the board. Almost every country has some debt. There's a web site, I think the url is www.ciaworldfactbook.com

But I'm not sure.

 

[misskitty]

never said that.. and i was talking of EXTERNAL debt.. at least in latin america you can see that almos every country has an impayable debt...

Ok. I apologize. I thought you meant internal debt. I missread what you wrote. I'm sorry.