How can you not support democracy?

[jaydee]

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

First off I think this is posted in Random Nonsense / Geek Stuff

Second the thread title is: How can you not support democracy?

The thread was intended to be about Democracy not America in particular. It is chuckle heads like you that keep going off topic.

Even if it was USA pro propaganda this IS a USA based site.

People have the choice not to read the thread if one doesn't like it.

Oh yeah, about sir comment on our "inelegance" agencies...... Our great intelligence agencies were the one's that blew the whole WMD call. It was their (mostly) information that Bush, congress, and dozens of other countries used to agreed upon the war.

USA defeinatly has made some errors. Some pretty large errors but IMO is was in good faith for the most part.

[Lothar5150]

Superart

If that is the case then I think there should never be any opposition to any reasonable policy which has the aim of spreading democracy. We can debate how that should be done but I would hope that we all agree that it should be done. What is the test to see if a country is ready for democracy? Afghanistan and Iraq seem to have adopted democracy fairly easily. Honestly I thing any place where you give the people an OPPORTUNITY to adopt democracy the will take it.

I think that the form which a counties democracy takes is based on it culture and history. Most democracies seem to take on some form of democratic constitutional monarch. The theocrats are always a lunatic fringe.

BillA

The freedom of children is dictated by there parents. Minor status has always protected children but also limited their freedoms. Unfortunately that line has become blurred in the US. Now we have kids tried as adults and rights for kids that trump there parents legitimate purgatives.

You know how I feel about despots… Let me call in an air strike on a Ba’athist headquarters any day.

[Vector86]

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

Superart

Afghanistan and Iraq seem to have adopted democracy fairly easily. Honestly I thing any place where you give the people an OPPORTUNITY to adopt democracy the will take it.

Afghanistan and Iraq are being ruled democratically yes, but have the people adopted democracy yet? I don't think so.

[Lothar5150]

Originally Posted by Vector86

Afghanistan and Iraq are being ruled democratically yes, but have the people adopted democracy yet? I don't think so.

Your right they have the type of government which has general elections in order to elect the government. I think on Earth they call it democracy. On your planet they may have another name for it

[pdf27]

Originally Posted by superart

between 7k and 100k? Wow, thats a pretty wide margine. Wide enough for me to believe that it is just numbers someone pulled out of their ass.

That's statistics for you - what they did was interview a number of families across Iraq, and asked them if any family members had died since the start of the war and for what reason. Where coalition action was involved, they verified this as far as they could - although this is inherently dodgy due to the state of Iraqi society at the time, and they acknowledged this in the report.
For cases like this, they will give a range of about 2 standard deviations from the mean, for a probability of 99% (have I got that the right way around? can't be bothered to check in the Normal distribution tables) that the true figure for all of Iraq is in this range. The fact that the numbers are this high shows they're being honest about the accuracy of their data.

Originally Posted by unregistered

- do we need to define what a despot is ?

I've always taken the definition of when it is justifiable to remove one as if the consequences for humanity of doing so are better than the consequences of not doing so. That's the test I used for places like Iraq and Sierra Leone anyway.

[BillA]

"I've always taken the definition of when it is justifiable to remove one as if the consequences for humanity of doing so are better than the consequences of not doing so."

not an altogether bad operating premise;
shall a list be started of those whose absence would be a boon to humanity ?

[jman1310]

can we include bill & hillary clinton on that list? j/k

[MadHacker]

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

If that is the case then I think there should never be any opposition to any reasonable policy which has the aim of spreading democracy.

So what is reasonable?
Going into a country because you want their oil and claiming it is in the name of democracy reasonable?
I guess to Americans that would be reasonable if you believe the hype the government spews...
But I think the rest of the world it is ridiculous.
I believe that Americans patriotism is so great that they are blind to the malicious things their government does.

[superart]

dude, what government doesn't do malicouse things? And what government wouldn't do things as melicouse as the US if the had the capability?

fuc*, i dont see why you hold europe in such high regard. If your looking for a track record of doing "melicous things", you need look no further. France and Russia were doing business with sadam up untill the last day. And it wasn't some shady oil deal either. They were selling weapons to a known despot, knowing he would use them most likely on his own people. Talk about melicous and selfish activity in the name of capitalism and profit.


Lothar, afganastan/Iraq have not fully accepted democracy. It's still a coin flip as to weather or not a civil war will break out when we leave. The jury is still out as to weather or not those 2 shitholes will wind up being religous run countries. What if that happens, we will be worse off than when we started. Sure sadam was a nutcase and psychopath, but at least he wasnt a religous nutcase psycopath extremist. Sure they have heald elections and a president is being decided on, but what happens 2 weeks later when he is killed. Should we hold elections there every month. We could even spin it saying they are so democratic, they are holdng 48 times as many presidential elections as we are.

[pHaestus]

MH: If we wanted Iraqi oil then all we had to do was agree to push for dropping UN sanctions and then buy it. That would've been a lot cheaper than the money we've spent on military action. If your arguments are economic then at least make good financial sense...

[MadHacker]

Originally Posted by superart

fuc*, i dont see why you hold europe in such high regard. If your looking for a track record of doing "melicous things", you need look no further.

who siad i do...
I have said nothing that would make Europe any better then the Americans

Originally Posted by pHaestus

MH: If we wanted Iraqi oil then all we had to do was agree to push for dropping UN sanctions and then buy it. That would've been a lot cheaper than the money we've spent on military action. If your arguments are economic then at least make good financial sense...

my arguments are economic but they aren't the only one's.. i was using that as an example...
if you want a few more reasons why I beleive they went to war...
the US have a surpluss of weapons that have to be field tested... what a better way then to have a war.
also war is what they do. if you look at their history... every 4 years or so they have to go to war with some country or other...
note... I don't hate Americans... just don't like some of the things the government does.

[superart]

yea, but usually its because the US army IS the UN peace keeping force.

[MadHacker]

i think Canadiens are more clasified as peace keepers...
Americans are closer to war mongers.

[Jag]

pHaestus,

If oil wasn't a motivation and the same happens to the "existence" of WMD, the logic for invading Iraq becomes more fuzzy.
Just plain democracy ideals? It could be, if there were another individuals behind the decisions to embark on such a adventure, (and I mean the ones that forged an alliance to defeat the German in WWII), not the present ones.

[slr]

Lothar the world doesn't see you as an "Omnipotent Super Power" by mistake.
You act like one so basically you ask for it.

To my eyes honest mistakes that are dealing with the lives of thousands of people are not acceptable.
And when i say thousands of people i mean BOTH civilians and soldiers from either side that lost their lives during this war...
I like more the logic of thinking before acting than acting and then think of the cosequences and excuses.

I will repeat once more that the objective of this war was not fulfilled.
There were no WMD's found so everything else about liberation and democracy sounds like a cheap excuse to my ears.Those are just side effects.Maybe desirable and good but side effects.The truth is that your primary objectives didn't even exist...

In my opinion Lucanus wrote the best quote since this discussion started...

"War (or call it 'disarmarment by force' if you like) isn't the solution.
Democracy must come from inside. And the international community can help by providing mediation or with peace keeping forces if need be. But we simply can not let ourselfs sink so low or become so brainwashed that we believe that the way to freedom can come from the barrel of a gun, in Iraq or anywhere else for that matter."

If you think about it it's 100% true and it is how "it should be done"

BTW jaydee116 my nick is SLR not sir
I'm not some kind of a wacko general that wants to be called sir
But that doesn't matter anyway

What i would like to see is the name of some of the dozens of countries that supported this war.
And i mean countries that sent soldiers there in the firts place to fight not peace keeping forces which after such war is a necessity.
Although in my opinion if you are "brave" enough to ignore everyone in the world and start a war you must be able to finish it without anyones help...Asking for others military (Peace keeping) help and funds to rebuild a country that you blew in the first place is at least selfish..

Also superart made a good point about civil wars after the peace keeping forces leave.And whether things might get worse after that.
Although calling someones(no matter who that is...) country shithole is just...

[pHaestus]

The international community typically is happy to sell military equipment and means to suppress rebellion to any government. The en vogue statement now is that Iran SHOULD have nuclear weapons if they are clever enough to make them. I find it pretty ridiculous for hippies to argue FOR nuclear proliferation but that's another discussion.

Anyway if a people have been oppressed by a government with modern weaponry then it's very unlikely that their internal requests for democracy will work. In that case I do believe the people of the world have a responsibility to help those people out.

[Vector86]

Once again going back to the topic of "How can you not support democracy". How about when a country much larger than yours comes in saying that they're going to destroy your weapons of mass destruction, then, after blowing your town apart, can't find any....then claims to be bring you democracy. Also, Superart, about calling Afghanistan and Iraq shit-holes, that is only the imagery of them you get from our media. Anyone who has ever been to that area can tell you that it's not just a gigantic desert pit. Iraq (with the exception of their tyrannical leader) was a 1st world country before the war. They had running water, power, waste disposal, and a national highway system. The war is what turned it into a "shit-hole".

[BillA]

"Anyway if a people have been oppressed by a government with modern weaponry then it's very unlikely that their internal requests for democracy will work. In that case I do believe the people of the world have a responsibility to help those people out."

there we go, got my agreement

how to control governments that will even extend credit for arms purchases to dictators so they can more efficiently oppress their populations ?
N.B. these are private cos only in the sense that they mfgr the arms, selling is gov to gov
- then the grey arms mtk ?
- the illegal mkt we do not pretend to even be aware of its size

[pHaestus]

Look at the central and south american govts we supply with weaponry to fight a "war on drugs". More often than not they just get used to keep bad govts propped up and quell dissent.

[BillA]

Originally Posted by pHaestus

Look at the central and south american govts we supply with weaponry to fight a "war on drugs". More often than not they just get used to keep bad govts propped up and quell dissent.

any current examples ?

[pHaestus]

I guess it's all mostly legacy from the 70s and 80s. Same as Iraq and Iran and Afghanistan I suppose.

[MadHacker]

Originally Posted by pHaestus

I guess it's all mostly legacy from the 70s and 80s. Same as Iraq and Iran and Afghanistan I suppose.

Is it possible that we don't paint a nice picture of the US because of the nasty stuff the CIA did from the 50's to the late 80's?
A lot of the stuff they did then the government didn't know about.
Then again I have heard some speculation that Bush new in advance about the attack on the WTC and did nothing to stop it to pull America together and create and opportunity to fight an enemy that was before just on foreign land.
Not to mention that there is the possibility that the 911 attack could have been completely created by the US government to create an excuse to go to war.

[BillA]

this 'war on drugs' is a monster of our own creation, which the present gov wants to meld into the 'war on terror'
our support of tin pot dictators in South America was just more cold war/anti-communism crap, drugs came later
because we persist in making drugs illegal, the profits are now being created FOR terrorism
- supply and demand

[Vector86]

Originally Posted by MadHacker

Is it possible that we don't paint a nice picture of the US because of the nasty stuff the CIA did from the 50's to the late 80's?
A lot of the stuff they did then the government didn't know about.
Then again I have heard some speculation that Bush new in advance about the attack on the WTC and did nothing to stop it to pull America together and create and opportunity to fight an enemy that was before just on foreign land.
Not to mention that there is the possibility that the 911 attack could have been completely created by the US government to create an excuse to go to war.

That 911 could've been staged by the US government is a notion that I had nursed before, for at best, a few seconds. If it where true, it's something that I am simply un-willing to believe.

[BillA]

FDR and Pearl Harbor
seem familiar ?
sos
and of course the Arabs say it was the Jews
it was really Elvis