How can you not support democracy?

[9mmCensor]

War is profitable. Very.

It is in the best interests of a few powerful people, for the USA to be waging war. WWII, ended. War on Communism. Communism collapsed, oh no, we need a new enemy. Drug cartels! Lost that war, so lets fight terrorism.

[miladiou]

[quote=jaydee116]Even if it was USA pro propaganda this IS a USA based site.

can i use this one as a quotation ??

[MadHacker]

Originally Posted by Vector86

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.

pride in your country clouds your judgment...
some of the things happening on 911 seem to organized...
http://www.policestate21.com/
don't take my word for it.

[MadHacker]

[quote=miladiou]

Originally Posted by jaydee116

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

can i use this one as a quotation ??

and i thought www = World Wide Web
maybe we should change it to USWW

[pHaestus]

I've seen websites dedicated to the moon landing being faked too. And I'm sure there are thousands of "extraterrestrials live among us" websites too. Doesn't make it so.

[MadHacker]

Originally Posted by pHaestus

I've seen websites dedicated to the moon landing being faked too. And I'm sure there are thousands of "extraterrestrials live among us" websites too. Doesn't make it so.

but it doesn't make it false either...
just something to think about...

[Lothar5150]

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

It’s funny that you should say that…my boss before Chewy was convinced that there was such a list generated after 9/11

MadHacker
So what is reasonable?

Well in some cases it might just be economic and political isolation, in the most rare extreme cases military action would be required but I think in a lot of cases the carrot might work. You have to take each situation individually; there is not cookie cuter solution. However the overriding policy is that we push for democracy through out the world.

Superart
Lothar, Afghanistan/Iraq have not fully accepted democracy.

I disagree; the majority of people obviously buy into the idea of democracy, just look at the turn in both countries. Honestly, you have to really want to vote to put up with being mortared, while waiting in line for several hours.

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...

Thank you

MadHacker
the US have a surplus 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.

First I must say that the idea we go to war to field test weapons in war is preposterous. You field test weapons systems during live fire exercises. There is no economic benefit to using up surplus bombs or bullets. In fact there is No economic benefit to war. During the colonial days of your Commonwealth, a nation could become very wealthy via conquest. However, that was through the complete subjugation of the indigenous population and stripping them of natural resources. Today warfare is a very different thing. We “America” usually end up spending vast amounts of our own resources rebuilding the nations we go to war with, this can lead to bankruptcy. Rethink assumptions they are very biased on an Edwardian/Brittan model not a Pox Americana model.

Slr

The truth is that we are at this point in history we are The Super Power… (Be grateful we are a well intentioned democracy). However, by your statement on our intelligence capabilities suggests you over estimate some of our real capabilities, which have lead you to some fallacious assumptions. I’m going to leave it at that because this thread is not about bashing America. It is about a policy of spreading democracy.

It’s nice to think that war is never the answer but I think you are naive if you think that well run well organized dictatorships can’t totally suppress democracy. Example look at North Korea, honestly do you think that state will fail from the inside. People have been litterly eating bark and grass in that country for years and yet no popular up rising. Why not? BillA has it right; we (all free nations) have an obligation to help people in the pursuit of democracy. That does not mean we have to go to war each situation will requrie it own solution.

[Lothar5150]

Originally Posted by 9mmCensor

War is profitable. Very.

It is in the best interests of a few powerful people, for the USA to be waging war. WWII, ended. War on Communism. Communism collapsed, oh no, we need a new enemy. Drug cartels! Lost that war, so lets fight terrorism.

In from a stand point of intellectual equity I am willing to listen to an explanation. Please explain the economic mechanism for war leading to wealth creation as you understand it.

[superart]

I realize calling afganastan and iraq shitholes might be " ", but that doesnt mean it's not true. Would you want to go live with your family in Afganastan or Iraq? Why not? Because its a shithole, thatswhy.


I know Iraq was once a 1st world country. As the old saying went, "Books are printed in Egypt, and read in Iraq." Unfortunately, today it is notthe same Iraq. Today it is a shithole. Saying or admiting to that might piss people off, but only because its true. So lets not sugur coat things and call it how it is, shall we?

[Jag]

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

The truth is that we are at this point in history we are The Super Power… (Be grateful we are a well intentioned democracy)

Just 2 observations:

- if you weren´t a well intentioned democracy do you really believe that all the other countries in this world would remain numb, and let it all be?
- if "well intentioned democracies" exists, then ill intentioned democracies must also exist, which means that democracy isn't a value per se.
So, why are you using "democracy" as an absolute value if you can change it's features?

[BillA]

the structure has value though its shape may vary

[superart]

and how do we know that our shape is the right, or good, shape? What do we compare to/against?

[BillA]

Originally Posted by superart

and how do we know that our shape is the right, or good, shape? What do we compare to/against?

aw, com'on
we know because our dog made us in its image; and since it is purrfect, so are we purrfect

[superart]

and since GW is dog's prophet, anything he says is right and must be followed without question, for it is the word of the lord our dog, scruffy.

[BillA]

woof, woof and pass the kibble

[jaydee]

[quote=MadHacker]

Originally Posted by miladiou

and i thought www = World Wide Web
maybe we should change it to USWW

Well Joe (owner of the site) is a US citizen and the site is hosted in the US and must follow US rules. Hence the "based in USA" part. So with that said Pro USA propaganda would be more acceptable here than say a Iran based site.

[Lothar5150]

Originally Posted by Jag

Just 2 observations:

- if you weren´t a well intentioned democracy do you really believe that all the other countries in this world would remain numb, and let it all be?
- if "well intentioned democracies" exists, then ill intentioned democracies must also exist, which means that democracy isn't a value per se.
So, why are you using "democracy" as an absolute value if you can change it's features?

After several pitchers of Margaritas I will be blunt

Yes, is the answer to your first question. History has shown that you would stand idly by. Kosovo is a prime example with out our leadership you would have let the genocide continue. Perhaps you should be equally as critical of the US for our intervention in your back yard. Further, we have seen other cases where the very word genocide was not used in order to avoid the necessity for force. The truth is that you have and will give up one another to protect your own skin. Honestly it often seems that the British are the only one among you who will stand on principal.

In answer to your second question. Yes, you have two premises and a conclusion thus a logical argument. I know you are an ESL guy so just add the conjunction ‘and’ to the sentence so that we can avoid this fallacy.

[nexxo]

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

In from a stand point of intellectual equity I am willing to listen to an explanation. Please explain the economic mechanism for war leading to wealth creation as you understand it.

Two words: conflict investment.

OK, look at all those third-world nations. Look at the resources they sit on: minerals, ores, oil, agriculture. Often too poor to exploit these for themselves, sometimes unwilling to trade with the West on political grounds (or vice-versa). Wouldn't we want to get our hands on those, hmmm? The Western economy that supports our relatively wealthy lifestyle is a hungry beast. It needs feeding, or it will, in the end, collapse. So what do we do? We engineer there to be governments in those resource-rich countries that will trade with us (and of course, on terms that work very well for us). There are many political ways to do this, but war is one of them.

Conflict investment asks two questions: in a politically unstable country, lots of civil conflict going on etc., which party is likely to win? And if they do, will they pay?

We back the one that is likely to do business with us. We support them with weapons, resources, intelligence or by turning a blind eye. War is a means of making sure that a country ends up with a government that is willing to let its resources be exploited by us.

Of course those parties know this as well, and may "advertise" their willingness to engage in such a "business relationship" through their political ideology. As such we know that fundamentally religious or communist factions will look at the Middle East or Communist nations respectively, while Capitalistically inclined factions will be courting us.

Of course strategic interests come into play as well, but if you get down to it, this is again about economic control. Just as we back one faction, competitor nations may be backing another. If you look at the tremendous ammount of weapons and resources that are poured into such conflicts for years on end, you get to appreciate just how hungry and demanding our economies and associated lifestyles are.

I'm not saying that Western Governments are purely motivated by economic considerations, but they do play an important role. They do have their own business interests and investments. They do have their sponsors and backers (I mean, it makes sense that they would try to influence the political process, wouldn't it?). And an unhappy economy means unhappy voters (i.e. us).

[miladiou]

Originally Posted by jaydee116

So with that said Pro USA propaganda would be more acceptable here than say a Iran based site.

more acceptable? you mean more likely ?

[ThyKingdomCome]

Originally Posted by nexxo

Conflict investment asks two questions: in a politically unstable country, lots of civil conflict going on etc., which party is likely to win? And if they do, will they pay?

We back the one that is likely to do business with us. We support them with weapons, resources, intelligence or by turning a blind eye. War is a means of making sure that a country ends up with a government that is willing to let its resources be exploited by us.

Do you understand that you just explained France, Germany and Russia's involvement in one fail swoop, but before the invasion? Blind eye, government that cooperated, definitely paid.

Loosing billions, then forgiving any debt that was to be paid off by the oil itself is not well descriptive of war for econimic exploitation. Its like buying an entire airline so you can use your frequent flyer miles to get to the Bahamas.

[jaydee]

Originally Posted by miladiou

more acceptable? you mean more likely ?

Both..............

[pHaestus]

Its like buying an entire airline so you can use your frequent flyer miles to get to the Bahamas.

haha nice. We had a mentally challenged guy in our neighborhood growing up. He collected cans and recycled them for money. He invested that money into food: only canned food. "This one's a whole dime!" he told me while eating from a can. "I got a bunch of them; I'm gonna be rich!" For some reason this wasn't sustainable and he had to continue picking up cans and bottles to afford the canned food. I think they were shorting him at the recycling center

[nexxo]

Originally Posted by ThyKingdomCome

Do you understand that you just explained France, Germany and Russia's involvement in one fail swoop, but before the invasion? Blind eye, government that cooperated, definitely paid.

Of course. I said Western nations. And I also alluded to developed Middle-Eastern and Communist nations. I am not just referring to the US here.

Loosing billions, then forgiving any debt that was to be paid off by the oil itself is not well descriptive of war for econimic exploitation. Its like buying an entire airline so you can use your frequent flyer miles to get to the Bahamas.

Just because some investments go belly up doesn't mean they weren't meant to generate a profit. But forget about all that. In this case the aims and perspectives are much, much more long-term. It is keeping control of resources in the long term that matters, not a quick financial profit here and now.

[Lothar5150]

Originally Posted by nexxo

Just because some investments go belly up doesn't mean they weren't meant to generate a profit. But forget about all that. In this case the aims and perspectives are much, much more long-term. It is keeping control of resources in the long term that matters, not a quick financial profit here and now.

I think your economic theory is tanking. It is far cheaper to bribe people. As we have all seen…not going to point fingers (rhymes with Lance)

Honestly, my republic doesn't even have the continuity to fix long term internal problems. Two, four and six year periods respective of office are all you get. Planning for most policy ten, twenty or thirty years down the road is almost imposable in a democracy; the policy makers are only concerned about the next election. It’s one of the few but significant failings of all modern democratic governments.

[Jag]

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

After several pitchers of Margaritas I will be blunt

Yes, is the answer to your first question. History has shown that you would stand idly by. Kosovo is a prime example with out our leadership you would have let the genocide continue. Perhaps you should be equally as critical of the US for our intervention in your back yard. Further, we have seen other cases where the very word genocide was not used in order to avoid the necessity for force. The truth is that you have and will give up one another to protect your own skin. Honestly it often seems that the British are the only one among you who will stand on principal.

In answer to your second question. Yes, you have two premises and a conclusion thus a logical argument. I know you are an ESL guy so just add the conjunction ‘and’ to the sentence so that we can avoid this fallacy.

Lothar,

It seems that we are diverging from the main issue here that is your question, and it seems evident that you're tyring to funnel this issue leading it to a military action. Well Democracy isn't incompatible with military actions (as in forging one) but the decision of establishing a democracy belongs to the people and not to the military,that is to say it's a political decision (wider meaning of this word) and not a military one.

As for the Britains being the principal, this headline hasn't any bearing at all on this issue by the way - Star Wars deal places US missiles on UK soil?(http://www.cndyorks.gn.apc.org/yspac...iles_in_uk.htm)

As for the Kosovo, you're right, there shouldn't be any need for the U.S. to intervene in there, should the European states be more cohesive, that has been and allways be the doom of Europe, and it shows the need more than ever to have a joint army composed of all the E.U. states.
The question is: does the U.S. sees it with good eyes?